Teaching Guide for SAC

There are many reminders today of the deeply divided nature of American society, but these should be reminders, not news. The rift in our culture is an historic one. It has been a source of divisiveness but sometimes also of energy and of change. America is the most cosmopolitan of countries, founded on the ideas of the Enlightenment, open to foreign ideas and people as few others.  America is also a deeply provincial place, a country of towns and neighborhoods, of strong identification with region, religion, and race. The divide is neither merely north-south, nor urban-rural, nor upper and lower, although these distinctions are part of the picture. It isn’t simply a matter of bad provincialism versus good cosmopolitanism (nor the reverse). American provincialism is at the heart of much of our patriotism and community life, it fuels our egalitarian spirit, an American impatience with pretension and artificiality. It has a darker side, in the insularity, the anti-intellectualism, nativism and racism that are also part of our historical legacy. The cosmopolitan side is the spirit of founders like Jefferson and Franklin. It is the part of us that likes foreign food and travel, that values many cultures. Its less attractive aspects include elitism and arrogance, the “ugly American” presumption of knowing what is best for everyone, everywhere.

Some of our greatest leaders and moments in history have seen fusions of the two halves. Lincoln stands out, as do both presidents Roosevelt. Two very significant passages in American history show the ways in which the two strains interact, and they shed light on some of the history that we are living though today. World War I and World War II are both cases of America being thrust into the world stage in ways for which it was unprepared. The American reaction to these developments was very different, with consequences that have shaped the lives of Americans and others ever since.

World War I

America entered World War I with considerable reluctance. The fighting had gone on for nearly three years before America declared war, and it would be another year before American forces would see major combat. Active American involvement on the decisive western front lasted only about six months. U.S. divisions were fed into the fighting with heavy equipment that was mostly of foreign design and manufacture. They fought the same war as the allies, adopting the tactics that had been developed by the French and British. For the Americans, there were no great naval battles, no landings on hostile foreign shores, not even sweeping movements on land. It was a war of rivers, roads, and towns, not of continents and oceans. With the war over, the ailing U.S. president thought that the terrible example of the Great War clearly showed the need for international arbitration based on respect for human rights and self-determinism, for a League of Nations. No other inspirational leaders came forward to preach this message, and the American people would not agree. The war had not gone on for long enough, been global or inspiring enough to point out this lesson. Post-war pacifism had an influence on the desire to avoid foreign entanglements, but mostly the provincial America was not ready to join an international community.

World War II

World War II was a very different experience, and the post-war reaction at home was also very different. The war had begun in a spirit of national outrage. It had spread across the world. U.S. involvement had lasted for over three years. Great battles had been fought on land and sea, and in the air. New breeds of warriors had been born who jumped from the sky, crossed long distances to strike in the enemy homeland. Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave a sobering picture of what the future might be like. Perhaps most important, the war had brought visionary leaders into prominence. FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt, George C. Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower, all combined American provincialism and cosmopolitanism, but the experience of the war had been enough to convince them of the importance of America to the rest of the world, and of the importance of the world to America. In the end, this was a vision they shared with an American people chastened and instructed, a lesson in geography and in survival, by war.

A Leadership Challenge

We face a similar challenge today. The world has shrunk so that the oceans no longer guarantee protection, nor our enormous resources and productivity ensure prosperity. America was once is own chief and best trading partner. This can no longer be the case. Security it not a matter of oceans, nor even of military might, but of partnerships, knowledge and understanding. A seeming resurgence in American provincialism seems to have come at just the wrong time, when we need a reconsideration of the other, cosmopolitan strain of thought that has shaped our history.

Our greatest need and deficit may be in the area of leadership. As an older military veteran, I look to some or the younger vets of the past 15 years, men and women who have seen a world outside while most of their countrymen stayed home. Some are already in the congress or leading in their communities. Others, diplomats, aid workers, and journalists, have also sallied forth. Perhaps from some of them will come the vision that being an American can combine a sense of place and attachment with citizenship of the world.

For a couple of days this week, I attended the subject event in Washington as a member of VFAI.  The USGLC Summit was an impressive event attended by over 500 people. (About 150 of whom were veterans).  Speakers included serving members of congress from both parties, former cabinet secretaries and ambassadors, and Gen. Ray Odierno, former Army chief. On the second day of the Summit, we made scheduled visits to congressional offices.  The main issue under discussion was the cut in International Affairs spending proposed by the administration.  These cuts would drastically reduce funding for the State Department and USAID, and several programs that conduct international humanitarian relief and economic development would be practically eliminated.  As it is, the funding for International Affairs accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget.  International Affairs programs tend to be highly cost-effective. Our main message to Congress was that these programs help to keep America safe and prosperous by promoting stability and developing trading partners.  We talked to Republicans and Democrats.  One of the Republicans Senator Yoho arrived in Congress 4 years ago opposed to foreign aid but is now a convert and very active supporter.  It appears that opposition to this part of the budget has fairly broad support.

My own take on the issue is based on some personal experience and reflection.  In OIF1, we won a speedy military victory, but we quickly saw that victory unraveling. The absence of effective diplomatic and governance efforts made the military victory a mostly hollow one. Marines and soldiers performed prodigies of innovation in trying to rebuild Iraq, and eventually we built up a strong nation-building effort with other government agencies and NGOs, but these were too little, too late, and undone by early errors.  The amount of planning and resources we invested in creating the peace was paltry compared to the cost of the military effort. This neglect threw away a victory it had cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives to achieve. In a way this echoed our victories in Kuwait in 1991 and in Afghanistan in 2002.  Absent a robust “soft power” effort, the hard power victories devolved into hollow tactical triumphs.  There are lessons here for the military. We can’t be like the twentieth century German army, mistaking tactical and operational expertise for real war fighting ability.  The object in war is not narrow military victory, but a stable, just peace.  The armed forces have a role to play in this, but the other elements of national power have to be right behind us on the objective, like the WWII Military Government units that followed the combat forces across Europe.  The military is like the knight on the chessboard. Just one capital piece of several, and in fact the least consequential of the capital pieces.

Hard power + soft power = smart power.  We need more international outreach, not less. Aid evolves into trade.  Stable countries breed far fewer brigands and terrorists.  Gen. Odierno was eloquent on this subject.  Maybe Gen. Mattis said it best: If you cut State Dept., better plan to buy him more bullets, because he’s going to need them.

It was really hot in Washington this week, walking around in suit and tie, but it was worth every ounce of sweat I shed.  America needs to be a strong partner in the world.  As the Marines say, can I get an “Ooh-Rah” on that!?

Peace,

Reed

I just saw that Soldiers and Civilization made the Military Times Summer Reading Guide. Thanks to the Naval Institute Press Sales and Marketing Dept. for alerting me.  Made my day!