View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's May 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-War's May 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-War home page.
Many of the recent comments in response to my soap-box speech on proportionality in combat insist on using rather curious notions such as "destroy" and "crush" and "support with every possible (conventional) weapon..." Long before I picked up my first graduate level history book I picked up a Marine Corps rifle (5.56mm). I was amazed at what the Corps taught me to do with that weapon. From a distance far enough away that I could see only shape (quite a distance at that) I could put a small round through my intended target. No scope, no laser, just iron sights and training. Suddenly, at 18 years old, I discovered real power (not the mock stuff of "saving lives" about which MD's pontificate or the ephemeral nature of money), that of killing. But the Corps taught me more. Silly things like duty, honor, and commitment. They taught me that I do not abuse the weak, I protect them. They taught me to obey orders, but to know what a just order is. That if I have to fight them I do so with power and JUSTICE. This thread has unveiled an important debate in the nature of how Americans view combat...all excited and wrapped up in an arcade-game gore-fest of action and destruction. Or perhaps more like how we now view sports, it's no longer good enough to win - there has to be a high score (high body-count for you warriors out there). Surrender is not good enough, your enemy must be humiliated. The cry is "Total War or No Commitment!" However, I would remind all of our ardent H-Warriors that the U.S. has done far more duty at long-term "soft" tasks than it has at "total war." (Dr. Sandler is the first to come on this page and tell us about civil affairs) Indeed, with the exception of a few short years in the 1900s we are a nation with a military that spends most of its time dealing with proportional responses to small events. Only very recently have we become obsessed with the notion that soldiers MUST NOT die in the line of duty...that somehow a commander has failed if his men are hurt or if he does not "destroy the village" to save the troop. To all of my academic pals I will note that soldiers do die. You agree to put on a uniform for lots of reasons (GI Bill, extra cash, excitement, learn a skill,...) but you wear it with the notion that you must stand in harms way - any other notion, be it assumed or trained, is simply foolish. Mr. Bielakowski's notion that we failed our soldiers in Somalia (or that it was a disaster) is weak. We sent in our very best...Delta Force, Rangers, SF aviation, SEALS,... Each of these men was highly trained, well armed, had a good breakfast, shots up-to-date, and so on; but we are upset because the other team managed to beat the "superbowl champs!" The men who died in Somalia were not betrayed, they died doing their duty and doing it well. Do the readers of this page really think a tank battalion would have made a difference? Were the UN M-113's somehow made of wood instead of armor? Equally, to those who study military operations I must ask is it, in military terms, good economy of force to ship tanks to a humanitarian mission? What if the Somalians attacked the tank maintenance park? Should we move the support troops out to ships and only bring in the tanks when we need them? Is this a wise use of amphibious assets? The true betrayal to those brave men is that we abandoned the mission because American blood was shed. The greatest honor they could have would be a peaceful Somolia. It seems however that we, as a nation, are not brave enough for that. This brings me again to the point of this thread: this is a policy debate, not a soldier's debate. We owe our soldiers good weapons, plenty of food, fun when they are off duty, fair pay, snappy uniforms and such - but we do not owe them a guarantee of no harm. Like it or not, America is the big kid on the block and this nation has spent many cold-war years shining the bright light of democracy and justice in the faces of our foes. Now it is time for us to step up and take our turn in taking care of the mess we made. This is not a football game with a determined end. We can not solve international violence by pushing a button and sending deadly missiles at aspirin factories. We certainly can not solve it by staying at home. On the other hand, we can not afford (either budget wise or in terms of long-range national defense) to send a division of tanks to a place that needs a battalion of infantry. Sounds silly, but we must "bear any burden," we must put our young on the line and watch them do their duty. We must be just, democratic, and even-handed. Indeed, we must deploy the one weapon we do not seem to have in our arsenal, patience. Patrick R. Jennings
|