Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

September 17th, 2005

Tags

, ,

Comments

9 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Kaplan’s Blueprint for Action

An excerpt from the prologue of Imperial Grunts:

The only way to explore [the map for the War on Terrorism]… was on foot, or in a Humvee, with the troops themselves, for even as elites in New York and Washington debated imperialism in grand, historical terms, individual marines, soldiers, airmen, and sailors—all the cultural repositories of America’s unique experience with freedom—were interpreting policy on their own, on the ground, in dozens upon dozens of countries every week, oblivious to such faraway discussions.

Hell yeah. Kaplan’s critics come from across the political spectrum. Andrew Bacevich from the far left, Robert Kagan from the neo-con right, Thomas P. M. Barnett from the… well, from the PNM view. But Kaplan has no equal in seeing the world from the ground up. How many academics, even journalists, have been to the lawless frontiers across the globe? In his latest book, Kaplan heads to Yemen, Colombia, Mongolia, Iraq, and beyond, eating the same food as the troops and enduring the same living conditions (even if the man is 53 years old!). I’ve only just got started, but the book is delivering just what it promises.

Kaplan’s pessimism has toned down in the past few years, but he gives us one big warning: the Gap may be shrinking, but it is becoming far more dangerous. As he notes in Colombia:

For those who rarely ventured beyond the cocoon of the post-industrialized Western democracies, the world was liberalizing and becoming more convenient. But many parts of the planet had come more dangerous and out of reach.

How true. I have countless friends a generation older than me who took fantastic transcontinental journies when they were my age. A Japanese acquaintence now in his sixties rode his bike from India, through Pakistan, Iran, the Caucasus, Russia Proper, and into Europe in the late 1960s. My mother took a trip in the early 1970s the other way, going by bus from France to India—she went to discos in Tehran and Kabul! A French Canadian friend traveled from Quebec to the southern tip of Chile in the early 1980s. The trip took a year and he traveled through Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Today, you would want to stay away from all four of those countries.

While the developed world gets more connected through global commerce and travel, Kaplan is right: the anarchic frontiers are becoming more distant and deadly. How do you shrink the Gap? You need a new type of American warrior. And that is what Imperial Grunts is all about. Stay tuned for more excerpts.

Comments to this entry

J. Kende
September 17, 2005
7:07 am
"How do you shrink the Gap? You need a new type of American warrior."

A new type of American warrior is right. It's going to take more than that though. As Kaplan touches on many times later in the book, the home front and the aristocracy mentality in key upper positions of the old military can doom the delicate work at the frontier. As he also shows when glancing at the moves by China and others, spreading presense and favorable conditions on the ground can be done in ways other than through top-notch small military teams. Education and the war of ideas at home, commerce and demographics at the frontiers, all fall far short of the amazing work American SF are doing around the world. What do you think it will take for that to change? What do you think it will take for America and Americans at home to more closely resemble the always-on strength, courage, intelligence, modesty, and determination of those profiled by Kaplan in Imperial Grunts?
J. Kende
September 17, 2005
7:09 am
I should have included at the end: How do we shrink the Gap at home?
mark safranski
September 17, 2005
7:19 am
" Kaplan's pessimism has toned down in the past few years, but he gives us one big warning: the Gap may be shrinking, but it is becoming far more dangerous"

Actually, being almost finished with BFA, I'd say that Dr. Barnett would agree with that phenomenon.
Eddie
September 17, 2005
1:07 pm
I have no idea how Rumsfeld's massive changes and reforms of DOD will impact the overall military, but I think that within 5-7 years, the rest of the government (and the state/local governments as well) could be looking at the US's first 21st Century, CORE/GAP relevant organization. There are many good things that the rest of the country could take from the military (especially integrated logistics/planning/training/information dissemination) already, and I think the recent problems we've seen with civilian responses to Katrina, blackouts and security issues could be significantly alleviated by applying lessons from the military, especially the SF.

Most of all, the whole country from the smallest town to the most populous state needs to breathe deeply and finally get it through its thick skull that interdependence is the new reality, not an option. Until then, the rest of the gov't and the country will only fall further behind the SF's stellar example.
nadezhda
September 17, 2005
7:24 pm
Not to be picky, but since you keep pointing to Andrew Bachevich as a leading Kaplan critic. Bachevich is a proud conservative of the anti-imperial realist stripe. He'd be quite amused that you place him on the left. Certainly, he appears in left-leaning publications, but he also writes for conservative magazines and academic journals of various hues. Also, although he was professional military before he became a professor, his training was as a diplomatic not a military historian. His commentary on the military has been primarily in the context of the intersection of domestic politics, national security/foreign policy bureaucracies, political economy and grand strategy.
maskull
September 19, 2005
6:45 pm
The New Army. No draft. They did succeed in weeding out the druggies, but have ended up with soldiers that represent a different class than much of the population. Hence the problems in New Orleans after Katrina.

In years gone by, we would never have seen the likes of Charmaine Neville covering for those who fired on Army helicopters. In the interview she sounded as though she'd been coached by an attorney, worried of what she might encounter in front of a potential grand jury.
IJ
September 24, 2005
1:33 pm
Military action can be very costly. Concentrating only on the financial burden for taxpayers, the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution decided to get together. The "report":http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1188 includes:

"Government policies are routinely subjected to rigorous cost analysis. Yet one of today's most controversial and expensive policies - the ongoing war in Iraq - has not been. . . We estimate . . .costs through 2015 could be $604 billion to the US, $95 billion to coalition partners, and $306 billion to Iraq, suggesting a global total . . . of about $1 trillion."
J.Kende
September 24, 2005
6:48 pm
Yet, the American GDP will grow by trillions of $ over the next few years at current growth rates.

If non military spending is brought under even a semblance of discipline post-katrina and otherwise, it really isn't all that hard to see continued economic growth hand in hand with continued high expenditures on international security. The SF model though is not only a lighter footprint than waiting for failed states to demand all out war, it is also far cheaper. As with many things, a healthy expenditure on prevention is much less expensive than mopping up the mess after years of negligence.

On Iraq, one positive to the high price of oil is a large increase in the amount of money going towards reconstruction there. Pre-war they were expecting to be exporting more oil than they have turned out to be able to post-war. But with the price of oil 3 times what they expected it to be, the money flow will be one of the biggest shapers of events in the post constitution-writing, post basic government-forming period. The real concern over the longer view is the entrenched culture of corruption after decades of Ba'athist rule, not the insurgency. If reliable civil institutions can take strong root, the cost of this first step to a transformation of the middle east may begin to look like a bargain.

What I would like to hear from those who are so loudly critical of short term expenditures on military operations and post-disaster reconstruction efforts, is a full recognition that our budget problems are structural, not circumstantial. If you are serious and sincere about fiscal sanity, advocate Gingrich style Medicare/Medicaid reform, Social Security reform including personal retirement accounts, the end of farm subsidies, etc. Sure we can find many ways in which our military could use it's funding better, but if we are going to get into fiscal policy let's start with areas of the federal budget where hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved without shortchanging national and international security -- simply by changing the old New Deal into a much better deal.
IJ
September 24, 2005
9:01 pm
The decision to publish the report suggests that even the key funders are seriously unconvinced that the military action was a good idea. The report ends: "Hopefully policy makers and others that have better data than we have can refine our approach and assess whether the benefits justify the costs."

This sounds like a challenge.