Comments on: Kaplan is in The American Interest

By: John

John — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:49:24 +0000

As a person who has experienced that pre-combat rush and then gone on to experience combat itself, I can report (anecdotally) that the titilation wears off pretty fast. It is soon replaced with the long periods of boredom inherent in any soldier’s experience, occasionally punctuated with the unremitting horror of combat itself.

It is true that some folks ‘get off on it’, but most don’t and it changes them forever in ways they’d rather not be changed. Ask any combat * veteran.

For most people it’s safe to say, “You wouldn’t like it.” Let’s not sugarcoat it any more than it already is.

*Someone who’s shot someone or been shot at in combat.

By: IJ

IJ — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:12:30 +0000

Thanks for the comments. Talking of good soldiers, a former US Secretary of State is in the news today.

Foreign policy is not an objective matter.

By: theCardinal

theCardinal — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:03:01 +0000

IJ – I look forward to Imperial Grunts because it seems to be the flip sided of Bacevich’s New American Militarism (NAM). While NAM makes some very interesting points Bacevich comes across as a modern day Smedley Butler – a good soldier embittered by his experiences. Bacevich’s fix for the NAM that he so fears borders on isolationist.

By: Mutantfrog

Mutantfrog — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:25:34 +0000

Our Posthuman Future is the one I was talking about. It wasn’t exactly bad, but it was totally recycled and unoriginal.

Wired ‘gee whiz’ style can be a little tiresome after a while, but I’ll still say that they printed every idea in that book before Fukuyama did.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:53:22 +0000

Some of Fukuyama’s books were lame. Our Posthuman Future and the End of History were great.

I never liked Wired.

By: Mutantfrog

Mutantfrog — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:43:45 +0000

What’s so great about Francis Fukuyama? I read that really lame book he wrote where he tries to predict the future, and it was devoid of a single original thought. Noone who has even a passing familiarity with back issues of Wired magazine or the past 10 years of science fiction writing would have seen anything new.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:31:42 +0000

IJ: But it also reveals a difference between the soldiers of the Vietnam Era and today, which Kaplan frequently mentions in his writings on the military and which I’m sure will be a major theme in his new book. Today’s generals and policymakers grew up on Vietnam and are wary of every move they make — the boots on the ground are chomping at the bit to see combat, kill bad guys, and make a difference.

I would guess that Bacevich got into the military to fight, but was probably traumatized by the horribly mismanaged, decade-long war with no end game called the Vietnam War.

By: IJ

IJ — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:03:21 +0000

“Wanting to fight is an ordinary emotion for those who choose combat arms as a profession.”

The Cardinal’s website has a review of ‘The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War’. The author, Andrew J. Bacevich, is a “Vietnam veteran, professional soldier and West Point graduate”.

A link there to an interview with Bacevich contains the exchange:

Questioner: You summarize the relationship between the public and the military with the phrase, “We admire you. Now go away.” This seems to describe a militarism that is rather hollow such that “supporting the troops” is some part of national piety, but nothing else. How would you further describe the relationship between the public and the armed services?
AB:It’s a phony respect. We proclaim our support for the troops as long as doing so comes without cost.

The attitude that comes across is more Barnett than Kaplan.

By: theCardinal

theCardinal — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:32:45 +0000

I subscribed last month but have yet to recieve the premiere issue. I don’t see why it can’t be a first rate journal. The editor had the same job at National Interest and his predecessor at NI is also on the AI board. Actually if you look at the AI masthead you will note that it is almost name for name the masthead of NI less than a year ago. So if you liked the National Interest you’ll probably like American Interest – I hope.

By the way Curzon I tried to tip you off in my comments to your previous post on Kaplan that he had a piece in AI…what took you so long?

Great site by the way, thanks for letting me know about it.

By: phil

phil — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:04:28 +0000

I’ve just been browsing their website where you can see the initial table of contents and read their statement of purpose. But they also have a blog:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/contd/

By: Eddie

Eddie — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:08:07 +0000

I’d love to read the full article, and actually curious in the magazine itself…Has anyone actually read this magazine? Is it worth the subscription (i.e. on par with good mags like Foreign Policy/Foreign Affairs/Atlantic Monthly/Economist)? I’m always interested in new reading, especially when deployed and internet access is limited.