(Cross-posted at Historiblography)
Reporting from the front in WWII, Ernie Pyle was most impressed by the degree to which American soldiers weren't natural warriors. War had come, and they had simply faced it."They just went," Pyle wrote. In a running commentary on the dignity of the everyman, Pyle described citizens who fought reluctantly and looked forward to getting the job done."They were American boys who by mere chance of fate had wound up with guns in their hands sneaking up a death-laden street in a strange and shattered city in a faraway country in a driving rain. They were afraid, but it was beyond their power to quit. They had no choice. They were good boys."
This sort of narrative surely speaks to a longstanding piece of American myth, but it also points to an important reality regarding the development of the U.S. military for WWII: Faced with a challenge, a small standing army grew rapidly as Americans rushed (with considerable nudging) to the ranks.
And so I've been struck -- struck forcefully, for the obvious reasons -- by reports that the U.S. Army is currently flailing miserably behind a growing failure to recruit new soldiers. Most seriously, an army deeply entangled in a grinding and persistent conflict is having very little success at recruiting combat troops."As of the end of March, 7,800 infantry soldiers had been trained at Fort Benning, compared with a target of 25,541 for fiscal 2005." (Fiscal 2005, if I'm not mistaken, ends on June 30.) These are stunning numbers.
Compare and contrast: In WWII, a small standing army grew rapidly; in 2005, an enormous standing army is adrift, and slowly shrinking away. Americans are simultaneously embracing a new militarism -- witness the most recent Democratic presidential candidate saluting and reporting for duty, or the Republican president striding across an aircraft carrier deck in a flight suit, two images that would have baffled a certain ex-general by the name of Eisenhower -- while aggressively declining to serve in the military or to let their children serve. Tens of millions of Americans appear to support the war in Iraq, and this year the U.S. Army has been unable to find 10,000 Americans to serve as riflemen in it.
I very much hesitate to use the phrase historically unprecedented, and I look forward to hearing arguments against, but it seems like this might be a good time to think about using it. The U.S. military projects force around a world in which its power is unmatched; a parallel army of chest-thumping, war-hungrybloggers and columnists celebrate American power; and Fort Benning can't keep its drill sergeants busy.
In a series of posts at his blog, Mark Grimsley has discussed the standing of military history in the contemporary academy. In a milieu defined by the embrace of social history, the story (at least the perceived story) of generals and statesmen has been marginalized as passe. But it seems to me that current events suggest the degree to which military history is social history: The way a society lives is the way it fights. When historians look back at 2005, I suspect that some will make a great deal out of a war that was widely supported and widely avoided. We can draw the picture of an entire culture, living soft and talking hard. Everyone wants to eat, but nobody wants to cook.
Reporting from the front in WWII, Ernie Pyle was most impressed by the degree to which American soldiers weren't natural warriors. War had come, and they had simply faced it."They just went," Pyle wrote. In a running commentary on the dignity of the everyman, Pyle described citizens who fought reluctantly and looked forward to getting the job done."They were American boys who by mere chance of fate had wound up with guns in their hands sneaking up a death-laden street in a strange and shattered city in a faraway country in a driving rain. They were afraid, but it was beyond their power to quit. They had no choice. They were good boys."
This sort of narrative surely speaks to a longstanding piece of American myth, but it also points to an important reality regarding the development of the U.S. military for WWII: Faced with a challenge, a small standing army grew rapidly as Americans rushed (with considerable nudging) to the ranks.
And so I've been struck -- struck forcefully, for the obvious reasons -- by reports that the U.S. Army is currently flailing miserably behind a growing failure to recruit new soldiers. Most seriously, an army deeply entangled in a grinding and persistent conflict is having very little success at recruiting combat troops."As of the end of March, 7,800 infantry soldiers had been trained at Fort Benning, compared with a target of 25,541 for fiscal 2005." (Fiscal 2005, if I'm not mistaken, ends on June 30.) These are stunning numbers.
Compare and contrast: In WWII, a small standing army grew rapidly; in 2005, an enormous standing army is adrift, and slowly shrinking away. Americans are simultaneously embracing a new militarism -- witness the most recent Democratic presidential candidate saluting and reporting for duty, or the Republican president striding across an aircraft carrier deck in a flight suit, two images that would have baffled a certain ex-general by the name of Eisenhower -- while aggressively declining to serve in the military or to let their children serve. Tens of millions of Americans appear to support the war in Iraq, and this year the U.S. Army has been unable to find 10,000 Americans to serve as riflemen in it.
I very much hesitate to use the phrase historically unprecedented, and I look forward to hearing arguments against, but it seems like this might be a good time to think about using it. The U.S. military projects force around a world in which its power is unmatched; a parallel army of chest-thumping, war-hungrybloggers and columnists celebrate American power; and Fort Benning can't keep its drill sergeants busy.
In a series of posts at his blog, Mark Grimsley has discussed the standing of military history in the contemporary academy. In a milieu defined by the embrace of social history, the story (at least the perceived story) of generals and statesmen has been marginalized as passe. But it seems to me that current events suggest the degree to which military history is social history: The way a society lives is the way it fights. When historians look back at 2005, I suspect that some will make a great deal out of a war that was widely supported and widely avoided. We can draw the picture of an entire culture, living soft and talking hard. Everyone wants to eat, but nobody wants to cook.
Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 23:50
Comments
As Ralph Luker has mentioned, I recently received orders from the army for 18 months of active duty. One unfortunate consequence of the army's generous invitation is that I'll be leaving two weeks before the end of the quarter at UCLA, where I am a teaching assistant in a survey course on ninteenth century U.S. history.
I've been considering a question without much success at finding an answer: What do I tell the students in my discussion sections? I graded their midterms and first papers, but will not be here to grade their second papers and final exams. I'll also miss the last discussion, which will be covered by other TAs. I'll have to say something about my coming absence. They'll also probably notice the sudden appearance of a wedding ring in the week before I leave.
I'm not inclined to discuss personal business or contemporary politics in the classroom, and so have been thinking I'll just announce that I won't be here for the end of the quarter, thank you and goodnight. Others here have argued that I should -- even must -- tell them why I'm leaving and where I'm going. I can think of arguments for and against, but I'll just ask this as a question, or as several questions: Should I tell? Should I tell, and try to use the news to generate a classroom discussion? Is there a reasonable way to drag a history lesson out of my news? (My research interests relate to the development of an American empire in the late nineteenth century, so it seems like some very careful and limited analogies might be made.)
One concern worth mentioning: In previous quarters, I have had active and engaged sections, and have also had students who were in ROTC or considering careers in the foreign service or the CIA, bless their innocent hearts. This quarter, the universe is punishing me for unidentified prior transgressions, and I have one section that could serve as a perfect metaphor for sailing through the doldrums. They just...don't...care. About anything. Ever. (I'm told that this is normal for the spring quarter.)
Does the composition and chemistry of a class change the answer to the questions? If they're disengaged, do I not bother? Or do I just sigh and step out there?
And, to repeat the question, is there a discussion about history available in the decision to tell them that I'm headed for Iraq?
I've been considering a question without much success at finding an answer: What do I tell the students in my discussion sections? I graded their midterms and first papers, but will not be here to grade their second papers and final exams. I'll also miss the last discussion, which will be covered by other TAs. I'll have to say something about my coming absence. They'll also probably notice the sudden appearance of a wedding ring in the week before I leave.
I'm not inclined to discuss personal business or contemporary politics in the classroom, and so have been thinking I'll just announce that I won't be here for the end of the quarter, thank you and goodnight. Others here have argued that I should -- even must -- tell them why I'm leaving and where I'm going. I can think of arguments for and against, but I'll just ask this as a question, or as several questions: Should I tell? Should I tell, and try to use the news to generate a classroom discussion? Is there a reasonable way to drag a history lesson out of my news? (My research interests relate to the development of an American empire in the late nineteenth century, so it seems like some very careful and limited analogies might be made.)
One concern worth mentioning: In previous quarters, I have had active and engaged sections, and have also had students who were in ROTC or considering careers in the foreign service or the CIA, bless their innocent hearts. This quarter, the universe is punishing me for unidentified prior transgressions, and I have one section that could serve as a perfect metaphor for sailing through the doldrums. They just...don't...care. About anything. Ever. (I'm told that this is normal for the spring quarter.)
Does the composition and chemistry of a class change the answer to the questions? If they're disengaged, do I not bother? Or do I just sigh and step out there?
And, to repeat the question, is there a discussion about history available in the decision to tell them that I'm headed for Iraq?
Monday, May 16, 2005 - 17:30
Cross-posted on Historiblography
This is a major news flash, I know, but Victor Davis Hanson has written something dumb. The fun part is that he wrote something dumb in response (or in"response," since he doesn't really bother to respond) to a question I asked him:
Backing up the claim that race/class/gender/sexuality"studies" have taken over the academy, Hanson now writes:
Note also that"studies" programs"have no popular appeal to students at all," but somehow are full of snarky grad students and politically correct professors. And where do grad students and professors come from? Not from the undergraduate population, apparently. Maybe universities are raising these professor types in some sort of kooky left-wing test tubes.
Finally, I love that"studies" programs have taken over the academy and destroyed the traditional curriculum because many universities now require students to take"one (required) course" in those programs. At UCLA, where we're on the quarter system, an undergraduate needs 160 credits -- at four credits per class -- to graduate. That means 40 classes for a B.A. At Pitzer College, where I was an undergrad, we needed 32 semester-long classes to graduate. So one required class in a race/class/gender/sexuality topic would comprise either 1/40th or 1/32nd of an undergraduate education -- and heaven forbid that a student spend 1/40th an education thinking about women, African Americans, or homosexuality. They should stick to, you know, normal topics.
Hanson continues:
And finally, Hanson writes:
Were the world anywhere near as simple as Victor Davis Hanson makes it out to be, we would all be drawn in crayon.
This is a major news flash, I know, but Victor Davis Hanson has written something dumb. The fun part is that he wrote something dumb in response (or in"response," since he doesn't really bother to respond) to a question I asked him:
In a March answer to a reader, you wrote on your website that"race studies,” queer studies, gender studies, etc." have become"the establishment" on university campuses, resulting in the destruction of the"old liberal arts curriculum." A New York Times story on April 24, 2005 reports on the most common and least common majors on contemporary campuses. At the University of California at San Diego, for example, 3,368 students are majoring in biology; 1,787 are majoring in economics; and a whopping 23 are majoring in critical gender studies.Hanson's response is yet another regurgitation of the same-old same-old, and go ahead and place your bets on whether or not he mentions Ward Churchill. (Ward Churchill now singlehandedly comprises fifty percent of all known American academics.)
Isn't it possible that you've overstated the significance of"studies" programs? I apologize for challenging your declensionist worldview with actual facts.
Backing up the claim that race/class/gender/sexuality"studies" have taken over the academy, Hanson now writes:
All these 'studies' programs have no popular appeal to students at all, who rarely major in them, or take more than one (required) course. But their influence is nevertheless enormous and hardly to be measured simply by official majors.So the new"establishment" on American university campuses is a set of programs that students don't find appealing or useful at all. Supermarket X has no loyal customers, and is therefore the leader in the supermarket industry.
First, most campuses now have some sort of requirement in the General Education curriculum for an ethnic or gender studies class; and these courses, unlike most others, thus reach most of the student body .
Note also that"studies" programs"have no popular appeal to students at all," but somehow are full of snarky grad students and politically correct professors. And where do grad students and professors come from? Not from the undergraduate population, apparently. Maybe universities are raising these professor types in some sort of kooky left-wing test tubes.
Finally, I love that"studies" programs have taken over the academy and destroyed the traditional curriculum because many universities now require students to take"one (required) course" in those programs. At UCLA, where we're on the quarter system, an undergraduate needs 160 credits -- at four credits per class -- to graduate. That means 40 classes for a B.A. At Pitzer College, where I was an undergrad, we needed 32 semester-long classes to graduate. So one required class in a race/class/gender/sexuality topic would comprise either 1/40th or 1/32nd of an undergraduate education -- and heaven forbid that a student spend 1/40th an education thinking about women, African Americans, or homosexuality. They should stick to, you know, normal topics.
Hanson continues:
Second, the class/race/gender fixation insidiously transcends these titled courses proper; thus former Revolutionary war classes might now be in fact studies of the 'other' during colonial times; a class nominally on some of Shakespeare's plays turns out to be deconstructing gender, or a history of Latin America often becomes a melodrama about European pathology and culpability.Well, sure. What's all this discussion of European culpability doing in Latin American history courses? If we have any readers in the Fresno area, someone might want to ask Victor Davis Hanson why people in Latin America speak Spanish and Portugese, which are widely believed (by leftist academics) to be European languages. How on earth would one design a class on Latin America without referencing the presence of European colonizers? Why is the inclusion of this presence a radical choice?
And finally, Hanson writes:
Fourth, the politically-correct emphasis on race/class/gender studies puts enormous pressure on untenured faculty to publish in these areas and upon graduate students to steer their research in this direction — and to serve obsequiously those faculty who, they sense, have gravitated in these directions and thus will have greater clout when it comes time to parcel out fellowships, teaching assignments, and recommendations for jobs. Perusal of the Modern Language Association's, American Historical Association's, or American Philological Association's lists of PhD dissertation titles or annual convention talks bears out this over-concentration...I have suggested before that the AHA's list of dissertations in progress proves that Hanson and others like him are mostly full of hot air, and I'll say it again: Go look for yourself. Yes, you will find titles that focus on race/class/gender/sexuality themes. Yes, some will sound silly. Most will not. Some of those that sound silly will actually contain good scholarship; some of those that sound smart and"traditional" will actually contain poor scholarship.
Were the world anywhere near as simple as Victor Davis Hanson makes it out to be, we would all be drawn in crayon.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 23:08
(Cross-posted at Historiblography)
David Hackworth fought in three wars before he turned to writing about military affairs:
David Hackworth fought in three wars before he turned to writing about military affairs:
At 14, as World War II was sputtering out, he lied about his age to join the Merchant Marine, and at 15 he enlisted in the U.S. Army. Over the next 26 years he spent fully seven in combat. He was put in for the Medal of Honor three times; the last application is currently under review at the Pentagon. He was twice awarded the Army's second highest honor for valor, the Distinguished Service Cross, along with 10 Silver Stars and eight Bronze Stars. When asked about his many awards, he always said he was proudest of his eight Purple Hearts and his Combat Infantryman's Badge.
So here, of course, is how Regnery hack Michelle Malkin greeted his death:"Didn't agree with much of his work, especially over the last few years, but he lived a fascinating life of service to this country."
Get that? Malkin, with her zero years of military service and her zero years of training in military history and military affairs, examines the career of a man who spent many decades fighting in wars and writingcritically about war and the military, and casually offers that she didn't agree with much of his work. She has standing to judge, and sufficient knowledge to dismiss. He was a critic, so he was wrong. Only cheerleaders are right. Nothing else matters.
Second example, with a slightly different flavor. Andrew Bacevich is a conservative Vietnam veteran, a West Point grad, a career U.S. Army officer who retired as a colonel, and a Princeton PhD who now works as a professor of international relations at Boston University. Take a look at the Amazon.com reader reviews for Bacevich's recent book on what he calls The New American Militarism, and you'll see that this retired colonel is an America-hating left-winger who is spitting on the graves of our soldiers:
We walk among the hundreds of thousands of graves of brave American men at dozens of cemeteries around the globe and remember how people like Bacevich promised"peace in our time", just before the bloodletting began that resulted in the deaths of scores of millions of humans. This book is interesting for those whose understanding of history is warped by the leftists who rule academia today, but if you have the slightest understanding of the relationship of might vs. right, this book is a total waste of money. It is no different than spitting on the graves of those who served their country and stabbing them in the back when they returned...
And never mind that Bacevich actually fought alongside those soldiers. Just never mind at all.
If Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Grant, and Sherman all collectively rose from the grave one morning and carefully acknowledged that they were somewhat concerned about the current administration, the war in Iraq, or the state of contemporary U.S. military-civil affairs in general, they would all be smeared as America-hating, terrorist-loving, ultra-leftist ivory-tower radicals before the sun went down.
Lifelong civilians like Michelle Malkin, Victor Davis Hanson, Hugh Hewitt, David Horowitz, and Daniel Pipes are trustworthy experts in military affairs, because they love war without question (as long as they don't have to fight in it). Andrew Bacevich and David Hackworth, with all their combat experience and all their books between them, mean less than nothing. They questioned the project, and can't be allowed to remain at the table.
One day, I sincerely hope, people like Malkin will come to their senses and feel real shame about this period in their lives.
ADDED LATER: This is also worth a look.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 13:51
Why the War in Iraq is Unsustainable
Last week*, the major general in charge of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command held a press briefing to discuss the army's recruiting problems. The most interesting part was this little-noticed exchange on the topic of"influencers" (emphasis added):
Because the elephant in the room (and I think I may actually mean that as a pun) is that large numbers of people who sport yellow ribbon bumperstickers on their cars -- sorry, their SUVs -- and tell pollsters that they support the war in Iraq don't actually support the war in the sense that they want anyone they know to fight in it. The enlistment numbers, and the dynamic behind them, suggest quite strongly that the American project in Iraq is unsustainable. Wars require bodies in uniform, and the trend for that commodity is down, down, down. However many Americans"support" the war, the fact is that fourteen percent support the war.
(*On the day I was getting married -- this is why it has taken me a week to begin commenting on old news, yes. I think it's a pretty good excuse.)
(Cross-posted on Historiblography)
Last week*, the major general in charge of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command held a press briefing to discuss the army's recruiting problems. The most interesting part was this little-noticed exchange on the topic of"influencers" (emphasis added):
GEN. ROCHELLE: I don't believe anyone believes it's a life or death situation. Is it challenging? Yes. It's challenging under the very best of conditions. Today's conditions represent the most challenging conditions we have seen in recruiting in my 33 years in this uniform. We are faced with very low unemployment; the first time that the all-volunteer force has been challenged in sustained land combat -- I believe that the total casualties are up over 8,000. And in point of fact, we now have very, very low propensity to enlist, both on the part of our young Americans and likewise on the part of influencers -- and by that, I mean parents, coaches, other adults whose opinions matter to our young 17-to-24-year-olds -- to recommend Army service. Those couple to provide a very, very challenging environment.Now, this is obviously total bullshit. Twice a year, the Department of Defense compiles data on"influencers," finding out if they are encouraging or discouraging the enlistment of young people under their influence. Currently the military knows that most influencers are sharply opposed to the enlistment of young people they know...but they have no idea why, and apparently haven't even thought to ask. La la la, fingers in our ears, la la la.
Yes, ma'am?
Q: Could you explain why you think that parents and young people don't have a propensity to join?
GEN. ROCHELLE: I don't have a lot of research to answer that question, merely Department of Defense-level research that does tell us -- and it's a quarterly research -- biannually, excuse me, that does tell us that parents are less inclined today than they were immediately after September 11th to recommend.
Q: But if you don't have reasons, you can't address that. Knowing that they are less inclined is one thing, but knowing why they are less inclined allows you to address the problem.
GEN. ROCHELLE: Well, if we attempt to address every problem, I think it would simply water down our message. What we are attempting to do is focus on the value of service. And the secretary of the Army has launched a campaign -- (pause) -- a call to duty campaign. I was going to say call to service, but it's in fact call to duty campaign, which elevates service to a whole different level -- elevates it to the level of patriotism; elevates it to the level of service to country, service to nation.
(snip)
Q: General?
GEN. ROCHELLE: Yes?
Q: Can you comment a little bit more on the data on influencers? I mean, how much further down is it compared to September 11th? And is it simply that we're in an extended conflict in Iraq that's driving it down, you know, compared to the patriotic fervor after September 11th, or how do you explain it?
GEN. ROCHELLE: Let me see if I can recall the numbers. I believe that shortly after September the 11th, the propensity for influencers was measured at about the 22 percent who would say, yes, I would recommend military service to a young man or woman of recruitment age. And the last data point I saw, it's down to -- I think it's 14 percent, if that gives you some relative scope.
Would I attribute it to any single factor? No, sir, I would not. I think it's far more complex than that.
Because the elephant in the room (and I think I may actually mean that as a pun) is that large numbers of people who sport yellow ribbon bumperstickers on their cars -- sorry, their SUVs -- and tell pollsters that they support the war in Iraq don't actually support the war in the sense that they want anyone they know to fight in it. The enlistment numbers, and the dynamic behind them, suggest quite strongly that the American project in Iraq is unsustainable. Wars require bodies in uniform, and the trend for that commodity is down, down, down. However many Americans"support" the war, the fact is that fourteen percent support the war.
(*On the day I was getting married -- this is why it has taken me a week to begin commenting on old news, yes. I think it's a pretty good excuse.)
(Cross-posted on Historiblography)
Friday, May 27, 2005 - 18:35
Writing about recent news media scandals, Victor Davis Hanson neatly demonstrates his historical method:
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the Victor Davis Hanson template. You are now released from ever having to read one of his columns again. Past perfection; radicals arrive, stage left; tradition shatters.
Of course, given the presence of figures like Harrison Gray Otis and William Randolph Hearst, it takes a vigorous and calculated blindness to turn the history of American news media into a history of "disinterested reporting." But Hanson is up to that historical blindness, as he proves time and time again. It's how he earns his bread.
The recent Dan Rather and Newsweek controversies hardly seem connected. But on closer examination, both incidents symbolize what has gone wrong with traditional news organizations.It's all here, the entire Hansonian palette. Note the magnificent clarity of the"old assumption"; once, everything was just as we would have wished it to be. The Glorious Past is placed against our own sordid and spoiled day: Prior to Dan Rather, news media offered disinterested reporting, and kept their opinions out of the news sections. (Pause for laughter.) Tradition"has been shattered in recent years."
The old assumption was that opinion media — such as the National Review, The Nation and The New Republic — offer a slant on current events, but that major news outlets, outside of their designated opinion sections, do not.
This commitment to disinterested reporting — and along with it the public's trust in mainstream media — has been shattered in recent years.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the Victor Davis Hanson template. You are now released from ever having to read one of his columns again. Past perfection; radicals arrive, stage left; tradition shatters.
Of course, given the presence of figures like Harrison Gray Otis and William Randolph Hearst, it takes a vigorous and calculated blindness to turn the history of American news media into a history of "disinterested reporting." But Hanson is up to that historical blindness, as he proves time and time again. It's how he earns his bread.
Monday, May 30, 2005 - 16:22
As a Marxist, Eugene Genovese recognized the failure of the Soviet experiment as the decisive end of a road he had spent his life walking. But as he took in the disheartening failure in his own political neighborhood, he heard familiar sounds to his right. As he wrote in the curious The Southern Tradition:"The socialist debacle has exposed the false premises on which the Left has proceeded, but it has done so at a time in which the Right is embracing many of those premises -- notably, personal liberation and radical egalitarianism."
Genovese first published those words in 1994, well before our current set of putative conservatives embarked on their global crusade for Western Civilization. But his premise has grown stronger with time. To return to a favorite and endlessly useful figure, look at this Victor Davis Hanson column on the purportedly conservative National Review Online. Writing in March, Hanson offered a triumphal catalog of those moments in which the U.S. government has"acted boldly" against the"unstable and corrupt...status quo" to achieve"a radical and systematic political solution...to the entire Arab cycle of failure."
In the alternative universe we currently call home," conservative" writers now celebrate moments in which the state takes bold action against the status quo in the service of dramatic societal transformations; a" conservative" is someone who urges his neighbors to march to utopia behind the banner of the liberationist state. I have previously described the application of this new ideal as the conservative Great Society program for the Middle East, a fevered embrace of the nearly unlimited application of state power. The United States government, possessing great human truths, will make common cause with the world's oppressed, and spread its system of freedom across the globe. So far, this is familiar stuff that I have said before (and will say again and again).
But the interesting development now underway is that putative conservatives, having abandoned moral modesty in global affairs in favor of an unyielding ideological certitude, are now compelled to take a distinctly Soviet attitude toward the simplest realities. While people who follow the U.S. military closely are describing a "manpower meltdown" -- especially in the army, and especially among soldiers in the combat arms -- the emerging collapse of the very force needed to sustain the liberationist project is entirely absent from the neoconservative radar. Look at Michelle Malkin's blog, or Victor Davis Hanson's website. See any signs in there that American military power is reaching its limit on the ground? Any mention of the growing crisis in recruiting and retention?
Meanwhile, Hanson wonders publicly if it isn't maybe time -- you can't make this stuff up -- to"press on" and begin bombing Syria. The war is going so well, in the alternative universe these folks have constructed for themselves, that it's time to think about extending the project.
Our soldiers are Stakhanovites for global liberation! All are marching in unison behind the banner of glory!
Sing that anthem, brothers and sisters. Conservatism is no longer premised on limited power, cautious goals, and modest means. The law of unintended consequences is repealed, and there are no barriers to the global success of Our Glorious Way of Life. (And you should really take a moment to click on that last link. Soon, all will bow down before us! Hail! All hail!)
But here's the bottom line, and it just doesn't fit the message.
So they simply aren't going to notice it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a dynamic that the world has seen before. Fortunately, the available political forms are very different; the United States is nowhere near the model of the Soviet Union, and our own Stalinist faithful are more pathetic than powerful. But the psychology is there, and worth watching very closely.
Seriously: Read this. Remember that you've read it. (The man opens with a radical global power shift and ends with the thought that one day our enemies will whimper back, asking for our friendship.) (Our struggle will be vindicated! Hail!)
Keep your eyes on these folks.
(Cross-posted on Historiblography)
Genovese first published those words in 1994, well before our current set of putative conservatives embarked on their global crusade for Western Civilization. But his premise has grown stronger with time. To return to a favorite and endlessly useful figure, look at this Victor Davis Hanson column on the purportedly conservative National Review Online. Writing in March, Hanson offered a triumphal catalog of those moments in which the U.S. government has"acted boldly" against the"unstable and corrupt...status quo" to achieve"a radical and systematic political solution...to the entire Arab cycle of failure."
In the alternative universe we currently call home," conservative" writers now celebrate moments in which the state takes bold action against the status quo in the service of dramatic societal transformations; a" conservative" is someone who urges his neighbors to march to utopia behind the banner of the liberationist state. I have previously described the application of this new ideal as the conservative Great Society program for the Middle East, a fevered embrace of the nearly unlimited application of state power. The United States government, possessing great human truths, will make common cause with the world's oppressed, and spread its system of freedom across the globe. So far, this is familiar stuff that I have said before (and will say again and again).
But the interesting development now underway is that putative conservatives, having abandoned moral modesty in global affairs in favor of an unyielding ideological certitude, are now compelled to take a distinctly Soviet attitude toward the simplest realities. While people who follow the U.S. military closely are describing a "manpower meltdown" -- especially in the army, and especially among soldiers in the combat arms -- the emerging collapse of the very force needed to sustain the liberationist project is entirely absent from the neoconservative radar. Look at Michelle Malkin's blog, or Victor Davis Hanson's website. See any signs in there that American military power is reaching its limit on the ground? Any mention of the growing crisis in recruiting and retention?
Meanwhile, Hanson wonders publicly if it isn't maybe time -- you can't make this stuff up -- to"press on" and begin bombing Syria. The war is going so well, in the alternative universe these folks have constructed for themselves, that it's time to think about extending the project.
Our soldiers are Stakhanovites for global liberation! All are marching in unison behind the banner of glory!
Sing that anthem, brothers and sisters. Conservatism is no longer premised on limited power, cautious goals, and modest means. The law of unintended consequences is repealed, and there are no barriers to the global success of Our Glorious Way of Life. (And you should really take a moment to click on that last link. Soon, all will bow down before us! Hail! All hail!)
But here's the bottom line, and it just doesn't fit the message.
So they simply aren't going to notice it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a dynamic that the world has seen before. Fortunately, the available political forms are very different; the United States is nowhere near the model of the Soviet Union, and our own Stalinist faithful are more pathetic than powerful. But the psychology is there, and worth watching very closely.
Seriously: Read this. Remember that you've read it. (The man opens with a radical global power shift and ends with the thought that one day our enemies will whimper back, asking for our friendship.) (Our struggle will be vindicated! Hail!)
Keep your eyes on these folks.
(Cross-posted on Historiblography)
Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 16:43
A conservative blogger offers "fifteen similarities between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq." If we accept his premise, the next question would be to ask what we do with the comparison. Does historical understanding lead, at least in the case of the war in Iraq, to some sort of useful policy prescription?
Note also the invitation, at the end of the post, for commenters to offer their own lists of significant differences between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam. A few commenters have taken a shot, and their comments are worth reading. But why is there always that one anonymous jackass who thinks it's worth the time to post the half-literate"you're argument is to stoopid for me to argue against, but your wrong" comment?
Note also the invitation, at the end of the post, for commenters to offer their own lists of significant differences between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam. A few commenters have taken a shot, and their comments are worth reading. But why is there always that one anonymous jackass who thinks it's worth the time to post the half-literate"you're argument is to stoopid for me to argue against, but your wrong" comment?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 19:09
At the blog for the libertarian magazine Reason, Matt Welch notes the interesting example of prominent neocon war-proponents who now enthusiastically embrace comparisons between the contemporary United States and the Roman Empire.
"When war enthusiasts are no longer even defensive about comparisons to the Roman Empire," Welch concludes,"we have arguably crossed over into new territory."
"When war enthusiasts are no longer even defensive about comparisons to the Roman Empire," Welch concludes,"we have arguably crossed over into new territory."
Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 17:40
I'll be leaving very early in the morning, headed for Fort Benning by way of my favorite pre-dawn nightmare, LAX. Not sure how long it will be, but I do suspect that I won't be able to post here for quite a while. Thanks for the opportunity, which I look forward to once again being able to use.
For whatever it's worth, I really am capable of forming thoughts on subjects unrelated to neocons and the war in Iraq. I've had a long post stuck in my head for a few weeks on the topic of the"myth of passivity" described in Noenoe Silva's Aloha Betrayed. But I just haven't had the energy these last few weeks to articulate other thoughts, for the obvious reasons. I look forward to coming home and returning to a larger range of topics.
For whatever it's worth, I really am capable of forming thoughts on subjects unrelated to neocons and the war in Iraq. I've had a long post stuck in my head for a few weeks on the topic of the"myth of passivity" described in Noenoe Silva's Aloha Betrayed. But I just haven't had the energy these last few weeks to articulate other thoughts, for the obvious reasons. I look forward to coming home and returning to a larger range of topics.
Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 00:08
Home | Free Newsletter | Submissions | Advertising | Donations | Archives | Internships | About Us | Privacy Policy | FAQs | Contact Us | All Articles
Paid Advertisements
Find jobs Millsberry Find jobs Web Design Forums Business Gifts 
DHgate.com
http://www.schoolexpress.com| http://www.sciencereviewgames.com| http://www.JoanneJacobs.com|