On Christmas Eve the LA Times published an article by Mr. Kaplan entitled The future of America—In Iraq. The article has some down-home romanticization that Kaplan has been accused of partaking in in Imperial Grunts. For example there is an NCO’s Thanksgiving speech, which we are told was received by a cheering crowd:
The Pilgrims during the first winter in the New World suffered a 54% casualty rate from disease and cold. That’s a casualty rate that would render any of our units combat ineffective. But did the Pilgrims sail back to England? Did they give up? No. This country isn’t a quitter. It doesn’t withdraw.
But more to the point is his argument that America’s future leadership is being formed in Iraq. He illustrates this with an anecdote of one such “young soldier-statesmen”:
I watched Lt. John Turner of Indianapolis get up on his knees from a carpet while sipping tea with a former neighborhood mukhtar and plead softly: “Sir, I am willing to die for a country that is not my own. So will you resume your position as mukhtar? Brave men must stand forward. Iraq’s wealth is not oil but its civilization. Trust me by the projects I bring, not by my words.”
This strikes home to me in particular because we see this already happening in Canada with our new military leadership. Three of our top generals, including Commander of Defense Staff General Rick Hillier, have on-the-ground experience in Afghanistan, and are proceeding to make all kinds of waves by transforming our military. I believe Kaplan thinks of these troops in Iraq as becoming leaders in a wider political sense than just the military; in a place like the US war experience goes a long way in the polls. Look at how many senators have military experience, and think of their age. Kaplan seems to believe that the John McCains are destined to bow out to the John Turners in America’s future politics, and I think he makes a fair observation.
This leads me to contemplate Dr. Barnett’s SysAdmin force. If it ever gets built, what will its effect be on the future political make-up of the United States’ leadership? And if that leadership does turn out to be much more heavy in ex-military personnel, how will that affect decisions on future wars?
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Beautiful Dali
- » Saigon Photos
COMMENTS / 8 COMMENTS
Jay added these pithy words on 26 Dec 05 at 7:07 amInteresting article; John Reilly’s Long View had hinted at such a possibility earlier:
There is also this: Post-911 veterans are not Vietnam veterans. Their numbers are smaller, of course, but they are already an admired and self-confident minority. They will transform the military and, one suspects, domestic politics.
Speaking of transformations (or, for that matter, “future politcal make-ups”), here’s something else to check out in relation to this Kaplan piece (and your posted questions):
“The Six or Seven Axioms of Mass Social Change
Worldchanging.com has something of a Lefty tint, but IMSHO, this particular essay post does make some rather interesting points.
And regarding the “applied wisdom, [and] the combination of pragmatism and idealism,” one also ought to check out this review of a Robert Conquest book from the 1/31/05 issue of National Review
Meanwhile, there’s quite a discussion occurring beneath Belmont Club’s post on this subject
IJ added these pithy words on 26 Dec 05 at 10:56 amIf Dr Barnett’s SysAdmin force (multilateral) ever gets built – the key unknown. The US would have to make the first move in this direction, probably. With a US pledge to multilateralism, it might then be possible to persuade the other 25 nations in NATO that political alliances are the way ahead, with a regional Leviathan and SysAdmin force. However the European Union is showing many of the problems of trying to combine politics. And later, there’s the United Nations (191 members) to convince.
IJ added these pithy words on 26 Dec 05 at 12:29 pmHow to convince the United Nations of the need for a multilateral military? Huge steps have been made in this direction by the current Secretary-General. Koffi Annan has helped to add to global norms a ‘Peacebuilding Commission’ and ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) – however concepts apart, it’s now up to others to agree the details.
On R2P, information is here. The ‘Interdependent’ commented:
“in one revolutionary step, the UN membership has tempered the long-held view that national sovereignty is inviolate when a population is abused.”
Curzon added these pithy words on 26 Dec 05 at 12:50 pm
Kaplan seems to believe that the John McCains are destined to bow out to the John Turners in America’s future politicsI hope so. McCain is great, but in the post-Cold War generation of politicians we need leaders who have lived abroad, who are familiar with other cultures, and who can work with people from different backgrounds in American leadership. The Georgetown crowd that go straight from the School of Foreign Service to the State Department scare the crap out of me.
Jing added these pithy words on 26 Dec 05 at 2:47 pmI’m not a particular firm believer that simply having been a soldier makes one a better politician. In fact, I think that the qualities that are fostered and encouraged for soldiers are often times polar opposites for what would make a successful statesmen. Aggression, risk taking, and courage are well and all, but not particularly the sort of values one needs in an elected official when deciding whether or not to raise tax rates or cut benefits. It takes guts to look down the barrel of a gun and engage the enemy in a firefight, but it takes an unrelated form of valour to be able to turn down a $100,000 bribe. Take the recent scandal with Randal “Duke” Cunningham, a Vietnam Ace and war hero, yet pretty much as crooked as they come and who only confessed once it was obvious that investigators had him cornered.
Curzon added these pithy words on 27 Dec 05 at 1:15 am
I’m not a particular firm believer that simply having been a soldier makes one a better politician.Neither am I; a legislative body needs a variety of people with diverse backgrounds, and that should include former soldiers.
Consul-At-Arms added these pithy words on 27 Dec 05 at 1:31 amCurzon: Surprisingly few grads from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service actually seem to enter the Foreign Service. I think they go into business instead. Anecdotally, the largest single educational cohort, if you’ll pardon the word-smithing, in my A-100 class seemed to have been the folks who studied as either/both undergraduates or graduate students at George Washington University.
GWU is, literally, a stone’s throw from the Harry S Truman Building, a.k.a. “Main State,” near Foggy Bottom Metro.
Thanks for giving Mr. Kaplan’s article a bit more visibility. I would mention here, as I’ve done once or twice elsewhere, that we reservists and guardsmen who’ve returned to State Dept from Iraq or Afghan deployments are now being joined by Iraq and Afghan veterans recruited by the Department subsequent to their service.
IJ added these pithy words on 27 Dec 05 at 10:29 amWho should pay for global security? Barnett suggests the taxpayers of nations that value international Leviathan and SysAdmin forces should pay, via an international reconstruction fund. Moreover the UN have recently approved new central responsibilities for security: a ‘Peacebuilding Commission’ and R2P.
The bill for some taxpayers is ever increasing. Alternatively, the IMF could be given the power to print money.
