previous post next post  

IPB Hash: What Have We Learned?

By Kat on April 17, 2008 | | Comments (10)

[Kat]

Since I'm home sick, I have time to read and write about some subjects here. Ry linked to an article called "What Have We Learned?"

At first, I was kind of going along with the guy about not learning important lessons from history and that, yes, globalization has a way of turning shared experiences on their heads as well as bringing out all sorts of crackpots and petty grievances that can effect a nation state. People are no longer solely dependent on a national history or identity, but can choose from many different ideas and data points. We know this because this is exactly how terrorists recruit around the world from people who, normally, should have no complaints about their lives.

He points out that Americans (USA) may have not learned important lessons like our European friends because, unlike them, we have never really experienced war directly and totally as a nation. For instance, Europeans, Chinese, Russians, etc have all lost not only millions of soldiers, but millions of citizens that have necessarily changed their point of view about war. You could almost agree with him accept that, instead of making us more willing to tromp around and start huge global wars like our European and Asian friends in history, we have become very select in what actions we will take about what.

More so, we have become casualty averse. I believe that we can certainly chock that up to our experiences in war, losing large quantities of men, money and materials while staving off the worse of the European causes. Including, I might add, the Viet Nam war which he points to without ever mentioning that it is post-colonial France that leads to that war. It is not a stand alone war we chose to entertain without cause or reason.

[continued in flash traffic]

Yet, I find the authors somewhat wistful praise of the Euro/Asian model of "pacifism" ridiculous and, frankly, disingenuous because, as modern history has shown, the Europeans, Russians and Chinese are not adverse to war, they are just more adverse to risking their own military or their political prestige at home with their own casualties. To that effect, they have used small wars, proxy wars and various other support of violent movements to obtain their political means with little military expense to themselves.

The French in Rwanda and the Ivory Coast, the Chinese in Sudan, the Russians (name a place they are not) giving nuclear capabilities to Iran or selling unknown quantities of arms around the world. I do not find the European model something to aspire to or somehow containing a better memory, thus aversion to war. All I see they have learned is how to avoid risking their own population and military. Period.

He wrote:

As a consequence, the United States today is the only advanced democracy where public figures glorify and exalt the military, a sentiment familiar in Europe before 1945 but quite unknown today.

Really? That's why Buckingham Palace has the trooping of the guard and the French have their regular air shows? Or, even the French who will more boldly claim that they would use nuclear weapons directly against a particular nation than any President of the United States would so boldly claim?


Politicians in the US surround themselves with the symbols and trappings of armed prowess; even in 2008 American commentators excoriate allies that hesitate to engage in armed conflict. I believe it is this contrasting recollection of war and its impact, rather than any structural difference between the US and otherwise comparable countries, which accounts for their dissimilar responses to international challenges today.

I address that above. I am not so sure I find any such behavior where proxy wars and arms sales become the predominant act of Euopeans and Asians to avoid risking their own populations, but providing for the death of hundreds of thousands or even millions of some other nation while not getting their hands dirty. This is elitism at its worst, not its best. And, while we have certainly participated in such actions, it certainly does not prove any superiority of these other nations that they have avoided participating in conflict while pushing proxy wars.

Indeed, the complacent neoconservative claim that war and conflict are things Americans understand—in contrast to naive Europeans with their pacifistic fantasies —seems to me exactly wrong: it is Europeans (along with Asians and Africans) who understand war all too well. Most Americans have been fortunate enough to live in blissful ignorance of its true significance.

And then he blows it all away claiming that it is "neoconservatives", the great bogeyman of the modern American politics, that claim that war and conflict are things that Americans understand. Sorry, in fact, the two men who most embodied those statements are long gone and dead. Theodore Roosevelt and Patton made those claims long before the advent of the neo-conservatives.

I would also add, as I am reading the book now, John Adams who notes that the United States was born in war and, as freedom and democracy are an anathema to much of the world, then as now, that war is likely the long term effect for any who seek those two paramount desires.

Empires may be dead and the writer may look longingly upon Europe for his models, but it does not necessarily mean that European nations or any others have ended their obsession with shaping the world, even through military means. They have simply pushed it below the radar so that they can pretend to some detachment from it and its outcomes.

Share This Article:

Categories:

10 Comments

By fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 1:03 PM
American liberal fantasies of European sophistication, diplomatic prowess, and pacifistic maturity. What rubbish. The truth is more "Steynian": Europeans were able to call on the United States to save them from their self-created horrors in WW1 and WW2. We rebuilt their infrastructure with the Marshall Plan, and then we stayed and provided the defensive umbrella that safeguarded them during the Cold War from the Communists who American liberals also wanted to emulate. During the 2 world wars, entire generations were lost, leaving "old" Europe with nothing more than immature and inexperienced adolescents running their societies, free to spend their own money creating socialistic Utopian and pacifistic Fantasylands while Uncle Sam paid for the security from the Soviet Bear. Their present focus on "pacifism" is a result not of their alleged "sophistication", "maturity", or diplomatic "prowess", but rather their current inability to defend themselves militarily as a result of their almost complete reliance on the United States for the past 60-odd years. Quite frankly, I don't think we need to be lectured by American liberals on the "superiority" of those who created 2 world wars, the horrors of the Holocaust, the atrocities of Serbia / Bosnia / Kosovo, and the present disintegration of their cultures and civil rights by unassimilated Muslim immigrants.
 
By fdcol63 on April 17, 2008 1:05 PM
"Most Americans have been fortunate enough to live in blissful ignorance of its true significance." I pray that we keep this so, by fighting the wars they help create on THEIR land, not our own.
 
By Casey Tompkins on April 17, 2008 10:56 PM
I would say also that the United States has always been far more democratic than any of the European powers, hence our populace is more sensitive to large numbers of casualties, although the Civil War demonstrated that Americans can and will accept those losses if convinced of the necessity. As for "not understanding war" at that level, I have to say anyone who holds to that view has never met anyone reared south of the Mason-Dixon line. Several well-known WW2 flag officers had fathers who fought in that war, so the cultural memory is not that remote. But since we are a democracy, the electors tend to expect unambiguous and speedy results. I cite the "three year rule" in evidence. While it is frequently quoted with tongue in cheek, in most of our wars the American citizen has become markedly impatient after three years of war. I don't doubt that is one of the primary motivators of recent pessimism with respect to the Iraq war. Kat's Flash Traffic extension is very much to the point. The only observation I would make is that Europe entered the Great War in a gay and feckless manner (the last real war having occurred a century before), and the Second World War just reinforced the learned trauma, after having completely pooch-screwed the first war. In short, most of Europe forgot the meaning of true victory. Considering that the Soviet Union took over nearly literally half of Europe after the war, it's not surprising that the locals acquired a sour view of war. I think it's also telling that most of our current most-reliable allies in Europe are former Warsaw Pact members. They remember what it's like to truly be oppressed, as opposed to Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon oppressed.
 
By DEAN BERRY on April 18, 2008 12:49 AM
[Sorry. Your comment has been deleted by the neo-con, Jewish Kabal. Feel my power.] [Ah, the estimable Mr. Dingleberry. Again stealing bandwidth for his off-topic diatribes, he makes his quarterly visit. For all the blogs he visits to dump his junk upon, he has a grand total of 3,418 visits when I checked. Clearly, his message resonates with the masses, and his marketing skillz are legendary!]
 
By kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 12:51 AM
I would make is that Europe entered the Great War in a gay and feckless manner (the last real war having occurred a century before), and the Second World War just reinforced the learned trauma, after having completely pooch-screwed the first war.
Mmm..yes, though we eventually did enter WWI to some great "hurrahs", we also did so with some serious debate and previous demand to stay out of it. SAme with WWII. We don't exactly run into war these days with some sort of "gay and feckless" joy of sending the troops off. Nor bringing them back for that matter.
 
By fdcol63 on April 18, 2008 7:23 AM
... I would make is that Europe entered the Great War in a gay and feckless manner (the last real war having occurred a century before) ...
Not to be pedantic, but I'm a little confused by this. Which "last real war" a century before are you talking about? This sounds like you're saying Europe hadn't seen a real war since the Napoleonic Wars, but my reading of history is much different: 1859: Franco-Austrian War (or Austro-Sardinian War) 1866: Austro-Prussian War 1870-1871: Franco-Prussian War 1912-1913: Balkan Wars Not to mention others on the fringes, like the Crimean War, Greek War of Independence, or all their colonial wars.
 
By kat-missouri on April 18, 2008 8:11 AM
Maybe he would have been better to say "great war", with millions killed? Maybe, more succinctly, it would be the last war where the gallants rode off on chargers.
 
By Fishmugger on April 18, 2008 8:44 AM
No wars in Asia, Africa and Europe because millions haven't died??? They didn't need to invade their neighbors, they were quite busy internally. How many Chinese died since Mao took over in 1949? How many Africans died since 1960?? Biafra, Congo, Angola, Algeria (France), Chad, Ruwanda, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Liberia and other places I have trouble spelling. Then there is the old Soviet Union. Not counting the millions of people that didn't die all over the world because of them; how many died internally? According to how one classifies a war and in a discussion with my daughter; I tried to add up all the places in the world where people are killing people...I stopped at 30. Over 20 had something to do with religion...OK Muslims. Yup...no wars here.
 
By Casey Tompkins on April 18, 2008 1:53 PM
Sorry, fdcol63, you are correct; I should have been more specific. Yes, I was referring to the Napoleonic wars. Armies numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and occasionally topped the million mark if counting both sides. Casualties numbered in the hundreds of thousands. For example, the Grande Armee entered Russia with 650,000 men, but escaped with only 40,000. By those metrics, the above wars hardly count. True, the troop counts were not inconsequential, but all of the first three mentioned were of short duration and limited damage. The Franco-Austrian war lasted about 2 1/2 months (April 29 - July 11 1859), the Austro-Prussian is also known as the Seven Weeks War, and the Franco-Prussian war only 10 months. In fact, the latter war (begun July 19, 1870) was in effect over after the Battle of Sedan (September 2, 1870) so that part of the war which actually decided anything was over in 6 weeks. The Prussians lost c. 28,000 dead out of c. 128,000 casualties for the entire 10 months. The bloodiest battle was Gravelotte, where the Prussians lost 4,500 dead and 15,000 wounded, out of 146,000 men. By comparison, Meade lost 23,000 out of 82,000 at Gettysburg. So, while the 1870 was was not inconsequential, there was arguably not much immediate impact for most Europeans. I would say that the French remember the suppression of the Commune in 1871 far more vividly than their combat losses to the Prussians. I must conclude that none of these wars made much of an impression on the general populace, with the exception of France, wherein a deep thirst for revenge (or revanche) against Germany was introduced. It never seemed to occur to the froggies that they might be beaten again. I would even so far as to say that most Frenchmen were quite eager to kick Prussian buttocks in 1914. Finally: yes, the military leaders, at least, should have paid attention to the results of the Balkan wars; but hey, it's the Balkans, right? Who cares what happens to those losers? {/snerk} Seriously, I can't think of a single military leader in the West who paid any attention to those wars, much less took away any lessons, especially in the use of machine guns. Bottom line: none of those wars introduced any sort of serious comprehension of what real war was like in the hearts of Europeans, which made the shock of reality even worse when it did hit. Some historians, such as H. Stuart Hughes would say that the first world war had a far greater emotional impact on Europeans than the second, even though the latter caused far more widespread death and destruction.
 
By fdcol63 on April 18, 2008 3:10 PM
Casey, Thank you for the history lesson! If you want to discount all these small European wars as relatively "inconsequential" compared to the Napoleonic Wars, and immaterial to the larger point that I was making about European belligerancy as opposed to the modern American liberal fantasy of pacifism, that's certainly your prerogative. However, I would offer the following as substantiation of my belief that you're wrong in this belief. There may be better, more authoritative examples elsewhere, but I think the chart at the following link highlights the major impacts that all of these smaller wars had on the alliance structures created by European nations between 1879-1914, and how they helped fuel the "consequential" horror that became WW1: http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/causes.htm Contrary to your view, I think it's clear that all of those smaller wars were serious enough to compel European nations to form these alliances in an attempt to protect themselves from future such wars. But as is often the case, Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences prevailed. Instead of just another of the smaller wars ensuing, these alliance structures ultimately created the conditions that led to the continent-wide campaign that killed millions.