OK, there's quite a big history with how counterinsurgencies screw up the culture at home, too. Really, people got to read more about the US Army in the 1970s, how they got out of the post-Vietnam chaos.
The obsession with "courage" and lethality reminds me quite a bit of certain third-world non-state actors and separatist regions, most notably Chechnya between 1996 and 1999, with the destruction of civil society and widespread radicalization of veterans.
Also, there's something called the "kill 'em all" delusion. Ever heard of the book "Devil's Guard"? It's probably a fabrication, but there's a very big reason why it sold so well: it appealed to the generation of veterans' frustration. Trust me, frustration is an incredible emotion.
Unfortunately, I chose chemistry as a degree due to job prospects and the fact that I will probably get depressed if I do politics. So someone else will have to pick up the fight.
This is great. Thank you. Decades ago, when I reached my first posting, I heard other officers refer to themselves or others as being “warriors,” or talking about how we all needed to be “warriors.” My reaction was both horror and derision—I thought it was childishly hilarious. We still referred to our service members as service members, sailors, soldiers, marines, service men, service women.
But that was the seed of something awful. And through my career, that seed has bloomed into a truly toxic phenomenon, with, as you discuss so well, potentially dire consequences for the country.
Clausewitz also wrote, as I recall it, about how the longer a conflict endured the more likely it was to experience a continuing escalation by both sides in turn after turn. Bruce Condell and David T. Zabecki present the army manual prepared between the two world wars by the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht in their book On the German Art of War: Truppenfuhrung (2001). I was still mildly startled to read in the manual's discussion of dealing with non-cooperative civilians the recommendation to take hostages - right there in black and white. I could only surmise that this reflected Prussian/German experience in the Franco-Prussian War and possibly with the tribal revolts in what is now Namibia.
OK, there's quite a big history with how counterinsurgencies screw up the culture at home, too. Really, people got to read more about the US Army in the 1970s, how they got out of the post-Vietnam chaos.
The obsession with "courage" and lethality reminds me quite a bit of certain third-world non-state actors and separatist regions, most notably Chechnya between 1996 and 1999, with the destruction of civil society and widespread radicalization of veterans.
Also, there's something called the "kill 'em all" delusion. Ever heard of the book "Devil's Guard"? It's probably a fabrication, but there's a very big reason why it sold so well: it appealed to the generation of veterans' frustration. Trust me, frustration is an incredible emotion.
Unfortunately, I chose chemistry as a degree due to job prospects and the fact that I will probably get depressed if I do politics. So someone else will have to pick up the fight.
This is an excellent read. Thank you!
With the recent fiasco of Trump and Hegseth, I am reminded of other pieces that dissect their military "thinking".
https://blackcloudsix.substack.com/p/canada-doesnt-need-warriorsit-needs
https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/the-triumph-of-the-operator
https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-american-bushido
https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/american-bushido-in-practice
This is great. Thank you. Decades ago, when I reached my first posting, I heard other officers refer to themselves or others as being “warriors,” or talking about how we all needed to be “warriors.” My reaction was both horror and derision—I thought it was childishly hilarious. We still referred to our service members as service members, sailors, soldiers, marines, service men, service women.
But that was the seed of something awful. And through my career, that seed has bloomed into a truly toxic phenomenon, with, as you discuss so well, potentially dire consequences for the country.
Clausewitz also wrote, as I recall it, about how the longer a conflict endured the more likely it was to experience a continuing escalation by both sides in turn after turn. Bruce Condell and David T. Zabecki present the army manual prepared between the two world wars by the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht in their book On the German Art of War: Truppenfuhrung (2001). I was still mildly startled to read in the manual's discussion of dealing with non-cooperative civilians the recommendation to take hostages - right there in black and white. I could only surmise that this reflected Prussian/German experience in the Franco-Prussian War and possibly with the tribal revolts in what is now Namibia.