THE CHRONICAL REVIEW has a thoughtful article by Michael Nelson, "Warrior Nation". Many writers have decried the militaristic nature of the American republic, but Michael Nelson has some observations worthy of your attention in his commentary on Andrew J. Bacevich's new book, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War, Reasons to Kill: Why Americans Choose War by Richard E. Rubenstein, and political-science professor Peter Beinart's recent The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris. First, the roots run deep:even in colonial times, "there was either a declared war or a conflict for 79 of the 179 years from just before the founding of Jamestown until 1785, nominally the end of the Revolution."
Second, the end of the Draft and the removal of ROTC from most American colleges has caused a shift in the make-up of the officer core over time.
With the partial exception of Bacevich's Washington Rules, however, all of them neglect or underplay the importance of two critical Vietnam-era decisions: the replacement of the draft-based army with the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) and the roughly simultaneous expulsion of Reserve Officer Training Corps units from many elite campuses. Taken together, those decisions have made the nation's inclination to war and other military action greater than at any time in its already war-saturated history.
1 comment:
That's a really interesting thesis, the idea that abolishing conscription made war 'easier' for politicians to wage because the burden was no longer shared across society making it hard to severely protest unpopular wars.
Much hay is made about the superiority of volunteer professional militaries to conscript based versions which is fair enough. But what we're seeing, even in this country, is how politicians can use those professionals as mercenary forces for their pet causes...
This recalls discussion I've read on the emergence of professional, standing army and the states that go with them. In early modern war, militias were drawn up when there was a need to go to war and that was often in cases of defence or local conflict. The domestic Orbat was heavily dependent on layers of reservists. The Swiss and Swedes do that now. Israelis to an extent too...
I've thought in the past that I'd like to interview or survey policy makers for and soldiers from say the UK, Nederlands, US, Canada and compare them to interviews with Swiss, Swedish, and maybe the Japanese to compare attitudes about the role of the armed forces.
Post a Comment