All Too Quiet on the Western Front

In a series of posts entitled “Me on War”, I pointed out that “There is a subset to the Anti-Pacifist argument that points out the advantages to society of having a way in which young men can establish, and prove, their ‘manhood’, as well as generally blow off steam and engage in the kind of high-risk and reality-testing behavior that might actually _benefit_ society, rather than creating hazards and liabilities. I won't elaborate on this point, except to comment that just because war may _serve_ that function, it doesn't mean that it has to, or that there are no other equally effective, or better, choices.” I also asked, “How many of those small-town heroes would have been doomed to a crushingly boring and far-from-noteworthy existence if they hadn't stormed Mount Suribachi? If it's ‘immortality’ you want, war may be (for most people) your only answer.”

Now, the extent to which heroism, or “proving oneself”, is still a motivator for young (mostly) men to enlist in the armed forces is a topic of ongoing debate among those concerned with meeting enlistment and re-enlistment goals. And you’ll notice that armed forced recruiting ads keep cycling through various “spins” as to the advantages of military service – but jumping on a grenade to save your buddies is not high on the list of “visuals” used in recruiting ads. That sort of motivation comes – if ever – in the heat of battle, when – for better or worse – all the usual (read: civilian, boring) criteria that add up to “common sense” have long since flown. And yes, maybe wars can only be won if a few people go berserk once in a while and do the Audie Murphy thing. It’s perfectly possible. A military unit that is all-tranquil, all the time, would not be much use in an operation against an enemy unit with even the average degree of determination, to say nothing of the fanaticism that tends to go along with things like Nazism, communism, and jihadism. We don’t have to be as crazy as they are, but at least we have to meet them on something like their own terms. Cleaning out those residual, holdout nests of Japanese soldiers in the Pacific was not accomplished by showing them slide shows of how pleasant life was going to be back home.

With these thoughts in mind, it’s appropriate to consider one of the “missing pieces” in the picture of our folly in Iraq. Yes, we have all the usual suspects in Washington and in the executive suites of the war industries. Yes, we have misguided patriotism on the part of the voters. Yes, we have residual frustration from 9-11 – “Somebody’s gotta pay”, and it doesn’t matter a whole lot who, as long as they can credibly be labeled “terrorists”. But we also have something that is reflected in a recent news article, headlined “Iraq too quiet for some troops.” These guys are bored… underutilized… and craving “action”. They feel that “the real war” is going on in Afghanistan, and can’t understand why they aren’t there instead of boring old peaceful (relatively) Iraq. And, sure enough, according to the article the “younger soldiers” in particular are “looking to prove themselves in battle”. Shades of “The Red Badge of Courage”! Some things never change. And, contrary to my theorizing about lack of “meaning” being an important factor in PTSD, these guys have absolutely no questions in their young heads about the rationale for the war. All they know is they’re over there, they’re fully armed, and they want to start making loud noises and breaking things – and killing “gooks”, or whatever name they have given to Iraqi insurgents – and the sooner the better. And one can say, well, after their first firefight they’ll find out it’s not a bed of roses – a lot of those “Combat-happy Joes of Easy Company” in the old war comics never came back – or if they did they came back in more pieces than a side of beef prepped for your home freezer. But that’s not what counts at this point – it does not determine their motivation, or lack thereof, and it certainly did not determine their desire to enlist. Once again, testosterone saves the day – and the dried-up old men of Washington know they can always count on it to yield up plenty of willing cannon fodder.

So, if you’re a genuine pacifist, this has to be your biggest challenge – not to just change the social perception of war, or the economics, or the politics, but the whole psychology of the individual – the “universal soldier”, as the song went. The Soviets thought they could produce a new species of humanity that would value collectivism more highly than anything else. Are the pacifists any more realistic when they want to produce a new species of humanity that will value peace more highly than anything else? My suspicion is – no.