There is no deed more somber a government can undertake than one of military action. Unleashing the tools of warfare on another people yields the very worst that humanity has to offer and leaves in its wake a shattered nation, a conquered people, and generations of despair. History often portrays wars of the past in heroic terms or romantic terms while discarding the horrors that war brings. And from a distance of hundreds or thousands of years, what we remember about these conflicts is the results of their outcomes; the “taming” of humanity into civilizations, the consolidation of geography and resources, the spread of religious ideologies. In today’s world of instant communications, we know all too well the true face of warfare, and it is anything but romantic. But depending on ones perspective, the resulting consequences of warfare can be seen in either a positive or a negative light. And depending upon ones cultural traditions, the horrors brought with warfare may be forgiven or taken forward through the generations in an unending feud for vengeance.
Because wars exist, and because wars will continue to be fought for the foreseeable future, nations maintain a military force for both protection and offensive movements. In this area, the United States of America has achieved what no other nation before it has, namely, a global military force that is second to none in terms of mobility, technology, and ability. Taken as a whole, our men and women in uniform are unmatched by any other military in the world, especially when given a winnable mission, the tools to win it, and the authority to control the action on the ground. This praise is not to be misunderstood as a wholesale endorsement of the American military apparatus though, for there is much about the way our military is used and run that can and should be improved upon. Even while the individual men and women who make up our (for the present) all-voluntary force can be commended for their professionalism as a whole, the civilians who are charged with funding the military and deciding its missions consistently foul things up. And the bureaucracy that encumbers the efficacy of the military’s duties is about as efficient and accountable as a comatose accident victim. The problems of both the civilians who guide military policy (also known as politicians and their corporate benefactors) and the bureaucrats in and out of uniform who keep the beast moving may not be easy to solve, but they are easy to identify.
Accountability Accountability in the military is a multi-pronged problem. First, we need to have greater financial accountability of the military’s expenditures, for it has been documented far too many times that the military is completely irresponsible with the tax dollars that are appropriated for “defense.” Secondly, we need to have greater practical accountability for the actions of the troops in the field. At issue, specifically, is who takes responsibility for the planning and execution of military events, and what should be expected to be in place before any military action is initiated. Third, we need greater accountability in the lower rungs of the chain of command, beginning with the methods used for recruitment all the way up to the information services that present military encounters to the public. And finally, we need public accountability, which in times of just war means falling behind our leaders and sacrificing some of our materialistic desires to reduce the nation’s costs of fighting, or in times of unjust war it means fighting the politicians to bring our troops back home as quickly as possible.
Responsibility Part of the appeal to joining an all-volunteer military is the knowledge that you are giving something back to your country of your own free will. A much bigger draw is all the programs and benefits available to veterans. Maybe “alleged” benefits is a better description. The government of this country has a long history of abusing the trust given to it by its military personnel. We promise our veterans health care and education grants and housing loans to get them to enlist. Then, when they have served their tours, and come home to return to civilian life, they find that their hospitals have been closed or consolidated, their grants won’t cover the costs of tuition, or the loan limits preclude actually buying a house somewhere near an employer. In short, we are engaged in a classic bait and switch con game with the very people who would give their lives for our way of life. Our government is also responsible for training and equipping our military forces with the best materials at our disposal. If we are to send people into harms way, it should always be a top priority to give them the tools to succeed and survive. There must also be in place a firm objective and a firm goal for cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of forces. And, government must be responsible to the civilian populations in any country where our troops are engaged, taking the highest efforts to remove warfare from civilian populations and to assist in the rebuilding and protection of infrastructure as troops move to other forward positions.
Flexibility Just as the methods of warfare change as time and technology move forward, so too must the structure of an effective military evolve to meet these changing challenges. So far in the 21st century, our prime enemy is not a traditional state government, but rather an ideology that transcends borders and has no formal body of warriors. Efforts to combat this type of adversary are not always feasible with large deployments of men and machines. Other conflicts that call for armed intervention, genocidal conflicts within states that flare over borders, call for a different kind of force, one that is not unilateral in nature. In some cases, military actions such as containment of an enemy nation may require a different kind of soldier while actual defense of the homeland would present an entirely new problem and would likely result in an entirely different kind of fighting force. In order for our military to be prepared for each of these contingencies, we have a duty to reevaluate of military organizations and make rational adjustments based on the principals of security rather than on political appeasement.
Rationality Perhaps the most important aspect of the use of the military in a democracy is the duty of the government to keep the citizens apprised of what the troops are engaged in. It is our children, our parents, our friends and co-workers who are going off to fight. It is our right to know whom they are fighting and what they are fighting for. It is our right to know what the objectives are and how we will meet them. And for the people in the war zones, it is most necessary to understand what conditions must exist for our troops to make a safe exodus from their country and for the return of their government to them.
In this next series of essays, efforts will be made to address these problems with Common Sense solutions that could result in a much more efficient military, a much more effective military and a much more respected military for this country. In addition, discussions about the proper planning of military action, the rationale for taking military action, and observations on our current military endeavors will occur.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 18th, 2005 at 6:21 am and is filed under Common Sense, Foreign Relations, Government, Military, Politics, War.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
I have been following your essays on democracy and other issues of human government. And I wonder if you are a scholar in Political Science and Philosophy?
What I have learnt in life so far is that humans in most cases have given in to their emotions more than common sense. Because, both President George W.Bush and Osama bin Laden went to school. But the majority of humanity prefer violence to peace. Terrorism manifests from the home front to the war front. From a barking husband to a barking general. From the past to the present, Man has not learnt from the tragic mistakes of civilization. And the most educated have done more harm to society than the retarded.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:41 am
Ken, you certainly know how to select a quality topic. Good luck in the ensuing posts.
Interestingly, in today’s press briefing (whitewashinghouse as I call it) with Scotty McClellan (I posted about it on my location if you don’t want to sift through the whitehouse press briefing text on your own), Helen Thomas points out that 18 children were just killed by our military in Iraq.
War sucks and as a last resort also a tool for diplomacy, when all other tools fail. It’s a political blunt instrument designed to destroy people with differing opinions. Indeed, on several occasions it was used to stop really horrible people from doing heinous things.
What toubles me most is when it the espouse rationale for engaging in war turns out to not be the true reasons for going in. Sure, our leaders are fallible, but then there is a difference between seriously screwing it up and purposefully misleading our entire military machine and the American population to achieve certain political aims?
October 19th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Good post!
I would say the biggest challenge that the modern US military must overcome is its government. For one thing, there needs to be a much stricter control of the Presidents’ war powers by Congress and there needs to be a much clearer definition of what those powers are in the first place. There also needs to be a streamlining of the command process so that it doesn’t take 30 minutes for orders to get from top to bottom. There have been far too many mistakes because of this. Truly, the US has the mightiest army in the history of this world but that doesn’t mean that bad leadership or just plain and simple mistakes can’t bring it all tumbling down.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
(responses)
Orikinla- I am a scholar of life and rationality- I simply try to use common sense in my approach to all things political and social. I do not always succeed, but I try.
Yes, humans are emotional creatures indeed, and education alone can’t prevent people from doing horrible things. While I would say that the most educated cause the most harm, perhaps it is not education at fault, but the fact that these folks get themselves into positions of power using their education to fool people into thinking that they have the right answers to problems. In truth, most of them are just power hungry.
Always good to hear from you.
Windspike- You know I never shy away from a good topic.
War does suck- but it has been used to stop awful endeavors by rogue dictators or nations. But in all cases, rationale for war should be clear, not muddied or constantly shifting like we see today.
OKLib- Thanks! I agree with the basic premise of your comment and will be exploring military reforms in the upcoming posts. Hope to heasr from you again.
October 21st, 2005 at 4:46 am
Here’s my 2 cents (1.995 at the pump). I am a proponent of the Lennon-esque notion that there would be no wars if people, collectively, would just stop fighting wars. I mean, stop participating. Stop doing what idiots tell them to do. Stop blindly obeying. As I’ve said many times, who really causes the damage: the single leader, or the multitudes who carry out his/her whims? Hitler, without followers, would simply be a lone madman hollering on a street corner. Same goes for any other leader of killer lemmings. But those lemmings are oh, so willing to obey their masters like robots. It’s pitiful!
I am not saying, “don’t defend yourself.” I am saying, if people would stop killing just because someone else tells them to, there would be no need to defend oneself (against groups, anyway).
I ask the world, again: if you meet a lunatic raving on a streetcorner, and he tells you to go kill someone because they are evil, how @#$% stupid is it to say “Uh, hyuk hyuk, okey dokey” and do it!? What’s worse: the lunatic or the lunatic’s flunky!?
I should start drinking.
October 21st, 2005 at 5:38 pm
A beautiful opening sentence followed by an entire beautiful first paragraph. This is a subject close to my heart as I am a vet and have seen what happened to many of fellow vets from the Vietnam era.
One thing that would help greatly is to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld. He is unbalanced, very destructive, and despised by all under his command. I recommend the straight jacket removal method. Another thing would be to require anyone who votes for war to pack up and go fight it themselves.
What worries me is that we are not decompressing the combat soldiers who are returning from Iraq. The VA is giving lip service to terms like PTSD but doing very little to lift these guys from the insanity into which they were plunged. Many of them will never be able to live a normal life again.
My son is still having major difficulties after serving 14 years some of which were in combat zones. Once the powers that be have gotten what they want out of a soldier they throw them away. Disposable personnel.
My experience with the US military years ago made me the anti-war activist that I am today. Unfortunately a recruiter got to my son.
October 22nd, 2005 at 8:35 am
(responses)
Shea-I agree with you in principal, but the simple fact that so many people hate us for what our governments have done over the years, that we will have to contiue to defend ourselves for some time from our self-created enemies.
Until then, I’ll have what you’re having.
KWW- We seem to have a bad habit of forgetting people once they are no longer useful (at least, the politicians act in this manner.) It is shameful to say the least.
Thanks for the comments.