A Nation at War? Hardly.

Recently, Enigma4you contributed another fine article here at TAH. If you haven’t read it yet, you can read it here. It’s not terribly long – and it’s worth your time.

But I have to disagree with him on one key point.

In his article, he states, “We live in a nation that has been at war for 13 years.” Sorry, my friend – but from my perspective, that’s simply not true.

IMO, the US military has indeed been at war for the past 13 years. The nation? No – not really. IMO, as a nation we’ve been at war for maybe one year out of that period: late 2001-late 2002. The rest of the time has been pretty much nothing more than “business as usual” for America.

Maybe that sounds odd or wrong to you.  If so, hear me out – though I warn you that this article is a bit longish.

. . .

A nation is involved in a war when its military deploys. In contrast, a nation is at war when its population becomes intimately engaged in, and cares about, the conflict.

Think back a few years. After 9/11, the US indeed was a nation at war – from 11 Sep 2001 through some hard to identify date in 2002. We were committed; we’d been attacked, and we wanted payback. The US population supported going to war. It was as united as I’ve ever seen America during my lifetime – even more than during the immediate aftermath of the Persian Gulf War.

But that condition didn’t last. I’d put the break point during the summer-fall of 2002, after Anaconda and before the winter set in in earnest. Before then, the US public was involved. But some time that summer or fall (or maybe early winter), IMO the US public “tuned out”.

We were no longer a nation at war. The US military stayed engaged. But the US public didn’t.

. . .

Historically, this isn’t unprecedented. We have not been a nation at war during many conflicts during my lifetime. The Dominican Repuplic? No. Grenada? No. Panama? No. In each of these, the relatively small size and short duration of the conflict, plus the fact that it really didn’t affect the US public all that much, kept the public from mentally and physically “mobilizing for war”.

And for those conflicts that was apropos. In truth, they were smallish expeditionary operations.  They were not major wars and/or threats to national existence.

But there have been three other, larger conflicts during my lifetime: Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the current post-9/11 Global War on Terror (GWOT). And this last is IMO very different from the other two regarding the American public’s engagement..

For the other two, the US public seemed to care – and care a lot. For the GWOT, after 2002 I’m not sure in general they particularly did.  No, not everyone was apathetic.  But those who cared seemed to be mainly friends and family of those in the military. The US public as a whole? Um, IMO . . . not really.

. . .

The US was indeed a nation at war during Vietnam. Approximately 1.7% of the entire US population served in-theater during that conflict – approx 3.4 million out of an average population of around 202 millio, with nearly 2.6 million serving in-country in Vietnam proper. The vast majority of these individuals did so during a 6 -year period:  1965-1971. US demographics and the relatively short period of major US involvement meant that Vietnam veterans formed a big fraction of the US 18-25 year old population during that conflict. Though about 2/3 of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, the draft did ensure some degree of diversity. The end result was that pretty much everyone knew someone who’d served in Vietnam.

The Vietnam War also had an impact on the nation at home. Overall taxes increased substantially during the Vietnam War – as did inflation, interest rates, and prices. Due to the LBJ administration’s insistence on hiding the true cost (human and financial) of the war, it also touched off the inflation spiral that was to culminate in the “stagflation” of the Carter years. So the US public was not untouched by the war, even though the impact was not as severe as was seen during either Korea or World War II.

The public felt the economic impact personally. And they almost certainly knew someone who’d served there.

Vietnam was also a conflict about which the US population cared greatly – with some in favor and some violently opposed. Part of this was due to knowing people who were/had been there; ideology also played a role (on both sides). But regardless or why or point of view, the US public was engaged.

In short, during Vietnam the US was indeed a nation at war.

The Gulf War was in some respects similar – with some substantial differences. While a smaller portion of the population fought during the Gulf War, the widespread mobilization of Reserve Component units (not seen during Vietnam) meant that the US population was similarly exposed to the war’s human side.  The substantial pike in oil prices caused by Hussein’s pre-war invasion of Kuwait drove home to the US public the economic seriousness of the matter; to a limited extent, the US public shared a bit in the pain.

Further, the conflict was too short (and too overwhelmingly victorious) for much opposition to arise. So during the Gulf War, the US was also a nation at war – perhaps a lesser degree than during Vietnam, but on balance still thus.

The same was IMO true for roughly the first year of the current GWOT. Due to the 9/11 attacks, initially the US population was deeply engaged – more than at any time in my lifetime except perhaps during the height of the Vietnam war protests – and was also united. At that time, we were indeed a nation at war.

For a little while, anyway.

. . .

And then . . . we “won” in Afghanistan (summer/fall 2002). We’d routed the Taliban, and Afghanistan was now reasonably peaceful.

But unlike after the Gulf War, we didn’t come home immediately – because in reality, we hadn’t yet truly won a damn thing (though the public perceived we had). The Taliban and al Qaeda was hiding, not finished. But we didn’t apply the resources needed to finish the job.

Why? IMO, because we allowed ourselves to become distracted from the business at hand. We should have concentrated on completely destroying al Qaeda and its allies – as an example to the world of what happens when you screw with Uncle Sam. Instead, we immediately jumped into another war that was IMO a few years premature. I’m certain we’d have fought Hussein in Iraq eventually, but IMO 2003 simply wasn’t the correct time. We had other business we needed to finish first.  And we didn’t.

The Iraq conflict similarly didn’t seem to affect the US all that much, either. Oh, sure, everyone paid attention to the invasion, and cheered when Saddam’s statue fell. But that war too was over quickly – except it wasn’t really over yet, either, though the public believed it was.  We tried to do that one “one the cheap”, too.  It similarly blew up in our face.

When the Taliban started getting restive in 2003, and the same occurred in Iraq in 2004, the public just wasn’t ready for another war – or for a continuation of two that we’d already “won”, either.  Neither conflict was affecting them all that much, either.  So the US public started tuning out.

That “tune out” has IMO continued to this day. We haven’t been a nation at war since maybe late 2002. Rather, we’ve been a nation who’s military has been at war.

There is a difference.

. . .

Why? Part of the difference may be societal changes. The US public has never exactly been known for having a long attention span; barring a truly existential threat, it’s simply difficult to keep the public’s attention. They love the next “bright shiny object”.  And that tendency has accelerated over time as available distractions increase.

Don’t believe me? OK, then just watch the news channels for a few days and keep track of the top stories. No story stays “on top” for very long.  They come and go.

Next, go look at newspapers today and compare them with those of 40 years ago.  You’ll see the same thing.  All sound bites and fluff; precious little substance.

The American public gets bored quickly.  They want to be entertained; they don’t really seem to want to have to think.  And they’re willing to pay to be entertained.

A second factor is the fact that even though the GWOT is now the longest in our history, the GWOT has involved far fewer Americans than you might think. Between FY2002 and FY2012, the total “boots on the ground” strength in Afghanistan and Iraq totaled less than 1,425,000 (see Table 1 in this document). Assuming the total to date is now about 1,550,000 and allowing for 1/4 to 1/3 of that total to be repeat tours (more common today than during Vietnam), that likely means somewhere between 1 and 1.2 million individuals have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s at best barely 1/3 of 1% of the US population – over a time frame over twice as long as the 6 year peak involvement in Vietnam.

The fact that the US military is now largely all-volunteer – and smaller – also plays into this.  Not only are far fewer people serving, proportionally speaking; they tend to come from a somewhat narrower demographic today.  The result? Even after approaching 14 years of “war”, a much smaller fraction of the US population knows anyone who’s served in Afghanistan or Iraq – or in the military, for that matter.  Indeed, I’d guess much of the public doesn’t know anyone who’s been to Iraq or Afghanistan. And if they do know someone who’s served there, chances are it’s a passing acquaintance rather than someone they really care about.

So as a result . . . the public just lost interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. They went back to watching “American Idol”.

Sure, they knew there was fighting happening somewhere. Many even knew that we had troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it didn’t really concern them, they didn’t know anyone involved, and it didn’t seem to matter that much to their daily lives. So they tuned it out and ignored it.

After a while, those serving in-theater realized this too. Even in Iraq you heard it from time to time: “America’s military is at war.  America is at the mall.”

. . .

None of this detracts from the quality or heroism of the troops who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan – any more than the fact that the Vietnam War was unpopular lessened the heroism of the troops there. Sol diers do not choose the wars in which they fight; their political leaders do that. And our troops didn’t fight in Iraq and Afghanistan merely because they were ordered to do so, either.

Rather, they fought for their brothers-in-arms; they fought because it was their duty; they to protect their nation. And they did so magnificently – just as their older brothers/fathers did in Desert Storm, and as their fathers/uncles/grandfathers did in Vietnam.

Still: for pretty much everyone in America except the military, since 2002 by and large it’s been life as usual vice wartime. “American Idol” and the latest tweets from the Kardashians have been far more important that what’s been going on in Iraq and Afghanistan – to all but military family and friends, of course. Most Americans neither knew nor really cared what was happening in either place; hell, I’d guess half couldn’t find them on a world map. And I’d hazard a guess that many Americans still don’t know anyone who’s served there.

In a way, that’s preferable and as it should be – a “good thing”, even. It means our military has done its job, protecting our nation and way of life. I’d rather we fight on foreign soil rather than our own. It’s far, far better that war’s destruction and horrors be something on a TV screen vice being seen “up close and in person”.   9/11 showed us that all too clearly; I have no desire to see anything like that on US soil again.

Still, it would be nice if the rest of the nation would wake the hell up and realize that the world isn’t a nice, safe place. There are violent, evil bastards elsewhere who would slit our throats in a second without remorse. And wishing things were different . . . does absolutely nothing to make it so.

But it would also be nice if the US public realized sometimes that the world doesn’t revolve around McDonalds, American Idol, and the Kardashians.   And it would be nice if they occasionally realized that they can sleep peacefully at night – and have the leisure time, and the freedom, to be interested in American Idol and the Kardashians – only because of the efforts of those “rough men who stand ready to do violence on their behalf” about which Orwell spoke decades ago.

McDonalds and the mall are only safe because those evil bastards who wish us ill are not here today. And it’s not diplomacy – or goodwill, or the strains of Kumbaya sung around a campfire – that keeps it that way.

 

Category: Military issues, Terror War, Who knows