I wasn’t going to comment on the Fallujah situation. There are plenty of folks doing that right now. But when I visited Sarah’s site this morning, I had to comment there, and write something here.
Our military is under civilian control. It is one of the basics in our government. This relationship was intended to prevent military takeover of the government. We’ve done quite well with this system during the last 200+ years. Although, at times, it has been a disaster. Failures in Vietnam can be traced directly to heavy-handedness by Lyndon Johnson and his staff.
Of course, the military officers serving Johnson bear some responsibility. I’ve spoken with some senior officers of the WWII generation who couldn’t understand how 1960s generals could tuck their tails. They, as a group, felt generals working for Johnson should have resigned when he did such things rather than simply continue to carry out his policies. But never did anyone consider going against direction of civilian authority. That speaks volumes.
Today we have circumstances where similar problems arise. I think our civilian leadership is first-rate. But they cannot allow themselves the luxury of thinking militarily. This is an election year, and a loss could wipe out all the gains. They simply think differently.
In the second half of the 19th century, the US Army fought what are collectively known as the Indian Wars. Military officers learn about these as part of their professional education. And they are aware of the problems faced by their military ancestors, first of which was the clash of two completely different cultures.
The US Army was a creature of the Industrial Revolution. The American culture was industrial, and society (civilian and military) was in a technology frame of mind. The Indian tribes of the West were a Stone Age culture. They had no concept of an “industrial base” and lived off the land. Many tribes were nomadic, and lived as family groups in small bands. When we think of “tribes” we may think of them as all living together as a group in one large ethnic society. But “tribes” seldom came together in one large meeting.
This cultural clash had as much to do with problems of pacification (the term in use at the time) as did any tactical disparity. The Army had difficulty in defeating warriors completely because they were never able to attack a decisive mass. When a large group was found, they fought only long enough to reach a point where they could scatter, leaving an Army unit only the option of chasing a single, small, group. That was Custer’s greatest personal fear. The one time they didn’t scatter was at Little Big Horn, and Custer was completely outnumbered. He got what he wanted.
As different groups eventually submitted, there were typically small bands of young men who wanted to continue fighting. We often believe this is due to some significant desire to go into the industrial age kicking and screaming, mourning the loss of a way of life. It sounds very noble.
But more often than not, the desire to keep fighting was a simple matter of culture. The tribes of the West hadn’t lived some bucholic life, in peace and harmony with all their neighbors. They were takers. If the territory they wanted to live in was occupied by someone else, they attacked. The great Sioux Nation moved from Wisconsin and Minnesota over the years into the Dakotas and Montana. It wasn’t a peaceful march. Someone else had to move, and didn’t want to.
In this culture, the most fearsome and fearless fighters became leaders. There were no elections, no campaigns (maybe that’s how that word evolved?), just personal loyalty to someone of power and influence. As young men were captured and offered the option to live in peace, they were dumbfounded. How can you select leaders without fighting? How do you know who is the best and bravest? We must fight, or we have no way to become Chief.
We face a similar enemy in the Middle East.
Although Iraqis are years ahead of many Arabs in culture and politics, they are still bound by trappings of the 14th century. Blood feuds, tribal loyalty, and sectarian identification all play a part in this. Many on the left ask, “Why can’t we just get along?” Well, getting along is a sign of weakness in that environment. Someone is always the boss. And this is apparent in Fallujah this week. Saddam ruled with an iron fist. He was the all-powerful. Not even Allah received as much respect in Iraq. It was respect based on fear.
We want respect also. But we want the kind of respect that is built with mutual acceptance of different talents and abilities. Our culture. It ain’t happenin’. That will take time to grow as Iraqis decompress from thirty years of oppression. In the meantime, we have to gain respect the good old-fashioned way–power.
We are fighting the 21st century Indian Wars. Military professionals know and understand this. When they leave their compounds to go out on patrol, they still say they are going into “Indian Country.” If the senior military leadership can’t make this clear to their civilian bosses, we’re in big trouble. My fear is just the opposite. I’m afraid that our senior military folks, who received their stars during the eight Clinton years, will not take the lead from the strong civilian staff assembled by Bush. I’ve heard too many stories in the last few years of colonels and lieutenant colonels being too PC. The initial judgement is they believe that’s what it takes to get a star.
So it falls to the younger officers to make things happen. And they need to be committed. Their troops will follow a strong leader, and the Iraqis will respect one.
Birdie (on his way back to the US, now) talked about shooting Iraqi kids with his 12-ga. beanbag shells when they threw rocks. I suggested he catch the rocks and throw them back. He has a great arm. He preferred the gun, which is a shame. But who knows what war crime he would have been charged with if he had hit a kid in the head with a rock.
Sometimes you gotta throw rocks.