
Waging Modern War
Dear Chris,
"Quivering with terror at the thought of physical violence and harsh words, Colin Powell begged me to reconsider. 'No!' he wailed, 'We can't say that. We mustn't! We must always ensure that U.S. troops are used as sitting ducks destined to give their lives in twos and threes while we take pointless meetings with important foreigners. We must always, always, commit our forces as gradually as possible so that America's sons and daughters give their lives most futilely and ingloriously. Viet Nam wasn't so bad, Wes.'"
That's what I would have liked for Colin Powell to have responded to Gen. Clark's duh-inducing pronouncement on military strategy--overwhelming force, fight to win--that you mentioned in your posting. Correctly or not, few post-Viet Nam GIs believe anything else. When I read that, I thought, deja bloody vu. This--the feigned artlessness, the self-congratulation, the stolen credit, the wild contortions of ass-covering, "doing" trumped by the flashy paper chase (briefings, talking papers, memos), Amen-corner banalities tossed off like gems of Talmudic brilliance--I don't miss.
I didn't follow the Kosovo crisis that closely, so I enter this discussion without an attitude problem toward Gen. Clark. Having spent 12 years on active duty in U.S. Air Force intelligence as well, I like the military. A lot. In fact, I dedicate my memoir to my parents and the USAF. I will encourage my 10-week-old son to do a hitch. All of that to say this: It was people like Gen. Clark who made me realize that I had no real future in the military if only because I didn't have the stomach for its particular brand of competition. Probably not the talent either, but definitely not the stomach.
To ascend to even medium levels, let alone the highest, you have to be political, crafty, opportunistic, and shameless, among many other things (excellent duty performance not always being one of them). Clark is clearly all those things, not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. It takes certain kinds of folks to prosecute wars and run complicated organizations like the military of the planet's most powerful nation, so please, let's cut the organization men some slack. If sweet, befuddled Kurt Vonnegut were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the USSR would reform, and we'd all have to learn Russian and dialectical materialism. Still, I began Waging Modern War expecting a vicarious trip down memory lane and was immediately annoyed. What got my hackles up (and I hate when that happens) was the "gee golly, ain't I just a country boy, how on earth did l'il ole me end up with all these purty stars?" tone of the book. Slick as a fox, he belittles that still prevalent GI fakery explicitly in discussing his early rise through the ranks, then engages in it in the very same paragraph.
It was a time of the "country-boy" and "jes' plain solderin'." Lots of people with fancy master's degrees and Ph.Ds kept it quiet if they could. It was the Vietnam backlash, though it took a long time to develop. I couldn't help what I had already done or how I had worked my way up. After the Rhodes scholarship and finishing at the top of the class in the Command and General Staff College, I had gotten an Army-wide reputation, and I was stuck with it, for better or worse.
Queasy yet? So, Chris, do I think his record of the conflict is straight or slanted? Guess. No one slings BS, shifts blame, and steals glory like a GI because the culture harshly punishes failure and mistakes even when no one is really to blame. Or when everyone is. Simultaneously, it so richly rewards whomever wins that the nature of the competition, I found, often seemed dishonorable. So what I must be saying is that I was too ambitious to stay when it was clear that I couldn't "win," so maybe I had the stomach after all. Just not the talent. Golly gee whiz.
Yours,
Debra
Saletan: House Democrats Traded Abortion Rights for a Health Reform Bill
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism












Reader Comments From The Fray:
Now that Clark is the Book Club's consensus choice for fanfaron of the year and the military system has been denounced for rewarding the peacock with the biggest plume, Chris Caldwell has finally zeroed in on the larger issue Clark represents. Is Clark the prototype of the modern general, or a transition figure to a new style?
The implications of true civilian control of the military on the battlefield are potentially enormous. Will future generals be computer geeks with general insignia on their pocket protectors, or will they be telegenic talk show hosts, explaining in a soothing voice what all the wizards huddled over computer screens were doing with the missiles and bombers under their command?
--WillV
(To reply, click here.)
Armies in peacetime invariably are poorly led and miserably managed, and when a large standing army is required in times of peace, as has been the case since WWII, the problem is only magnified. Think of how more awfully Ford Motors would be led if that institution were relieved of the duty of actually selling the cars they made. Unfortunately, the "solution" to this leadership problem, placing American citizens under hostile fire and giving them the charge of actually destroying an enemy army, isn't exactly desirable either. The United States used to address this conundrum by massively demobilizing between conflicts, thereby giving mediocrities less opportunity to run amok. This is no longer an option, of course, so the best that can be done now is to muddle through.
--Will Allen
(To reply, or to read more of an interesting thread, click here.)
(7/19)