Why Study War?

[SWJED]

20 August City Journal - Why Study War? By Victor Davis Hanson (Hat Tip CPT Holzbach on SWJ Op-Ed Roundup comments)

Try explaining to a college student that Tet was an American military victory. You’ll provoke not a counterargument—let alone an assent—but a blank stare: Who or what was Tet? Doing interviews about the recent hit movie 300, I encountered similar bewilderment from listeners and hosts. Not only did most of them not know who the 300 were or what Thermopylae was; they seemed clueless about the Persian Wars altogether.

It’s no surprise that civilian Americans tend to lack a basic understanding of military matters. Even when I was a graduate student, 30-some years ago, military history—understood broadly as the investigation of why one side wins and another loses a war, and encompassing reflections on magisterial or foolish generalship, technological stagnation or breakthrough, and the roles of discipline, bravery, national will, and culture in determining a conflict’s outcome and its consequences—had already become unfashionable on campus. Today, universities are even less receptive to the subject.

This state of affairs is profoundly troubling, for democratic citizenship requires knowledge of war—and now, in the age of weapons of mass annihilation, more than ever...

[Rob Thornton]

Hanson makes some great points (and provides a great book list). By historical standards we're not too far from where we began in 1776 (in terms of the time line I mean) - certainly not too far to have it taken away - there are plenty of people who'd prefer us not to be around.

I was watching John Wayne the other day with Maureen O'Hara - "Big Jake - Little Jake?" The bad men were riding up and O'Hara tell her foreman to ask them if they want work. He remarks they might be trouble. She remarks with "its 1905, things like that just don't happen anymore." The men come in and kill most of the ranch and make off with Little Jake demanding a ransom for $1 million. Later, MRS McCandles (O'Hara) and the now returned Jake McCandles (Wayne) decide the bad men should not get their 1 million ransom, the deserve what they have coming to them. So Wayne, the old Apache buddy, the dog, and McCandles two sons go off and hunt them down and get the boy back.

That movie came out in the 70s I think. Lots of good movies from that decade. Still lots of folks around then who remembered that there are bad folks out there who will abuse the liberties of others.

Hanson may be right about the cause. But I also think it has something to do with birth rights (inheriting something vs. having to obtain it yourself). Too many Americans don't understand what those inherited rights cost in the recent past and even the present. We've allowed the public (ourselves) to ignore that the freedoms we enjoy everyday are paid for at a heavy price. As I rode home on vacation this week through W.VA to KY, I was amazed at how much we have in terms of just land, water and clean air - the basic things that life are made of. I don't think there is any place in the world like the United States - just being born here provides you a much better chance at survival and living well then any other place in the world.

Last week we finished up our staff ride at Appomattox. I wonder how many Americans have actually visited places like that - maybe by %? How many academics, politicians or others who influence and decide?

I think the average American has little to no regard for just how tenuous, just how near a thing some of the most pivotal moments in our history were. How things could be much different without those who had the intestinal fortitude to start them and see them through. Lincoln's political future was looking a little uncertain in 1863.

Hanson references the Peloponnesian Wars. I think one of the books the average college student, citizen or politician should be taking a look at is the "Landmark Thucydides". I think there are a great many potential parallels to any generational struggle. I've read a few of the others he mentions as well, I suspect they are probably all pretty good.
R/S Rob

[selil]

Peace studies. Is it really academic welfare? I get about a dozen solicitations of conferences each day and I peruse them. My area is technology so I look for cyberwarfare, information assurance and security, emissions security and such.

I notice a trend in academic conferences towards "defense against cyberwarfare", "risk analysis for security", "protecting data", and other passive or suggestive of failure topics within the proceedings. Defining cyberwarfare is not wanted or is not considered a valid scholarly topic.

I see a small change coming though. The wrinkle in the fabric is homland security. The impetus are the returning veterans. They are returning to classes, returning for higher education, returning and making changes. Many are studying pseudo security topics and then pushing the boundaries.

I'm working up a series of book reviews as part of my research (about 50 of them) on low intensity conflict, cyberwarfare, and such. These will be books that my students will be asked to read or a suggested reading list. This study of war and conflict is important for wider view than just all out war. It is a simply a value add to a good engineering technology education. I'll have to start looking at classics to see if they would be apropriate. The list in the article has a good spread to consider.

Thanks for the link it's good reading.

[Watcher In The Middle]

I'm working up a series of book reviews as part of my research (about 50 of them) on low intensity conflict, cyberwarfare, and such. These will be books that my students will be asked to read or a suggested reading list

Sam:

If you might be willing to PM me with your list of selected cyberwarfare reading materials, I would certainly appreciate it.

Any additional insights we can pick up would be much appreciated. Thank you.

WitM

[selil]

Sam:

If you might be willing to PM me with your list of selected cyberwarfare reading materials, I would certainly appreciate it.

Any additional insights we can pick up would be much appreciated. Thank you.

WitM

No problem give me a week or two I'm putting it all into endnote libraries right now. It will also be in my blog. I've been asked to send my reviews to a journal first but after that any that don't hit there will also be on my blog.

[John T. Fishel]

The concept in economics is that of a "free rider" - someone who partakes of a public good without paying for it because it is available to all. The classic case is a lighthouse. To be a bit more sophisticated, all taxpayers do pay for security but most do not feel (subjectively) the cost so, in terms of military security, I would argue are free riders.

While the US has, historically, had a volunteer regular force, we usually had an involuntary militia force. Under the Militia Act of 1789 ( exact date?) all male citizens age 16 to 45 (or 60?) were members of the militia with drilling obligations and call-up in times of emergency both state and federal. The creation of the National Guard about 1916 changed the involuntary nature of the militia to a voluteer force.

[jonSlack]

Hanson may be right about the cause. But I also think it has something to do with birth rights (inheriting something vs. having to obtain it yourself). Too many Americans don't understand what those inherited rights cost in the recent past and even the present. We've allowed the public (ourselves) to ignore that the freedoms we enjoy everyday are paid for at a heavy price.

Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

As an ecomonics student in college I learned there was no such thing as a free lunch, everything has a cost. However, with a volunteer military, is there now a "free lunch" for those who decide not serve, especially during a time of war or conflict. For those adult Americans who are not serving or have not or served and without direct relations to a servicemember (Wife/ husband or child of a servicemember under the age of 18) what is the cost to them?

Yes, they pay taxes that financially support the military. However, as a servicemember I pay the same taxes, (In effect I helping to pay my own salary every year (When I'm not deployed atleast).) For that reason, I do not think taxes count as a true cost to those who do not serve since they are not unique to them, they have not incurred those costs specifically because they have chosen not to serve.

If taxes are not considered a "cost," what costs are there for the person who chooses not to serve that make the "lunch" not free?

Obviously, the underlying assumption of my argument is that those who do not serve gain a benefit, the free lunch, that is provided by those who do serve: security.

However, if you argue that our operations ISO GWOT are making the US less secure, not more secure, it would follow that there is "no free lunch" because the purported benefit, security, is not being delivered.

Unfortunetly, I do not think you can assess if there is a benefit "now" or if they will be one in the future. However, it could be argued that there has been a benefit over the past several years because the US homeland has not been attacked since 9/11, the starting point of the GWOT for the US.

Back to my initial question: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

[tequila]

Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

I'd say no.

The main thrust of your argument appears to be that because members of the military also pay taxes, this invalidates the idea of "payment" or "shared sacrifice" on the part of the civilian world. Howeover, this argument could also apply to any employment sector which provides a "public good", since I an unaware of any major tax exemptions for doctors, teachers, lawyers, police, engineers, sewer workers, emergency response, etc. Thus by this definition, soldiers who are not also doctors enjoy a "free lunch" in terms of health care, since they have not also embraced the sacrifices involved in being part of the medical profession.

[Steve Blair]

The bulk of American military history has been based on a volunteer force, so to carry this statement to the extreme, our entire country has been based on a free lunch.

Sorry...I'm not trying to belittle the idea, but using an extreme example to point out that the volunteer force has been the RULE not the exception in American military history. We have also fought wars without the draft, although the standard since 1917 has been to create a draft in time of war. And I think most Americans don't know that because history instruction in this country has been gutted to "deal" with the "math and science gap." That combined with the practice of making the coach the history teacher as well (I had one in elementary school who insisted that B-52s bomber Tokyo in 1944 and would accept no evidence to the contrary) creates generations who have no idea what came before and may have been so battered by poor instructors that they don't care to know.

And I really don't think a draft would change that. A draft doesn't guarantee any real historical knowledge or link with military affairs. What it would take is a recognition that the "history gap" is as real as the "math and science gap" and we need to deal with it if we want to create a pool of volunteers who understand what they're defending and can at least locate their latest deployment location on a map. Until you do that, and it's a comprehensive, multi-angled requirement, you're just looking for another Band-Aid that may or may not do anything. IMO, anyhow.

[LawVol]

Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

I would say that there is a free lunch, but I think that limiting the "cost" to a purely monetary figure completely understates it. Obviously there is the ultimate cost borne by both the servicemember and their family, but cops & firefighters may also pay this cost in providing safety and security.

The cost we pay comes in the perceived lack of stability in our lives. I am currently stationed in an area that has a very small military presence (less than 100 active duty). I was completely surprised that most of the people I come across say that they could not deal with moving around every few years or have their spouse gone alot. Being a military brat, I know no other life (never been anywhere more than 4 years and that was only once), but this is something people actually fear and that cops and firefighters, etc. do not do. Moreover, we miss family time not just when we are at work, but also for a full number of days (weeks, months, etc) when we're TDY or deployed. This is a cost many are unwilling to accept. And as long as we have folks like us that are willing to pay that cost, I'd say that we continue to let the rest of America have a free lunch and maybe we can all feel a little proud that we help provide it.

One other thing on this: whether the public views us safer or not because of Iraq, or the war on terror is irrelevant. The military continues to provide safety and security from those that might do us harm.

Tequila:

Howeover, this argument could also apply to any employment sector which provides a "public good", since I an unaware of any major tax exemptions for doctors, teachers, lawyers, police, engineers, sewer workers, emergency response, etc.

Although I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this quote, as a lawyer, its nice to know someone thinks of us as providing a public good. Maybe we can get rid of the lawyer/shark comparisons.

[Rob Thornton]

Maybe Steve can tell us who the lead singer was for B36

Didn't they have the hit "Love Shack"? or are we back to B52s?

[Rank amateur]

Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

I think everyone chips in their fair share for nuclear deterrence and many of the other things the military does, but it's pretty hard to argue that the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom are borne equally by all Americans. In order to determine whether or not there's a free lunch you'd need to figure out exactly what the benefits were and who was enjoying them.

In terms of military knowledge it would be nice if voters understood the basic difference between conventional operations and asymmetric combat. The people who thought that the first gulf war would turn into another Vietnam and those who thought that the second one would be over in a couple of weeks have caused some problems.

[Tom Odom]

The people who thought that the first gulf war would turn into another Vietnam and those who thought that the second one would be over in a couple of weeks have caused some problems.

Amateur,

You said a mouthful there!

Best

Tom

[jastay3]

Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

As an ecomonics student in college I learned there was no such thing as a free lunch, everything has a cost. However, with a volunteer military, is there now a "free lunch" for those who decide not serve, especially during a time of war or conflict. For those adult Americans who are not serving or have not or served and without direct relations to a servicemember (Wife/ husband or child of a servicemember under the age of 18) what is the cost to them?

Yes, they pay taxes that financially support the military. However, as a servicemember I pay the same taxes, (In effect I helping to pay my own salary every year (When I'm not deployed atleast).) For that reason, I do not think taxes count as a true cost to those who do not serve since they are not unique to them, they have not incurred those costs specifically because they have chosen not to serve.

If taxes are not considered a "cost," what costs are there for the person who chooses not to serve that make the "lunch" not free?

Obviously, the underlying assumption of my argument is that those who do not serve gain a benefit, the free lunch, that is provided by those who do serve: security.

However, if you argue that our operations ISO GWOT are making the US less secure, not more secure, it would follow that there is "no free lunch" because the purported benefit, security, is not being delivered.

Unfortunetly, I do not think you can assess if there is a benefit "now" or if they will be one in the future. However, it could be argued that there has been a benefit over the past several years because the US homeland has not been attacked since 9/11, the starting point of the GWOT for the US.

Back to my initial question: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

__________________________________________________ _____________

Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace.

[jastay3]

"Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace."<br>


In fact that is a very good reason to study war-to remind us that nothing unusual is happening. The whole point of terrorism is essentially theatrics. If we can acknowlege that it is a regretable part of life then it will be less effective.
That doesn't mean, "terrorism is a law-enforcement problem": it is the problem of whichever agency can deal with it conveniently. What it does mean is part of defeating terrorism is not being terrorfied. And part of that is letting people do their jobs.

[Tom Odom]

__________________________________________________ _____________

Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace.

Jaystay,

Your opinion in context is welcome. This, however, is not in context ansd the opinions are nearing the offensive. I suggest you go to this thread and introduce yourself.

Regards,

Tom

[jastay3]

No offense was intended. If this sounded like it was insulting our troops it was not intended that way. It was a criticism of the rhetorical style in which they were described.

[jastay3]

Jaystay,

Your opinion in context is welcome. This, however, is not in context ansd the opinions are nearing the offensive. I suggest you go to this thread and introduce yourself.

Regards,

Tom

Perhaps this is irregular. I am sometimes unskilled of speech and can give offense accidently but I assure everyone no offense was intended. Nontheless I am appealing to the general opinion of SWC. Was I really out of line?

[RTK]

Last week we finished up our staff ride at Appomattox. I wonder how many Americans have actually visited places like that - maybe by %? How many academics, politicians or others who influence and decide?

We did one a Chickamauga at the beginning of the month. Two days later I took the wife and kids to Perryville for the day with the Combat Studies Institute Staff ride guide. We spent 6 hours walking all 17 stands. They loved it and it gave my 5 year old a greater appreciation for what daddy does. Then she told me:

"Daddy, you should take all your lieutenants and make them do this too."

If I only could, Audrey. If I only could. This week, though, I'll be happy if they get down the 5 paragraph OPORD format to standard.

[Ken White]

...

"Daddy, you should take all your lieutenants and make them do this too."

If I only could, Audrey. If I only could. This week, though, I'll be happy if they get down the 5 paragraph OPORD format to standard.

process. METL, ArTEP, Tasks, conditions and standards were adopted after a lengthy gestation process in the late 60s-early 70s to train to minimal competence a large Draftee Army (even as the Draft ceased before the system got truly embedded in the Army..).

For that, they worked fairly well. I was never an ArTEP fan; the process did get rid of the valleys in unit training but it also chopped off the peaks. We paid and pay lip service to the process but when doo doo occurs when we tend to go into a specific trainup for deployment -- as we should -- to peak the unit for its impending missions.

The Army as a result of the old hard core WW II Commanders reducing NCOs and firing nice guys of all ranks for failing Army Training Tests in the 50s and 60s moved away from performance testing into the gray area of ArTEP / ORT etc. completion with no penalty for bad failures. That was absolute reality when I hung up my war suit in 1977. The NTC and JRTC modified that a bit but there still is no hard benchmark -- or, more correctly, there was not when I last retired in 1995. Maybe there is now, I hope so.

Hopefully things have changed and we're willing now to test people and units and react harshly to real failures (as opposed to over reacting to minor nits; a practice at which we excel...). I've never understood that objection to testing -- other than the political correctness angle, of course. Can't make the Personnel management system look bad.

Same problem occurs with the Standards routine in individual education and training, it gets everyone up to a minimally acceptable baseline but it stifles the sharp guys. Having taught a slew of AOB students over several years in another lifetime, I witnessed first hand the undesirable side effects, the stultifying results on the really good in order to allow the not so good to survive (a caveat on that, 2LTs need to be given a break, a lot of folks don't get into their groove for a couple of years, saw a number of marginal Gold bars come back to Knox later with two silver bars and they were totally different people by thatb time. Some didn't change much, of course ).

I also watched a number of tasks which had low 'Go' rates farmed out for unit as opposed to institutional training in order to make the rates look good. Not to mention modifying the standards to do the same thing on occasion. Or the games with Instructor Contact Hours...

I'm not at all sure that we truly realize we really do have a professional Army nowadays and that these kids are capable of doing a whole lot more than we tend to let them do...

Not really criticizing anything or anybody; just random thoughts from a long time doer and observer.