Purple-Headed Warriors
Bob Kaplan’s extraordinary piece in The American Interest requires a read:
Without a draft or a revitalized Reserve and National Guard that ties the military closer to civilian society, in the decades ahead American troops may become less soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen, and more purple warriors—in essence a guild in which the profession of combat-arms is passed down from father to son. It is striking how many troops I know whose parents and other relatives had also been in the service, especially among the units whose members face the highest level of personal risk. Contrast this with the fact that, at the 2006 Stanford commencement ceremony, Maj. General Lehnert, whose son was the lone graduating student from a military family, was struck by how many of the other parents had never even met a member of the military before he introduced himself.
Read Kaplan side by side with Tocqueville:
because in democracies the richest, best-educated, and ablest citizens hardly ever adopt a military career, the army finally becomes a little nation apart, with a lower standard of intelligence and rougher habits than the nation at large. But this little uncivilized nation holds the weapons and it alone knows how to use them. […] I do not wish to speak ill of war; war almost always widens a nation’s mental horizons and raises its heart. In some cases it may be the only factor which can prevent the exaggerated growth of certain inclinations naturally produced by equality and be the antidote needed for certain inveterate diseases to which democratic societies are liable (“Why Democratic Peoples Naturally Want Peace But Democratic Armies War”).
This is a very serious problem, and you’re absolutely right to point it out (anyone who quotes Tocqueville is absolutely right about whatever they’re talking about).
But as always, the devil is in the details.
— PEG · Dec 12, 06:19 PM · #
Except Tocqueville is wrong. What is likely (and is already happening) is that the Military will be filled with SMARTER people. The Armed Services use what is essentially an IQ test to admit candidates. Considering what is required to operate and maintain systems such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, aircraft carriers, M1 Tanks, etc. that requirement is not surprising.
What journalists, entertainers, etc. don’t get is that while anyone can and will (eventually) do their job the way say, IT has been outsourced or H1-B Visa’d, the military requires (mostly men) who can adapt quickly to extremely stressful environments and improvise to accomplish the mission.
For the more risk-friendly man seeking something other than expendible drudgery in a cube, a place like the military has it’s attractions. Meanwhile though the military is apt to understand the civilian life very well (since they grew up in it and it is inescapable) the civilians are likely to have zilch understanding of military life, discipline, risk-taking (within limits) etc.
— Jim Rockford · Dec 13, 04:12 AM · #
“Except Tocqueville is wrong. What is likely (and is already happening) is that the Military will be filled with SMARTER people. The Armed Services use what is essentially an IQ test to admit candidates.”
Except that they keep lowering the bar for those IQ tests. The number of inferior candidates entering the military grows and grows, because of the unwillingness for soldiers to fight in an unpopular war, and the consistent or escalating need for troops. Whatever deductive reasons you can think of for the military to be growing more intelligent, we have empirical data demonstrating the opposite.
— Freddie · Dec 13, 04:34 AM · #
There are many horrible things about Kaplan’s article. In particular:
First, the idea that the low standing of the military in American life is somehow a matter of civilians failure to identify with the military, rather than public reaction to the fact that since the end of WW2, our military adventures have been a substantial mix of failed wars and wars of convenience. Surely Vietnam is relevant to Kaplan’s story!
Second, and more offensive, is the idea that instituting a draft would be desirable in order to revive our nation’s warrior spirit. It is absurd to sacrifice the liberty (in peacetime) or lives (in a war of convenience) of our nation’s youth so that people like Kaplan will feel a sense of pride in our nation’s spirit. (In a real war—a war of self-defense, we would not need ridiculous articles like this to argue for a draft).
Is there anywhere in Kaplan’s article an explanation of exactly what the threat facing us is? What enemy do we face that demands a warrior spirit? I doubt America had the sort of faith Kaplan favored after World War I, but it certainly found it sometime before 1945.
— Justin · Dec 13, 05:38 AM · #
Justin, it doesn’t matter what enemy we face that “demands a warrior spirit.” I would wager that Kaplan’s point is precisely that if you lose your warrior spirit, you invite the rise of enemies to destroy you. Si vis pacem para bellum.
(This is my first time using Textile. It’s great! Much better than HTML: I mean, there are way more people that use HTML and it’s intuitive when you know it, but it’s MUCH better to force people to learn a new system they’ve never heard of. That’s what the Internet is about.)
— PEG · Dec 13, 09:26 AM · #
Oh sure, I suppose that is what Kaplan thinks. But that’s a silly thing to think.
— Justin · Dec 13, 06:58 PM · #
Why is that silly Justin? If anything the whole course of human history AND recent developments prove both Kaplan (and Machiavelli) absolutely correct.
Consider nuclear weapons. Even pathetic, starving North Korea can produce (somewhat) working plutonium nukes suitable for mounting on ICBMs. I’m sure they will eventually get it right. What nuclear and ICBM technology does is allow relatively weak and isolated nations/peoples to threaten wealthier ones for money, slaves, territory if they like. Pakistan can’t keep the raw sewage off the streets of it’s cities nor control tribal areas and yet IT has nukes.
Now consider say, the Med. Filled with rich, weak, undefended (absent the US Navy) people. Who are not very numerous and are statistically much older than their southern neighbors across the Med. If Vikings from Norway could contest Sicily from Italians and Muslim Arabs in the 11th Century, so too could Algerians and Moroccans contest Spain, Southern France, or Italy with speedboats and GPS and AK-47s, which can be purchased in Africa for less than $50. Making an ill-trained tribesman or slum dweller the near-equal of the Carabineri or Guardia. There will certainly be more of them.
What you say? Human nature has “evolved” into peacefulness? No howling mobs calling for heads because of Teddy Bears, or cartoons, or something the Pope said? Well I’m glad that was all cleared up.
Freddie: why have white men in particular, who could do other things, volunteered in numbers far in excess of their population for the “elite” combat arms of the Marines and various Special Forces? There is something driving the behavior (likely a drying up of any opportunity for non-connected white men in the civilian sector) to take the risk of ugly death or dismemberment.
— Jim Rockford · Dec 14, 08:25 AM · #
I’d just like to drop in to say that I’m incredibly happy that everyone is writing “Tocqueville”, and not “de Tocqueville”, which most English speakers do, but is grammatically incorrect. Thank you. This kinda stuff keeps me up at night.
— PEG · Dec 14, 08:39 AM · #
I’m not sure what the idea is: if we were tougher, Pakistan wouldn’t have nukes? How would that work, seeing as how our current policy is that Musharraf is a crucial ally who is committed to democracy?
On the other hand, no one has really proposed war against North Korea, but it looks like their nuclear program is going into remission (and if it isn’t, exactly how could our warrior spirit help?) We fight nuclear proliferation with a combination of treaties, diplomacy, and a huge fucking stockpile of nuclear weapons for deterrence. The last of the three is expensive, but not particularly dependent on spirit.
— Justin · Dec 15, 03:40 AM · #