Vetspective: Generational Harmony as National Power

CPT Alex Gallo — Mon, 26 Sep 2022 11:36:43 -0400

“When peace comes, remember it will be for us, the children of today, to make the world of tomorrow a better and happier place.”

These were the words of Queen Elizabeth II, then princess, on October 3rd, 1940 in her first public speech. In this radio address, she spoke to the millions of children evacuated outside of London during World War II due to the Nazi bombing campaign.

What is notable about her words is the distinction she made between war and peace. Her quote would suggest that, in war, it is up to the current generation in power to fight the war. And in peace, it is up to the younger generation to make the world a better place. In many ways, we still speak in this paradigmatically bifurcated way when it comes to war and peace and the roles and responsibilities of the current and future generations.

There is no distinction between war and peace today. United States’ competitors, adversaries, and enemies – from China to Russia, Iran to North Korea – leverage military, diplomatic, political, and economic power as tools of “warfare” to compete and advance zero-sum political objectives against the United States and its allies and partners. Can we effectively compete with these actors in this period of mistrust and hyper-strife in US society?

US domestic politics is marked by social strife among different segments of society, including class, race, religion, and so on. A feature of this strife that tends to be overlooked is the disharmony between generations. I am concerned that our class-based, social strife are, in part, strife among generations.

The baby boomer generation remains in control of much of the wealth in our society. They also continue to hold many of the senior leadership positions across society – from politics to business. The baby boomer generation is also among the chief resource draws in our society – in particular through healthcare as they live longer than any other generation. What effect might this have had on the younger generation in our society – from schools, to jobs, to wealth creation?

This is not an indictment of the baby boomer generation. They have brought much to our society. But it begs the question, if there is perceived or real strife among generations in our society, what are the implications for a world in which the distinction between war and peace no longer exists?

For me, it suggests that, more than ever, it is critically important to have harmony among the various generations in society. We need the older generation to serve the younger generation and the younger generation to serve the older generation. Because when each generation believes it is adequately serving and being served by one-another, it creates not only a social contract but also a social bond that makes society better positioned to respond to a context of ongoing “war” or competition with global competitors like Russia and China.

No longer is it the responsibility of the current generation to fight the “current war” and the next generation to make the world a better place in peace as Queen Elizabeth suggested back in World War II. Today, each generation has a responsibility to “fight” together, as one, both for today and for the future.

I am confident that Queen Elizabeth knew this because she may well have recognized the need for multi-generational unity less than five years later on VE Day in 1945, stating:

“[We] then walked miles through the streets. I remember lines of unknown people linking arms and walking down Whitehall, all of us just swept along on the tide of happiness and relief. I think it was one of the most memorable days of my life.”

I think Queen Elizabeth’s single greatest contribution to political thought in the West was the concept of “we are all in this together.” She did this through the term “family.” I like that concept because families have multi-generations working in concert and in harmony (in its ideal form) for their overall future.

We must find a way to lock arms – not only across class, race, and religion – but also generation. We must commit to serving our youngest and our oldest in society and, of course, everyone in between. Because in our time of constant conflict and new forms of warfare, we must be able to rely on one-another across generations to be able to compete globally as a “whole country,” a whole society.

Indeed, let our concept of family be the way we view our country.

Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society. Alex also is a visiting fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.

Response by Amn Dale Preisach made Sep 26 at 2022 1:21 PM

Amn Dale Preisach — Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:21:28 -0400

Pitifully, a greater and greater percentage of families can't afford to eat together at any given time. The concept of older Americans and younger Americans to the word " Family" has changed.
Almost none attend a service of any Faith.
Almost none get involved in community.
Almost none have the same ideals as their Parent(s) . The fact that there is more to fix as it comes to someone's possibility of Service in the Armed Forces is also coupled with 2+ generations of younger citizens not wanting to defend such a " Horrible Country".
Family,, Country... Deity,,,??? Only " Bonuses" can get any volunteers for the Services. That is those that have good enough records to not warrant a " waiting Period" or having to smooth over a record in order to be recruited.
The Service is a great Barometer of what is going on in the adjoining Society. That is, compare levels of what is acceptable to a recruiter from successive generations of volunteers in the standards needed to be met to go to basic training then what is expected of them in their fitness report standards.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 26 at 2022 1:44 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:44:47 -0400

Who wrote this? There is no difference between war and peace today is a false statement. It needs to be caveated like in war and peace the Instruments of National Power are constantly being used.

Response by SGT Mary G. made Sep 26 at 2022 7:06 PM

SGT Mary G. — Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:06:03 -0400

A quote from an interesting interview. She was telling how she and her 15 year old sister snuck out of the palace during the celebration to join it.

“[We] then walked miles through the streets. I remember lines of unknown people linking arms and walking down Whitehall, all of us just swept along on the tide of happiness and relief. I think it was one of the most memorable days of my life."

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Sep 27 at 2022 7:17 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:17:05 -0400

She will be missed.

Response by PO3 Justin Bowen made Oct 21 at 2022 10:30 PM

PO3 Justin Bowen — Fri, 21 Oct 2022 22:30:46 -0400

"There is no distinction between war and peace today. United States’ competitors, adversaries, and enemies – from China to Russia, Iran to North Korea – leverage military, diplomatic, political, and economic power as tools of “warfare” to compete and advance zero-sum political objectives against the United States and its allies and partners. Can we effectively compete with these actors in this period of mistrust and hyper-strife in US society?"

Ummm, what is it that you think that we (the US) do to other nations? Each year since 2001 in the days leading up to September 11th, people put up signs and blather on about never forgetting 9/11. And yet, few people - including, apparently, Alex Gallo - bother to even mention the actions that led committed extremists to embark on suicide missions. We literally do the exact same thing that you appear to think other nations are wrong for doing.

If the way that leaders of those countries are waging war is in some way ethically wrong then the US is definitely in poor company. We can and do compete with those countries with the same tactics that they use - and everyday Americans have suffered the consequences as a result, just as the people of those countries do and will continue to do in the future.

"But it begs the question, if there is perceived or real strife among generations in our society, what are the implications for a world in which the distinction between war and peace no longer exists?"

With every successive generation, the newest generation largely has more liberal views on social issues than the last. The Gen Z generation largely is opposed to unethical corporate and political leaders, racism and sexism, supportive of equality for LGBTQ people, and concerned about climate change. The millennials are somewhat opposed to an in favor of the same, but to a lesser degree. The boomers? Not as fond of equality for LGBTQ people, women's rights, climate change, regulation of corporations, or opposing ethically-challenged political leaders. WW2 generation? Definitely not as liberal as the boomers. And on and on (hundreds of thousands of people literally died defending slavery at one time in this country's history).

What are the implications for a world in which older people are more likely than previous generations to find themselves living alone as they get older (in the late '90s, surveys showed as much as 27% of parents were estranged from at least one child, compared with as much as almost 45% today) because one party or the other disowned the other because of the significant ethical disconnect that exists between younger and older generations? Well, if the existence of such a large ethical disconnect and intentional social separation between children and parents/grandparents at a time when warfare exists on all of the fronts that you suggest is a harbinger of doom, then I'd say doom is coming.

I, for one, am definitely not in favor of clinging to social norms that create the expectation that people look past people's horrible values. I refuse to talk to several siblings because of their horrible sense of morality (LGBTQ people, ethnic minorities, and women are human beings who deserve equal rights and full autonomy and there's nothing anyone can say to make me believe otherwise or that people who believe otherwise aren't disgusting people). Article after article in journal after journal talk of adult children choosing to form their own non-genetic families because of how horrible they believe their own families to be (the fact that the percentage of the homeless youth population that are LGBTQ youth is incredibly higher than the cisgender homeless youth should definitely not surprise anyone). And in article after article, the reasons given by parents definitely don't match up with the reasons given by their adult children.

People get away with being horrible people who just happen to not be convicted of crimes because they don't suffer any consequences for being horrible people. The children and grandchildren of horrible parents and grandparents (of which there are large number) who are imposing social consequences on their horrible older family members should be applauded for their bravery.

"Because in our time of constant conflict and new forms of warfare, we must be able to rely on one-another across generations to be able to compete globally as a “whole country,” a whole society.

Indeed, let our concept of family be the way we view our country."

If the only way to compete with our adversaries is to ignore the huge ethical differences that exist between generations, then perhaps it's best to not be competitive. A nation that includes a large percentage of the population that believes that we shouldn't view all humans as deserving of compassion and equal rights is definitely not one worth perpetuating. And if your concept of family is one where younger generations are expected to look past older generations' ethical shortcomings, even when doing so comes at their own expense, then I definitely feel sorry for you and would definitely suggest that you actually talk to the people who've disowned their family members who expected that of them.

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Nov 1 at 2022 11:59 AM

LTC Thomas Tennant — Tue, 01 Nov 2022 11:59:45 -0400

The loss of her leadership on the world stage will be felt. What she accomplish during her reign was remarkable, starting with shepherding the transition from Empire to Commonwealth of British Nations. She took the long view and strategically (along with the help of some fantastic Prime Ministers) kept Britain as a world power and influencer.