Why War Must be Studied

A colleague recently pointed me to LGEN H. R. McMaster’s excellent Veterans Day speech at Georgetown University last month in which he argued that the scholarly study of war is central to the prevention of war. I've excerpted some of his most eloquent observations below, as they speak for themselves:

There is a tendency in the United States to confuse the study of war and warfare with militarism. Thinking clearly about the problem of war and warfare, however, is both an unfortunate necessity and the best way to prevent it. As the English theologian, writer, and philosopher G.K. Chesterton observed, “War is not the best way of settling differences, but it is the only way of preventing them being settled for you.” As George Washington, who addressed Georgetown students in August 1797 observed, “To be prepared for war is the most effectual means to promote peace.” One of the patterns of American military history is to be unprepared for war either because of wishful thinking or a failure to consider continuities in the nature of war—especially war’s political and human dimensions…

…It was during the divisive Vietnam War that many universities confused the study of war with advocacy of it and tended to view military forces and weapons as propagators of violence rather than protectors of peace. Some saw war as the cause rather than the result of international tensions and competitions…

…It was Aristotle who first said that it is only worth discussing what is in our power. So we might discuss how to prevent particular conflicts rather than eliminate all conflict, and when conflict is necessary, how to win. And in the pursuit of victory, how to preserve our values and make war less inhumane.

And we might discuss war to understand continuities its nature and changes in its character. It was a misinterpretation of the lopsided military victory in the 1991 Gulf war that gave rise to what would become the orthodoxy of the Revolution in Military Affairs, the belief that American military technological advantages would shift war fundamentally from the realm of uncertainty to the realm of certainty. The language was hubristic. The United States would use dominant battlespace knowledge to achieve full spectrum dominance over any opponent. The U.S. military would shock and awe opponents in the conduct of rapid decisive operations. War would be fast, cheap, and efficient. The thinking betrayed what Elting Morison warned against in 1967 when he wrote the following in Men, Machines, and Modern Times.

"What I want to suggest here is the persistent human temptation to make life more explicable by making it more calculable; to put experience into some logical scheme that by its order and niceness will make what happens seem more understandable, analysis more bearable, decision simpler…."

The orthodoxy of the Revolution in Military Affairs aimed to make war more explicable and calculable. This fundamentally flawed thinking about future war set us up for many of the difficulties we would encounter in the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So we should discuss war in places like this great university because we have much to learn and because the stakes are high.

LGEN McMaster’s other topic was on academia’s important roles providing bridges between a free society’s warriors and the citizens they serve. His focus was on society’s need to prevent further erosion of the warrior ethos due to the many forces and trends that have weakened the civil-military bond in America over the past half century. 

I want to pull the thread slightly, however, on an additional reason why the veteran’s presence in the classroom as a student or scholar is so vital. Regardless of whether a veteran saw combat or not, he or she was a witness at some level to the complexities and difficulties of military operations. His or her experiences can enlighten (or if necessary, counter) those who have never witnessed Clausewitzian fog and friction first-hand. He or she will often be best placed to appreciate how military theory, which Clausewitz asserted was nothing more than a tool for self-education, both informs and diverges from circumstance-based reality. The veteran’s service not only enriches his or her study of war, but also that of his or her peers.

McMaster thusly concludes:

Understanding war and warriors is necessary if societies and governments are to make sound judgments concerning military policy. It is our society’s expectations that allow our military to set expectations for ourselves and our fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. And in our democracy, if society is disconnected from an understanding of war or is unsympathetic to the warrior ethos, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain the fundamental requirements of military effectiveness and to recruit young men and women into military service.

I highly recommend the entire piece.

The Thin Lines of Respect and Pity

This topic is outside my lane, because I never make the assumption that I can somehow relate to Veterans of the military, particularly Veterans who have served in a war zone - and everything that goes with that. However, this email was also well written and reflects a particular point of view that I have heard from others. Food for thought from the Inbox:

One thing that concerns me... is that our military may become a charity case. It is a very volatile topic and can quickly offend everyone in the room.

The yellow ribbons during and after the Gulf War were the symbol of a country that was sorry for the way it treated its Vietnam Veterans. The love for the military has grown and grown. It is a great thing. I love that random people will go out of their way to come over to me in Subway while I am at lunch, say thank you for serving, smile, shake my hand and walk away. I never take it for granted. It is fantastic. It is something that previous generations were not lucky enough to enjoy.

What concerns me, and prompted me to write, is when the military is held up as a group that needs protecting. American support for the military has swung to the other end of the spectrum from Vietnam. Tonight I saw a commercial for the Wounded Warrior Project; a fantastic effort with a noble goal. However, what immediately elicted a gut response was the plea for support to "protect our Warriors" and that your "small monthy contribution can help our Warriors." My first thought was the Christian Children's Fund. Are our veterans the same as a starving child in Africa? Men and women trained to fight at the highest level of skill are now likened to defenseless children.

This bothers me because it is incredibly embarrassing that these men and women aren't getting the support then need. We, as a military, can provide for our own. Wounded Warrior did the right thing and stepped in to fill a need. The fact that the organization is even necessary, and I firmly believe that it is, is a black eye for America. If we were handling our own affairs, there would be no Wounded Warrior. That said, it is a fine line between support born of respect and support born of pity. The commercial I saw tonight made me pity our Warriors and not respect them. That was the message I took away.

I have been fortunate enough to not be injured. I have never had to face that personal hell and I thank God for that. I do not know how hard that road is. What I do know, is that not a single Warrior wants pity. They want respect, gratitude, and help when they need it from the country and people they sacrificed for.

I fear the trend's direction and dread the day that a man approaches me in Subway, puts his hand on my shoulder, and tells me, "Don't worry Son. You will be okay." and puts a $20 in my hand. That will be the first day I am ashamed to wear my uniform. If it gets to that point, and it quite possibly will, I would rather have someone spit on me. Isn't that ironic?

A few thoughts. First, there may also be a measure of knowing ones audience in regards to the Wounded Warrior Project. I have seen the same commercial being referred to, and I did not see it the same way. The appeal for assistance strikes to a motivation of charity, nationalism, and patriotism - and in that regard it targets civilians, not Veterans. Often a message can have different meaning depending upon the audience, and it is very possible that organizations that support Veterans can send mixed messages.

I think the bigger question is whether or not military Veterans are carrying a perception that might be described as a stigma after a decade of war. This is a tougher question, I think, and I'm not sure I know the answer. I do know that the current group of Veterans who have come back from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have had a harder time than the rest of America finding work in the private sector. Unemployment among veterans who have served since the 9/11 attacks stood at 12.1 percent in October of 2011, a rise from 11.7 percent in September 2011 and much higher than the national jobless rate last month of 9.0 percent. The only reason I know that though is because it is a political talking point of the President's job bill, which may or may not be how awareness for such issues should be disseminated.

It is an interesting topic, but I'm no authority. I am curious what others think.

"He's a Procurement Officer"

On models of civil-military interaction:

CJCS Admiral Thomas Moorer: The flow shifts back and forth. And it’s very difficult, almost impossible, to run that from Washington. And so far as the reports to you are concerned, let me tell you right now, that if I am directed to give the reports you will get them precisely when you ask. But I am not running this reporting business. And I am passing the information up to the Secretary of Defense and it’s being run from up there, but it’s—
President Richard Nixon: Right. I am directing you—
Moorer: If you want me to do it, I can do it—
Nixon: I am directing you, and if the Secretary of Defense raises the questions, I am directing you. I have to have them directly, and they must be unsanitized. And also when an order goes, it’s got to go from me. The Secretary of Defense is not Commander in Chief. The Secretary of Defense does not make decisions on these kinds of things—
Moorer: I understand that, Mr. President—
Nixon: He’s a procurement officer. That’s what he is and not another goddamn thing. And from now on this has got to be done this way. So under these circumstances we can go. Now, getting back to this thing, let’s see what kind of an excuse is being developed here.

Hat tip to Carl Prine. My initial thought regarding this snippet is that Nixon is acting entirely appropriately by exercising his authority, but that he's inviting some danger by undermining the authority of the Secretary of Defense. Of course, the relationship between SecDef, President, and CJCS was different before Goldwater-Nichols. Thoughts?