An America Cramped by Defensiveness
02.02.2013 at 09:13am
An America Cramped by Defensiveness – A Washington Post Op-Ed by SWJ's editor Peter Munson.
… Since I returned home, a darkness has grown in me as both I and our nation have failed to live up to the sacrifices of these young men and women. I had no expectation of “victory” in Afghanistan or Iraq, whatever that would mean. Nor did I expect some epiphany of strategic insight or remorse from the nation’s brain trust.
I just found that I could not square the negativity, pettiness and paranoia in the discourse of our country’s elders with the nobility and dedication of the men and women I had seen and served with in Afghanistan…
Putting the self love aside for the military for a moment, the article touches on important points that couldn’t be discussed rationally for many years after 9/11. Our nation seemed to collectively lose its mind and its way after the tragic attacks on 9/11, and not without reason, but wise senior leaders should have channeled that rage and energy to more productive courses of action. Almost all championed the the initial military actions against Al Qaeda, but what happened afterwards based on our defensive strategy (or the 1% doctrine) has tainted our view of the world. The military learned after Vietnam that there is only so much that can be accomplished with military force, yet the Powell Doctrine was dismissed by the politicians after 9/11. President Reagan made progress was focusing what made America great, after 9/11 we had a foreign and domestic policy based on fear. If anyone challenged it they were labeled weak on the war on terror. It became America against the world, and unfortunately those divisive politics are incredibly powerful on the domestic front also. There are bad things happening in the world, that isn’t new, but overall the general trend is positive and our policies prior to 9/11 had much to do with that. As we look forward we should consider that.
I’m not a historian, but would venture to offer that WWII produced several things: 1) a more industrial America that emerged from a depression as a manufacturing powerhouse, 2) nuclear power that has assisted in clean energy and deterrence of other major wars, 3) the greatest generation tested and honed in battle, and subsequently educated via the GI Bill.
If (and since) I am a smart ass, I might also offer that far more time, lives, resources, and hope would have been lost had WWII turned out differently. Instead, because it did turn out well for us, and MacArthur’s and Marshall’s plan helped rebuild our former enemies, the 3rd and 4th largest economic powers in the world are now our friends and trading partners.
Generally, you make lots of sense, however occasionally you display a contrarian streak and lack of judgment that is troubling. Exhibit A, leaving the Marine Corps just when you approach a rank that could help solve many problems you note…simultaneously depriving you and your family of needed income to educate your kids and live out your elder years. Exhibit B, is overconfidence that the civil sector, infrastructure, and education can create this bold new America…and is the greener grass just barely out of reach because we spend 4% of GDP on defense.
Europe has all kinds of non-defense social, educational, and infrastructure programs and the high taxes to pay for them with much less real estate to build on bringing down costs. How is that working out for them? Since when are state and local funded domestic programs the purview of the federal government? Perhaps when their union employees and primary beneficiaries vote Democrat?
Here is what I said to introduce your elegant prose when I posted your article on my F.B. page: “I wish everyone in the United States would read this article. It brings back to life President Roosevelt’s great line, ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.'”
“After World War II, the United States sought to create a world of economic interdependence and prosperity, hoping to banish the malaise that helped precipitate a global conflict. The prospect of rapid growth in the developing world was not viewed as a threat but rather offered the promise of robust markets for American goods and ingenuity. We were confident and focused on the positive tasks of expanding our economy rather than fearing change.”
Was the use of our military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan not viewed as being both positive and offensive? This, in that the use of our forces in these countries was channeled so as to be consistent with both the spirit and direction of our strategic goal noted above?
Thus, in looking for the reasons for our elders’ negativity, pettiness and paranoia, should we look more toward domestic difficulties — rather than toward problems present by our military endeavors/foreign affairs?
As noted in my comment on Feb 5 at 7:55pm below, I believe that our current malaise stems from the knowledge that — whether we should wish to lead, wish to be an example for the world, and/or wish to embark on or to continue a crusade — we presently may not have the necessary wherewithal needed to do so.
This, because in the euphoria of winning the Cold War, we overreacted and took across-the-board risks; risks that did not seem to pay out but that did, instead, cost us (equally across-the-board it would appear) dearly.
In order to extracate ourselves from this dilemma, it would seem that we must do what we have suggested, asked, and/or attempted to compel other nations and peoples to do. This is: to alter and/or give up aspects of one’s accustomed and time-honored way of life or expectations.
As in the case of other countries and peoples that we have suggested such transitions to, likewise in the case of our nation also there is little support — and little “inner go” — that can be directed at and/or channeled toward the achievement of such difficult and unpopular changes.
Rather what we, like these other nations and peoples, tend to reap in these situations is “defensiveness,” “bristling” and, indeed, combat, from any and all parties who are asked to give up things for the nation’s greater good.
Thus, as MAJ Munson notes, while the members of our armed forces and their families are willing to cooperate and make sacrifices for the nation’s betterment, the other members of our national community would not seem to be so inclined.