I've had my disagreements with Shadi Hamid, but he sure is right about this.
« Flip-Flop | Main | Stop Rudy »
Hamid on Militarism
11 Oct 2007 04:13 pm
Comments (6)
Not that Hamid is wrong... although I agree with the first comment... but he's sort of missing the big point. For much of human history (including most of the years between Herodotus and World War II) nations spent much of their time and energy warring with their neighbors and competing with them to control and exploit territory.
Since World War II, there has increasingly been a trend toward international cooperation and trade. These post-nationalist interactions often fall well short of their own ideals, and come with their own set of problems and challenges, but we've generally been highly successful at avoiding major wars between two nations with democratic political systems and advanced economies. They've also brought tremendous prosperity.
And unfortunately, some people can't fucking handle peace and prosperity. It's BORING. They'd rather jerk off to Greek epics and WW2 footage, and pretend that Saddam Hussein is the next Hitler so they can vicariously enjoy some of the blood-pumping excitement experienced by their grandfathers who fought at Normandy or Iwo Jima. From a safe distance, of course.
Kaplan is romanticizing the greatest disasters and mistakes of the past 2500 years and viewing the peace, stability, and prosperity brought by international cooperation as weakness and decay, because they aren't as awesome as watching your countrymen die for their flag and watching other men die for theirs. Kaplan asks us to celebrate the very worst of humanity and sneer at the best of it. He's a sick son of a bitch.
Kaplan talks about honor and heroism. I say to hell with honor. There is no glory in occupying a country against the wishes of its inhabitants. The only act of heroism in an unnecessary war is to reduce the amount of death and destruction. The soldiers and marines in Iraq deserve our respect for their willing sacrifice and hard work. They do not deserve the "honor" of forcing them to continue a misguided mission, regardless of whether some of them would like to.
Since World War II, there has increasingly been a trend toward international cooperation and trade.
Feh. Half a century of a debatable trend against millennia worth of universal tendency, I know where my money is. How's the Pax Romana going?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that peace and prosperity are inevitable. Far from it.
I'm saying that the primary reason why international cooperation will break down in the long run is because of asshats like Robert Kaplan.
There is no problem "honoring warriors" or even the warrior lifestyle - IF the individuals you're honoring actually ARE "warriors".
Most SOLDIERS aren't. They're cannon fodder. And their leaders tend not to be warriors either, at least these days. Just because you're sent to a war doesn't make you a "warrior".
Being a warrior has to do with discipline and skill - and not just physical, but spiritual. A samurai was a warrior. Many native Americans were warriors. Maybe a SEAL Team member is a warrior - IF he gets the spiritual discipline warriorship entails - as some of Dick Marcinko's comments would imply.
General Petreaus is not a warrior.
Some idiot Marine yelling "Kill! Kill!" is not a warrior, whatever his skill level. He's a "jarhead robot", as the fellow in "The Abyss" termed them.
Your average sergeant in the US Army is not a warrior. He's a soldier - and in most militaries soldiers are not encouraged to have spiritual discipline and honor - they're trained to obey orders over and above discipline and honor.
Granted, the samurai were big on obeying orders - loyalty was a huge thing for them. But they were also bound by honor which was an even bigger thing. This led them to conflicts on occasion between honor and orders - to the point of ritual suicide. And some times, as the legend of the 47 Ronin shows, to unusual interpretations of what was required to show honor and loyalty - they feigned extreme loss of honor in order to demonstrate loyalty and thus regain honor.
And it has nothing to do with the basic determination of whether a military action is necessary or correct in any event.
Here's how "soldiers" work: fifty percent enemy killed, fifty percent civilians. That's Mixner's and Chris Ford's kind of numbers!
U.S. military: 19 insurgents and 15 civilians, including 9 children, killed in raid targeting al-Qaida in Iraq
The Associated Press
Published: October 11, 2007
BAGHDAD: U.S. troops backed by attack aircraft killed 19 suspected insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, in an operation Thursday targeting al-Qaida in Iraq leaders northwest of Baghdad, the military said.
An initial airstrike struck a "time-sensitive target," killing four insurgents in the Lake Tharthar area after intelligence reports indicated senior members of al-Qaida in Iraq were meeting there, according to a statement.
U.S. ground forces faced small-arms fire after launching a raid against a building after suspects fled the initial meeting location to an area south of the lake, the military said. Subsequent airstrikes were called in.
Ground forces secured the area and determined "15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed," a statement said. Two suspects, one woman and three children also were wounded and one suspected insurgent was detained, it added.
Comments closed October 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Shadi is misunderstanding and misusing the word "cynicism" in the place of "skepticism."
We had entirely too *much* cynicism (on both sides of the aisle) in the runup to Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Posted by The Confidence Man | October 11, 2007 4:27 PM