Photo courtesy of here.
Bing West, who my former co-author knows quite well, and I met once briefly in Iraq while he joined one of my patrols has an interesting interview in a blog I frequent: Small Wars Journal.
Part one is here. Part two is here.
I largely agree with his tactical analysis, especially the part where he exposes his institutional biases and lauds the Marines in Anbar. He also lauds Petraeus ordering people into the neighborhoods, which we were doing after entering Baghdad but ended when we were replaced by the First Cav Division. That is the right tactic now and it was the right tactic then.
I want to comment on something that West says in part two. The money quote is here:
The martial values of our society have deteriorated. During World War II, the
press scarcely mentioned and never photographed the dozens (over 140 in all) of
public hangings of American soldiers, and never mentioned the shootings of
German civilians or captured prisoners. The press considered such stories to be
out of bounds. In Iraq, the killings of civilians in Haditha, trumpeted as a
massacre, received vastly more press attention than any valorous action in the
war. The hue and cry was not motivated by a thirst for justice; when
investigations exonerated most of the Marines involved at Haditha, the press
wrote little and said less. In World War II, our nation highlighted courage and
quietly accepted mistakes. Today, we highlight mistakes and quietly accept
valor. On Iwo Jima in 1945, almost six thousand Americans died, many more than
in five years in Iraq. Iwo Jima was a strategic blunder. Today, the press and
Congress would be apoplectic about such a blunder. Courage, Aristotle said, is
the virtue that makes all other virtues possible. Geopolitical wisdom is
admirable, but martial valor is essential to sustain a democracy. American
society takes courage for granted, and the press ignores it. When we fight the
next war, this attitude will poorly serve the nation. Will soldiers risk their
lives, if society ignores courage?
There are couple of levels to this comment. The first is that this statement is ostensibly a tired critique of the "liberal media." The second, more interesting level, is that this is a lament by an old man that our society has gone "soft." Yet, these issues are not so easy to isolate because there is reverse causality, each one informing the other.
To be honest, I am tired of the liberal media critique for a number of reasons. Media is selling a product, deal with it. The editorial biases that major media outlets have is a reflection of their specific branding which is a reflection of their customer base and the advertising they need to sell in order to maintain a profit or at least operating costs. Yes, this has always been the case but technology, specifically cable TV and the internet, have taken away the geographical limitations that newspapers and radio had during WWII. In that era, I think that there was a professional ethos of objectivity because there was a realization that each media outlet had a virtual monopoly. The social contract was objective reporting in return for the virtual monopoly on information maintained by the few radio outlets and one or two newspapers that society had access to. Technology has changed that and there is no virtual monopoly at this time. Media has adapted like any business would: branding. This doesn't bother me because increased access in and of itself is a public good. What does bother me is that society has not adapted by valuing critical thinking. Something I've commented on before. Yes, I would agree that many of the major media outlets do have a slightly left of center editorial bias. This is generally reflective, I would posit, of those who continue to "buy" their product. But it is also reflective of the fact that those who run major media outlets are fairly elitist and people in that demographic tend to be left of center on the American political spectrum. Yet this is abrogated by the fact of access. Those right of center, my father for instance, have plenty of sources that they can go to to feed their fire. In no way is there a dearth of information. The problem is laziness in finding that information and a lack of critical thinking about the information, where it comes from, who is writing it, etc.
The deeper issue remains, however. This is an area which is ripe for sociological research and I would be very interested to read such research as I have thought about this issue of whether current American society values valor on many occasions.
The other night I was having a debate with my Swedish Dove roommate about NATO in Afghanistan mediated by an American-sympathizing Dane. He said something that informs much of this debate: "How can you join a cause you do not believe in?" I had a retort for that comment in the context of the Afghanistan debate but am not sure that I do in the context of the valor issue. I think that that has a lot to do with it. I think that American society learned much from the Vietnam experience. Most people that I know who didn't agree with the war didn't call me a baby-killer for participating in it. They had learned from the Vietnam war to separate those fighting from those ordering them to fight. West's argument about how WWII was so valorous and how generally turned a blind eye to atrocities committed by Americans and held tightly to Iwo Jima flag raising moments is likely true. Yet American society was not without its critics at the time. The Nuremberg prosecutors and judges returning were pariahs for abrogating many of the protections that people felt vital in the case of war crimes tribunals. The scourge of internment camps took years to overcome.
There are many other items that one can point to that will show that American culture did not possess any self-critique of the methods used to fight WWII. There is a certain lack of history there where the conversations of the citizenry are not as easy to catalog as today where many conversations are memorialized in blogs, podcasts and other Web 2.0 types of outlets.
However, that is largely beside the point. My feeling is that American's do value valor society-wide but it is hard for them to hold up valor when they do not believe unitarily in the cause as they did in WWII. Every conflict that the US has participated in since WWII has reflected a more fractured society. This is to be lauded rather than lamented. It reflects that our democracy is maturing. It reflects an ability of historians and media to report on and take action based upon the prevailing notions of the polity.
At the beginning of Iraq, when there was a simpler view of that conflict, items that tended towards valor were reported. Think about that woman who was a "prisoner of war." Think about the outcries of joy the day we pulled down the statute. There are other examples. Eventually as public opinion swung against the war and a more critical view of the mission itself the media changed what it was reporting on (the modification of its product both drove and was in response to changes in customer preferences).
Now all that aside, to the deeper issue. My view is that American culture does value valor. Our popular culture since at least the 1920s is essentially hero worship. Our movies since the beginning have been homages to romantic heroes. Our literature has similar tendencies when viewed on the macro-level. Our music is a bit more fractured but largely is based upon romanticism and hero worship. Now the form and persona of the hero definitely is a moving target, but there is always a level of courage required to overcome the problem. When one compares American movies, literature and music to European movies, literature and music there is a tangible difference a major one is the romanticism that American pop culture seethes. Another is the love of the hero. These tangible differences, when combined with what I felt from others when I returned from Iraq (and not only in my red state, but also in the navy blue enclaves that I migrated to after getting out of the USMC), inform my thought that America is not about to lose its ability to mobilize valorous people.
What politicians just need to realize is that it will never be easy to mobilize, yet I think that if we were to find ourselves truly and undoubtedly under attack the ability to mobilize heroic persons on the battlefield will not be difficult. Yet, what politicians must also realize is that the self-critical nature of the maturing American democracy is going to debate any conflict that we will find ourselves in. It always has and it always will. This is a good thing. Any burying in the sand by military hawks is unfortunate. One way that as a society we have walked this line is by dislocating the military from modern culture. This is unfortunate, but a complex topic I will leave for another day. For now suffice it to say that personally I take West's comments with a grain of salt and do not agree with his dystopic view of America's ability to fight the conflicts that will keep our people safe.
~ # ~
