The United States has successfully led the nation through the post-war era. While being the economic powerhouse from post-1945 up to today, it instigated a military-industrial-academic complex which led to a culture of consumerism and a boom in technological capabilities. The post-war era became the Cold-War era and now, after the cusp of the millennium had been broken, we have ushered in the information age. Although the information age may evoke thoughts of super-smart defense technology, infinite-distant remotes or a pulling together of the world's population, there is still one fatal flaw in the policy and operation of the United States' military - the soldiers lack of a basic training in unconventional warfare tactics supported by the U.S. military's failure to fight and win unconventional wars against, at the most, semi-stable adversaries.
After World War II the military began to focus their tactical methods more on a "shock and awe" approach of invasion. This is the United States military's modus operandi and it is why the United States is such a force with which is not to be reckoned. These large scale, shock and awe-type strategies were used during both Iraq wars and during both World Wars. They were also used in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Post-Saddam Iraq. But the differences in modern warfare and the conventional warfare of the two world wars is simply in the fact that power is limited, but dispersed in a way that is difficult to be detected even through the best of methods. This shift in focus from an organized modern-warfare state to a dispersed, covert state has led to a unique demand. Prior to the World War I, the military operated predominately unconventionally. But after the Second World War the world was introduced to a stronger political state because of a push for the protection of individual rights and a focus on nuclear physics which fueled big science. The Cold War did not help much either, as a fearful nation's over-speculation about the enemy's power over the U.S. led to a drastic increase in weapon production and technological change focused on the ideological and military power of an established nation-state. The fact that many of the authors who write about world history define it through the Cold War only supports the fact that this focus on being more powerful than the enemy ruled the policy of the United States. More significantly, it was the focus of preparing for an attack by established nation-states with stable political systems and economies that, ironically enough, led to the most significant weakness of the U.S. military.
Because the United States saw the most powerful threat of the enemy as being an operation from afar, it established political, military and diplomatic strategies, still in place today, which were built on the enemy being a geographically-identified force. Politically it led to a greater focus on the rights of the individual. This idea that an individual had basic rights that could be protected, whether they are a dissenter or patriot, necessarily led to opening up the option to dissent without public backlash – whereas in the past there would be public and governmental backlash. And although not the proverbial glue that holds the ideology of nationalism together, there is an important role that barring one from the expression of their individual rights - whether or not freely chosen - plays in actively supporting their community, state and nation. The current lack of political unity only supports this.
The fact that the enemy has become a part of many states instead of one has demanded a set of resources which are more spread out. The Unites State's Ambassador is no exception. Now, instead of conversing with a representative of the body with which the US desires to relieve conflict, there is no open method of communication because there is no formal state or place to do so. Moreover, the fact that it is the policy to "not negotiate with terrorists" only exacerbates this problem. The foreign relations with the enemy is important, but none so important than our defense and the simple fact is that since the change in training after the first and second world war, we have become incapable of successfully waging an unconventional war where, in the end, we are declared the winners. This is supported many times over by failures in Vietnam and the dire troubles in achieving success in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So what's next? How does a military, seemingly untrained in unconventional warfare (except for a few special groups), go about making up for 65-years of vital training. There is no easy answer. But shifting the public's focus on the individual as a part of a team is a good start and is already in progress. There could be an increase in funding to Boy Scouts to increase interest in nature, although, this is questionable, given that current funding is in jeopardy due to their stance on homosexuality. There could be a propaganda effort geared toward the elementary and middle school-aged children to evoke a passion for the outdoors - although controversial, it is not unheard of, just think of how the lesson that "George Washington never told a lie" affected views on honesty, or how textbooks of elementary children are so patriotic, instilling a sense of nationalism. Whatever it is to be done, it needs to be done fast. And the issue should be addressed because it is apolitical. There is no need for major changes in defense spending because it is not the money that brings the problem into existence. It is simply the method that is used to train our military. But the only way that there can be a successful change is if those in charge admit that there is a gaping whole in the future defense system and there needs to be some sort of reform to combat such a terrible threat. Otherwise, this will become a war on our own soil which will obligate the citizenry to become involved and only lead to critical complications of domestic freedoms which play a crucial part in the solidarity of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment