Blinders for the public?

The New York Times' At War blog has a good entry by Wesley Morgan, a student at Princeton who had spent a decent chunk of time in Iraq and Afghanistan for research.  He discusses the general public's isolation and perhaps even ignorance of the daily horrors of combat that take place in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Much is attributed to other factors that drive the two wars to the corner as distractions from more tangible issues, namely the economy.

And you know what?  Young Wesley is right.  But I'm not completely sure that this is something that we need to be disturbed by.  My first reaction is to be all up-in-arms: why the hell don't people care?  People are dying, for God's sakes.

But maybe this is just an illustration of how lucky we as a nation are.  The fact that we can be entrenched in two separate wars, and preserve the ability for the majority of the American populace to go about daily life unaffected -- that's a good thing, right?  I mean, it's a good thing that only a small percentage of the people have to experience the trauma of losing a loved one in combat.  Or the stress of being separated from a spouse/parent for a year at a time.

No.  That's not a satisfying answer.  Less than one percent of the American population currently serves in the military.  But I want people to care.  I want people to know about the things happening overseas: both the good and the bad (an important emphasis placed on the word and).

A lot of people will talk about today's American military and its increasing isolation from the general public.  For the first time...ever, we are fighting two major conflicts not with conscript soldiers, but with a professional all-volunteer force.  Are we seeing the development of a separate warrior class in our society?  And if so, is that good or bad?

Traditional thinking says: bad.  Old school military thought says that war is a military means to a political end (Clauswitz).  The Constitution itself subordinates the military to civilian policy-makers.  So where do we stand today?  We've got probably the brightest generation of senior leaders serving in the military right now, and today's platoon leaders/company commanders are going to be tomorrow's battalion commanders and generals.  The wealth of combat experience that the up-and-coming generation possesses is astonishing.  But what will they/we make of this gap with the rest of society that some perceive?

Another question is, on whom does the onus fall to close the gap?  That's probably the more difficult question.  Who possesses the obligation to do the azimuth check?  Honestly, I don't know.  My emotional side says the general public: we (the military) are suffering the horrors of war first-hand, therefore it is the public who get to enjoy daily safety that is obligated to learn more about what the hell is really going on in this world.

But another side of me says, The public will NEVER understand.  Take a sample or cross-section of America: how many people do you think really understand what counterinsurgency is?  How many people understand what exactly the 2006 "surge" in Iraq entailed, and how it fits into counterinsurgency theory?  How many people understand that The Surge's success was due not only to "sending a bunch more troops to Iraq", but also the reconciliation of Sunni insurgent groups, which later came to be known as the Sunni Awakening?  How many people even know what the difference between a Sunni Muslim or a Shi'a Muslim is?  How many people know that muslim describes people, while islamic describes things?  How many people understand that Afghani is NOT a word, and that the proper term is Afghan?  The general public does not know or understand these things -- these basic, academic things -- which leads me to believe that they will never understand the more exotic shared-military experiences: grief, fear, victory, frustration...

Which goes back to the question: where does the onus fall?  Is it my responsibility to teach Joe Civilian the difference between a Sunni and Shi'a?  Or is it Joe Civilian's responsibility to go out and educate himself about the policies that are being enacted by the people he voted to put in office?

I don't know.  This blog entry is obviously much more disjointed than my usual entries, and maybe it's because I'm so conflicted on the issue.  So let's return to the initial discussion: the general public, and their isolation from war.  I'll close this one by quoting from an entry I wrote back in 2008:

Think back to the last time you thanked a soldier/sailor/Marine/airman for their service. Was it when you accidentally bumped into them on the subway? Or in the mall? Or at the airport?

If these are the only times you think about the kids that are making the ultimate sacrifice out there, you need to start thinking about them more.

Don't thank ME for my service. I haven't done a thing. Thank the guy with the patch on his right shoulder. Or the girl that has to learn how to use a metal hook for a hand. Or the family who lost a son/brother/father/husband /sister/mother/daughter/wife... The 18 year old kid who no longer has any need for left-foot shoes. The father who came home unrecognizable to his baby girl and worries about hugging her good night because she's too scared of him now...

Thank them, and do it often. It's not really an option for any of us...it's an obligation. 

Funny -- I'm reminded of an incident a couple nights ago where I was in Wal-Mart, and some random older lady gives me a card saying, "This is for you."  On the card was printed the words, Thank-you for your service.  A nice gesture -- the exact kind of gesture that I ask for in the above quote.  But it seemed so...fake.  Contrived.  Almost disingenuous.  Maybe it was the fact that she was handing out friggin' business cards: was a handshake and a verbal thank-you too much for her to offer?