In my previous post on Afghanistan, I noted that the Afghan National Army never developed a logistics capacity and depended on U.S. and NATO forces for transport and supply. I probably should have made more of that. Professor Black quotes a tweet by Jon Walker that makes the point. The Afghan army was designed to be incapable of functioning on its own. The obvious question is why?
As Atrios does ask: "The best you can say about TWENTY DAMN YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN is that the military succeeded very well in achieving their goal of making Afghanistan dependent on their presence, and running to journalists every time that presence was threatened by politicians. . . . I don't know why, precisely, "the military" was so desperate to stay in Afghanistan, but I suspect the answer to that is not so good."
I can answer that. The military needs to be doing something to justify its enormously bloated budget, and provide jobs for officers.
8 comments:
While I’m sure that the military wanted to stay in Afghanistan partly to justify its bloated budget, I just wanted to add, as a former musician, that I have many friends who play in military bands, such as the US Army Field Band, the Fife and Drum Corps, the various Marine bands and others. Half of the current roster in the trumpet section of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra are veterans of the “Presidents’ Own” Marine band. And of course, as with any other branch of the military, a minority of musicians in US military bands are not heterosexual. This is a positive for inclusion in the Armed Forces. Many are members of other minorities, such as ethnic groups. Also a good thing.
Because we do not have a continuing tradition of a growing number of orchestras, bands and other musical ensembles, these musicians would not have gigs if it weren’t for the US military. In the mid-20th century, cities like Chicago and New York had numerous orchestras in addition to the local symphonies or philharmonics, because every radio and TV station had to have its own house orchestra. Moreover, jazz bands and swing bands were on the road till the 50s before they begin dwindling in number. I do not mean to justify a large military budget so that more musicians can be employed. However, this is a country whose inception is based in violence, which is why we still carry on the ridiculous tradition of calling our military cabinet position the department of “defense,” when in fact it is, and has been for a long time, a department of offensive military action, in both senses of the word. Therefore, part of this large military tradition is employing musicians, many of them later go on to become members of non-military performing groups.
As far as I’m concerned, the only thing left standing after a civilization falls is its art. And, of course, vestiges of cultural and jurisprudence traditions, along with influences on language, science and mathematics. It seems to me that we need to scale down our military budget by reducing deployments, ceasing unilateral interventions in the affairs of other countries, and disarmament. That doesn’t mean we have to reduce the cultural contributions of our military. If we institute a year of national service for high school-aged students, the military would be one area in which they could spend their year of contribution, and there’s no reason why this year could not be spent contributing musically,
for instance.
I am also in favor of the nations of the world combining their armies into a single force which can be sent into problem areas where tyrants or groups, such as the Taliban, are attempting to seize control of parts of a country or the entire country itself. So we could still have our military tradition, but it would be part of a global force. And as for the year of national service to help young people learn responsibility and interconnectedness, their contributions could be in the arts, medicine, sanitation, education, commerce, or other areas, including numerous opportunities to do volunteer work in both urban and rural areas.
John Coltrane played in an army band. However, I think there are better ways of supporting the arts than spending $800 billion that mostly goes to guns and bombs.
Agreed. Let's make the military less militaristic, and make all the armed forces of the world part of an international, cooperative force used to prevent despotism and military aggression.
Passing on another theory that has been proposed several times:
Wars are a great way to keep the people in line and to discourage dissent. WW II demonstrated this to the people who run things. Since then we've always found an Enemy.
First it was Soviet Union, but we called it "Communism". Actually, after being invaded, fighting for their lives, and losing 60+ times as many people as the US did, Russia had no stomach for another war; they understood the costs.
When the Soviet Union melted away we were in a pickle. No Enemy. 9/11 was manna from heaven! Our new Enemy was "Terrorism"! I never saw the term officially defined. It remained an abstraction that could be called upon whenever needed.
It was first trundled out to justify an oil-man's wet dream - Iraqi oil. That little adventure didn't turn out too well, just as every person who understood the region predicted, so the fall-back strategy became to camp out in Afghanistan. As if any part of that country could ever become a threat to us.
Now that Biden has pulled the plug on that fiasco we're left without an Enemy. In a sane world we'd finally admit that the actual enemy is climate change, but I don't think our military will be able to monetize that, so the hunt is on for our next Enemy. I'm looking for the Republicans to find one and make it their big issue in the next election.
That theory works well for the origin of the Afghanistan operation but doesn't really explain why it continued so long, it seems to me. Americans quickly lost interest in Afghanistan, in fact they wanted it out, so it lost any rally 'round the flag effect pretty early on.
It seems to me that the majority of the United States population doesn’t know — or care — WHAT the fuck their government does, as long as it doesn’t affect them personally. This applies to wars, medicine, religion, even guns. Many people are busy scurrying from one job to another, with some people holding up to four jobs at a time in order to pay the bills. Some are wealthy and completely out of touch with the needs of the planet and the 99%. There is tremendous ignorance and apathy in the United States. It seems like, to a greater and greater extent, the government is just left to do whatever the hell it wants, without comment from most people except for extremists and the minority who are genuinely concerned for the fate of our country and planet. Most of the fighting seems to be between passionately corrupt Republicans and those Democrats who still have a pulse. And then there is a small minority of politicians, generally Democrats, who are awake and remain committed to the causes of democracy and sustainability. Terrible things have happened in the world because people allowed their passions to be roused by demagogues and Tartuffes. And great things have happened because people let themselves be roused by champions of justice. The problem seems to be sustaining that passion and vigilance for healthy causes.
Don, I think you're onto something when you talk about folks who ignore institutions unless they directly affect them. There's a book that convincingly (to me, at least) explains the core that motivates most Trump followers:
The securitarian personality : what really motivates Trump's base and why it matters for the post-Trump era
Hibbing, John R. ISBN: 9780190096489
Its sort of a cultural anthropological study of these people that treats them sympathetically even though the author openly admits that he doesn't agree with them. Its an interesting read, and the author marshals facts from a variety of sources to back his claims up.
My humble summary:
These are people who have made a life for themselves within the system with which they are happy/content. But they are terrified of any changes that might disrupt their cozy niches. Fragile Hobbits. For example, the prospect of an unwashed horde pouring into our country feels like an existential threat to the established order, and hence them.
Hibbing suggests that this might be a core personality dimension, say 'security'/'adventure'. (Think introvert/extrovert.) This clarifies some apparent anomalies about them. Many are intelligent, educated, successful socially, and yet they still buy into Trump's rhetoric. It also explains why many of the left's best arguments are ineffective; they don't address the underlying dynamic.
Your concise summary of Hibbing’s book rings true for me, because I’ve worked with these types of persons. Indeed, some of them are college educated, trained in the fields in which they work, and I’ve made the mistake in the past of assuming that competence in one area of a person’s life implies capability in another. In particular, I remember very well, even though it was over a dozen years ago, the hard-bitten broker at the commercial real state agency where I worked. She was really good at her job. We were standing outside, and she was having a smoke on her break. A military jet from a nearby base sword overhead, and she said to me, “You know what that sounds like to me? Freedom.” In other words, her sense of security overrode all other considerations in her political thinking. Forget the fact that our military jets bring pain, death and anguish to others in foreign lands. Forget that members of our local police forces bring pain, death and anguish to Americans with brown skin. The concern for her own personal safety trumps everything else, so to speak.
Therefore, possibly the only way to reach such people is through the key to the lock on their minds: Their concern for their own security.
Post a Comment