|
HomePage |
|
|
|
|
In the flood of commentary after the savage attacks of September 11th wise advice has been offered by colleagues and others about the need for Americans to restrain their reactions, and especially for the U.S. government to be cautious and contained in its military response. We know that the attackers did not represent Islam. Probably most Afghanis do not support the Taliban. We should seek measured justice, not blind revenge. If we lash out we risk creating more misery, more hatred, and more terrorists. It was the international community as well as the United States that was attacked and thus we must seek a balanced, international response.
Dangerous misunderstandings can exist everywhere. I worry that many will not appreciate the depth of the challenge that has been offered to the American security forces, the U.S. military, and law enforcement agencies. It is their responsibility to protect Americans and American national interests from attack. The September 11th murder of more than 6,000 innocent people and the destruction of very visible symbols of American influence that day can not and will not go unpunished. Our forces have enormous resources and great ingenuity, nearly all of which will now be devoted to this cause.
I worry also about the misunderstandings of America's likely response to the Trade Center and Pentagon attacks that are becoming part of the discussion on this campus and others. We all should appreciate other cultures. We all should be tolerant of the ethnic and religious differences that exist among us. And as we seek to understand and appreciate group cultures we must avoid the trap of dismissing some cultures as not worthy of our consideration. I speak here specifically of those in the U.S. military, a group that too often has been denied fair appraisal in the academic community. Now, more than ever, we would do well to achieve a fuller understanding of our country's contemporary military culture, the character of the senior leadership, and the requirements of military operations. We should know about life in other lands, but we should also know about the institutions that guard our own.
For example, I find it incredible that some believe that the American military is about to "carpet bomb" any country. I also find it incredible that some think that, because America was directly attacked, concerns about "collateral damage" will disappear from the thinking of our military planners. American forces fight by the rules of war that do not allow the intentional targeting of civilians or conduct of indiscriminate and disproportional attacks. Our forces are professionally led and highly disciplined. They will not be using their vast capabilities for destruction to lay waste to villages, to kill the innocent, or to destroy another culture.
Many in the universities have had their views of the military shaped by the Vietnam War. In the charged rhetoric of the antiwar movement of the time American forces were often portrayed as baby killers enjoying the destruction of Vietnam. No doubt there were atrocities conducted by our forces. Evil, ignorant, and untrained people are found in every military. Wars give them opportunities to do terrible things under the cover of patriotism. In truth there was probably less criminal behavior on the part of American forces in Vietnam than in the Second World War or the Korean War. But it can not be denied that there was some.
According to the military, the central problem of the Vietnam War was its conception and management by our national leadership, civilian and military. These officials involved the military in a civil war, tried to hide the costs from the American people, and allowed the enemy to have sanctuaries from which to fight the war. The war took a toll on the military, affecting greatly its morale, public standing, and faith in its own leaders. Much of the military's reflection back on Vietnam has focused on the need to retain public support during any future war.
Political leaders sought to reduce dissent about the use of force by eliminating the draft. Since 1972, the U.S. has relied on volunteers for military personnel. Only those who choose to serve, serve. But before agreeing to the end of the draft the military, concerned that politicians freed from the potential wrath of draft-age youth and their parents would bog the nation down in long, costly wars, insisted that the future military be structured so that reserves would have to be called to active service in any significant conflict. This meant that politicians could not just commit the regular forces, the professionals, to a fight. Instead, they would have to call up at least some National Guard and the Reserve units to active duty to join in the war, an action that was avoided in the Vietnam War. Future wars would require the pressing into national service of married, career-oriented 35-year-old reservists as well as the recruitment of unmarried 18-year-old volunteers eager for foreign adventure. Wars would have to have and maintain public support in order for the reserves to be called.
The military also wanted to be given only missions with clear goals and explicit exit strategies. There was no desire to face again an involvement in decade-long wars that our national leaders could not decide whether to win or lose. Of course, ambiguity is part of international relations. Leaders often act to deal with immediate problems without wanting to reveal fully their plans or knowing fully where events will take them. Promises about quick, focused missions with happy outcomes are easier to make than to keep. Moreover, in our political system, civilians will always win the debates with the military about where and when force will be used. But we should keep in mind that our military is usually quite cautious about advocating the use of force internationally, knowing that it is more difficult to contain and terminate wars than to start them.
The concern for avoiding casualties so visible in recent American military deployments is the result of several factors. First, the United States has long husbanded its soldiers. The richer and more democratic it became the more intensive the nation's desire to substitute capital (technology) for labor (soldiers) in fighting wars. We are getting better and better at protecting our personnel. Note the development of precision guided and stand off weapons and the growing interest in unmanned aerial vehicles. Second, the reliance on volunteers and reservists makes finding replacements for casualties especially difficult. Think about the problems of recruiting volunteers or of reinstituting conscription as casualties mount. Third, most of our troop commitments over the last decade involved some type of humanitarian intervention, not the testing of vital national interests. When the mission is charitable it is hard to explain back home the resistance of locals or the orders that result in deaths of our soldiers.
The concern for casualties, however, extends beyond saving our soldiers. The American public expects the technologies that limit our casualties to be used in ways that also avoid injury or death among innocent civilians. It does not enhance the popularity of our use of force to be brutal and uncaring in its application. This belief now even extends to some extent to opposing soldiers, who are often described as unwilling victims of cruel leaders. Because of the public attitudes, body counts have disappeared as the military's reported measure of operational success. Instead the spokespeople talk only about the number of weapons and vehicles destroyed.
No one knows how this war will unfold. The enemy is elusive and is likely to hide amid a larger civilian population with which we have no quarrel. Wars have a way of increasing passions and dulling the senses. Much of the dynamics may depend on the actions of our opponents. With further attacks on our civilians and our national symbols, restraints may fall. But when we are sending the American military to fight a war, we should have a better understanding of the American military than some among us seem to possess. We should know our enemies and the many perfectly law-abiding groups that share our land, but we should also make the effort to know our protectors as well.
|
HomePage |
|
|
|
|