American exceptionalism vs. mythology

Mythologies we tell ourselves – Military Review article

 

The article cited above is a very good, if long and somewhat jargonized discussion for military leaders, about the problems mythologies play in creating a professional soldier.

Its main thesis is that for centuries soldiers have been given certain mythologies that are used to de-humanize their enemy. In the 21^st Century, mainly due to the information revolution, these mythologies no longer sustainable and often are counterproductive.

For the most part, I agree. I do have problems with the doctrine of cultural equivalence that seems implicit in the article and a couple of other assumptions.

One of its major tenets is that the myth of “American exceptionalism” is counter-productive and should be abandoned (at least that is my take-away from reading it). I am not sure that is a valid assessment, but it is in keeping with the current attitudes of our National Command Authority.

I do think that the myth does set Americans (and their military service members) up for a near certain failure to meet the high standards and principles that we seek to uphold and that does create problems. However, the problem is not whether Americans are exceptional, but rather that Americans, because they perceive themselves to be of an exceptional culture, are held to a different standard that anyone else. It is a case, I fear, of Americans being hoisted upon their own petard.

(For those who don’t know what a petard” was, it was a medieval predecessor of modern artillery. Basically, it was like a big pot filled with gunpowder that was then hoisted up against a gate with the opening facing the gate. It was ignited by somebody riding up with the petard when it was hoisted, lighting the fuse and then scrambling away. The unlucky ones didn’t get away in time and would be blown up; hence they were “hoist on their own petard”)

The very professionalism that is the hallmark of the American man-at-arms (ok, and woman-at-arms to be politically correct) is also the source of his greatest drawback. Because they are supposed to be these professional super-warriors, when in reality they are merely ordinary human beings superbly trained and equipped, they are endowed with god-like qualities … or at least expectations that they have them.

So, we have well-meaning people missing the boat.

Yes, American military personnel do things that we, in our saner moments, wish they wouldn’t do, but that fails to take into account that combat – at whatever level you want to address it – literally is insane. It is the simple slaughter and destruction of humans and property to achieve a political end by means other than diplomacy. It merely is an extension of diplomacy through violence.

Now, I am not endorsing torture, although I understand its uses. I am not endorsing the traditional pillaging, rapine and other abuses of “civilians” in an area of conflict. No, and I don’t think 99.9 percent of American service members do either. However, the military is made up of human beings and we best not forget that salient fact.

People are fallible. People are capable of great cruelty. Americans, despite their “exceptionalism”, are not immune to that. The difference is, for the most part, we actually punish our own for exceeding the levels of violence deemed acceptable according to the “laws” of “just wars.” It may not be enough to meet the authors’ standards, but we do do it and that is relatively rare.

If you look at all the conflicts around the world today and, except for post-conflict tribunals to deal with the defeated and occasional exceptions limited primarily to countries based on Occidental cultural norms, rarely will you find militaries punishing their own for their excesses. It traditionally hasn’t happened, and guess what? That hasn’t changed over all the millennia of warfare.

Not that the problem hasn’t been noted by leaderships going back to the Romans, but unfortunately the utopian world where soldiers only fight soldiers according to some rules drafted by non-combatants never really has existed.

And what bothers me, as an American who feels we have been hoist on our own petard, is that our critics fail to hold the “other” side to the same scathing standard.

Using the same argument that the authors of the article use, I think Americans should be rallying to the colors to combat those who offend our sensibilities and ethical standards. (Not really, but it makes the same sense that their arguments do but then again, it might not be such a bad idea.)

I do think we have to remember, and remind ourselves daily, that our code of ethics, our standards, and our view of the world is not universal. As I often say, the U.S. Constitution applies only on U.S. territory and nowhere else, despite what the American Civil Liberties Union might tell you … or our politicians or activists of whatever stripe is the flavor de jure today.

And as Pappy taught me: A gentleman does not start the fight; he merely finishes it as quickly as he can – using whatever means necessary. I wish some of our leadership would understand that precept and apply it to our foreign policy.