40
40
0
“I don’t want to go! It’s not for me!”
This past holiday season brought the annual war over religious service attendance. Our inter- and multi-faith loved ones squabbled over the need to go, together, to this annual social tradition. It was a typical scene—our family’s certainly not the only one in which congregational conflict has become common. Sociologists tell us that generational norms are shifting with the rise of the Millennials, and participation in religious community events has fallen, sharply. Martin Luther King Jr. once noted that Sunday’s church hour was America’s “most segregated”—today, for many struggling to cope with this social trend, Sunday has become the family’s most separate hour.
It’s not just church—several of America’s social institutions are fraying—unions at work, PTAs at school, bowling leagues for fun: all have suffered nation-wide declines. The recent national election put a political exclamation point on this social trend. Consider the tow truck driver in North Carolina that arrived, then drove away and refused to provide aid because the stranded motorist had a bumper sticker featuring the other political party. Or the local police in California that publicly announced they’d rather not provide protection to an NFL-event over the political actions of one player on the field. When first responders won’t respond, that’s a sign—America’s social fabric is in tatters.
Armies don’t fight wars; societies do. Society is the arsenal of America’s democracy. The people provide the resources for the fight. The people provide the decision for the fight. The people provide the guidance for the fight. And so, at a moment when we’re so divided, it’s worth asking: Can America fight wars that matter anymore? A war for national survival? A war for a truly vital interest? A war against a peer competitor, like, say, a belligerent China or a bellicose Russia? A war that gets bloody—beyond what America’s experienced in generations?
Fighting such a war requires a nation to be all in, or nearly all in. That’s not the same as saying every citizen must be in perfect agreement (there is massive value in a loyal opposition). More specifically, there must be some national consensus. The subordination of self to the national interest. During the Second World War, actors and athletes willingly pulled on the uniform. Jimmy Stewart saw so much air combat he suffered what we’d call PTSD today; Ted Williams fought to get in the service, fought in the war, came home, and then fought again to go to fight in Korea. Would today’s celebrities take a leave of absence from the screen or the field to do the same?
Which raises another important question: Could our society get there? What could bring us together? It may well be that we’re so divided, so little unites us today, socially, that even such a traumatic event (another Pearl Harbor or 9/11) might not be sufficient to bridge these canyons of separation. If correct, that is truly dangerous for the survival of our democracy.
There is a glue, a sinew, a stitch—to each society. Some are stronger; others are not. It has many facets and faces, but one common trait: it binds society together. It provides an essential common bond, and America’s is a little different from the rest of the world. “To be an American is an ideal,” Carl Friedrich wrote, “while to be a Frenchman is a fact.” This is our national strong point and what got us through the hard times before—E pluribus unum; out of many, one.
We need it again. We need some basic level of social generosity. We need a faith in the good will of other Americans different in some small way from ourselves. We need to bring back the sing-song sentiment in “And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea.” Because, I fear, if we don’t—we’ll lose a lot more than a war over how to spend an hour on Sunday.
--
Major ML Cavanaugh is a US Army Strategist, a Non Resident Fellow with the Modern War Institute at West Point, and looks forward to connecting on RallyPoint, Twitter @MLCavanaugh, or you can find more of his writing at MLCavanaugh.com.
This essay is an unofficial expression of opinion; the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of West Point, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or any agency of the US government.
This past holiday season brought the annual war over religious service attendance. Our inter- and multi-faith loved ones squabbled over the need to go, together, to this annual social tradition. It was a typical scene—our family’s certainly not the only one in which congregational conflict has become common. Sociologists tell us that generational norms are shifting with the rise of the Millennials, and participation in religious community events has fallen, sharply. Martin Luther King Jr. once noted that Sunday’s church hour was America’s “most segregated”—today, for many struggling to cope with this social trend, Sunday has become the family’s most separate hour.
It’s not just church—several of America’s social institutions are fraying—unions at work, PTAs at school, bowling leagues for fun: all have suffered nation-wide declines. The recent national election put a political exclamation point on this social trend. Consider the tow truck driver in North Carolina that arrived, then drove away and refused to provide aid because the stranded motorist had a bumper sticker featuring the other political party. Or the local police in California that publicly announced they’d rather not provide protection to an NFL-event over the political actions of one player on the field. When first responders won’t respond, that’s a sign—America’s social fabric is in tatters.
Armies don’t fight wars; societies do. Society is the arsenal of America’s democracy. The people provide the resources for the fight. The people provide the decision for the fight. The people provide the guidance for the fight. And so, at a moment when we’re so divided, it’s worth asking: Can America fight wars that matter anymore? A war for national survival? A war for a truly vital interest? A war against a peer competitor, like, say, a belligerent China or a bellicose Russia? A war that gets bloody—beyond what America’s experienced in generations?
Fighting such a war requires a nation to be all in, or nearly all in. That’s not the same as saying every citizen must be in perfect agreement (there is massive value in a loyal opposition). More specifically, there must be some national consensus. The subordination of self to the national interest. During the Second World War, actors and athletes willingly pulled on the uniform. Jimmy Stewart saw so much air combat he suffered what we’d call PTSD today; Ted Williams fought to get in the service, fought in the war, came home, and then fought again to go to fight in Korea. Would today’s celebrities take a leave of absence from the screen or the field to do the same?
Which raises another important question: Could our society get there? What could bring us together? It may well be that we’re so divided, so little unites us today, socially, that even such a traumatic event (another Pearl Harbor or 9/11) might not be sufficient to bridge these canyons of separation. If correct, that is truly dangerous for the survival of our democracy.
There is a glue, a sinew, a stitch—to each society. Some are stronger; others are not. It has many facets and faces, but one common trait: it binds society together. It provides an essential common bond, and America’s is a little different from the rest of the world. “To be an American is an ideal,” Carl Friedrich wrote, “while to be a Frenchman is a fact.” This is our national strong point and what got us through the hard times before—E pluribus unum; out of many, one.
We need it again. We need some basic level of social generosity. We need a faith in the good will of other Americans different in some small way from ourselves. We need to bring back the sing-song sentiment in “And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea.” Because, I fear, if we don’t—we’ll lose a lot more than a war over how to spend an hour on Sunday.
--
Major ML Cavanaugh is a US Army Strategist, a Non Resident Fellow with the Modern War Institute at West Point, and looks forward to connecting on RallyPoint, Twitter @MLCavanaugh, or you can find more of his writing at MLCavanaugh.com.
This essay is an unofficial expression of opinion; the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of West Point, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or any agency of the US government.
United States
Warfare
Patriotism
Society
Command Post
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 25
0
0
0
How many Divisions can we throw at a war immediately and can we maintain them while we train up more.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Respectfully Sir, in our Uber it is all about me society, no I don't see this happening. I had an issue when the president gave tax cuts for people to buy SUV's while we were at war in an area that oil comes from, and that we were dyeing for it. Didn't make sense to me, till searched further and found that the POTUS at that time frame and his father were friends with the Sheiks in charge of Saudi Arabia. Then it became perfectly clear. We were expendable. Did it stop the sales of SUV's, not even remotely, still hasn't.
(0)
(0)
SSG Edward Tilton
I recall paying a hefty luxury tax on my Land Rover.
The all volunteer force is expendable "they knew what they signed up for"
The all volunteer force is expendable "they knew what they signed up for"
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
We are unfortunately caught up in endless win less wars. More troops recently sent to Afghanistan? For what will it make a difference to place our troops in harms way over there going on 17 years? When its over if ever will we change the way they think of America? Do you think they are going to love us after we have basically destroyed their country? I sincerely think not. I will tell you ladies and gentlemen they already have the little kids in the Madrasa's training to be jihadist to hate America. So we stuck in that God's forsaken place forever as I see it. Our Politicians don't have a clue and there is no end game. What troubles me mostly the very same troops over there fighting will have fight our own government to get benefits they deserve upon returning home that's sickening to me. But that's our bureaucracy which has treated Veterans the very same way going on seven decades and counting.
Peace!
Peace!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
You tell me really are we really winning any wars when they are calling for more troops to the Middle East? The police can't even control the normal college student anymore so what's more troops on the ground going do for us but give us more death rates and numbers we see on TV everyday and another POTUS with body bags under his belt.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I believe American can unite as one. Unfortunately I think it will only happen as the result of violence. It's the same principle as boot camp. When you take 60 guys from all over the place with nothing in common, you have to give them something in common. That common bond was "hatred" of the Drill Instructors. It was what first brought us together. I've expanded on that before when it comes to our Nation as a whole. America needs someone to hate. After 9/11 I felt like the country was on the same sheet of music for the first time in my life. We were all mad and our anger was directed at the same target. Everyone immediately knew what was important and what wasn't. 3000 of OUR people had just been murdered. No one was talking about some of the petty issues that divide us today. The President basically had to order us to resume playing sports and I remember feeling guilty as I watched thinking that in light of what just happened, this is meaningless. People were ok waiting in longer lines at the airports, we doted on all our first responders, etc. America was great. But time went by and people forgot. The lines became a nuisance, police became "bad guys", and we all started focusing on "me" instead of us.
Do you want to know when I knew what we were doing in Iraq wasn't going to work? When the Iraqi soldiers told us they didn't care about the people where we were because they were from a different part of Iraq. I knew they were doomed. There was no national pride. On 9/11 I was in Oxford, MS and I felt personally attacked by those terrorists. I think we all did. America has a "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" attitude. Or at least it did then. And I hope it still does.
WWII was very different than Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan. No one (not even the soldiers) really knew why we were fighting the latter three wars. Yeah, to kill insurgents. But when are we done? The guys in WWII knew the objective. Get to Berlin/Tokyo=end the war. We didn't have that in Iraq. The American public got weary of it. But give us another enemy that is actually threatening the liberty of our civilians and I think we'd see a different reaction. Now I know that terrorists do pose a threat to Americans and I think a military response is appropriate to those groups who wish to do us harm, but we can't have a 10 year war against every single group out there.
The bottom line is this, America's freedom hasn't been threatened since WWII. I firmly believe if it were we'd rise up united as one. I think we'd have to. If we don't, America will fall. If we think it can't happen we need only to open a history book and search for Romans/Ottomans/Babylonians/etc.
Do you want to know when I knew what we were doing in Iraq wasn't going to work? When the Iraqi soldiers told us they didn't care about the people where we were because they were from a different part of Iraq. I knew they were doomed. There was no national pride. On 9/11 I was in Oxford, MS and I felt personally attacked by those terrorists. I think we all did. America has a "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" attitude. Or at least it did then. And I hope it still does.
WWII was very different than Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan. No one (not even the soldiers) really knew why we were fighting the latter three wars. Yeah, to kill insurgents. But when are we done? The guys in WWII knew the objective. Get to Berlin/Tokyo=end the war. We didn't have that in Iraq. The American public got weary of it. But give us another enemy that is actually threatening the liberty of our civilians and I think we'd see a different reaction. Now I know that terrorists do pose a threat to Americans and I think a military response is appropriate to those groups who wish to do us harm, but we can't have a 10 year war against every single group out there.
The bottom line is this, America's freedom hasn't been threatened since WWII. I firmly believe if it were we'd rise up united as one. I think we'd have to. If we don't, America will fall. If we think it can't happen we need only to open a history book and search for Romans/Ottomans/Babylonians/etc.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Are we, in a sense, doing ourselves in with an overdone sense of "political correctness". The question has to asked, "why do we fight wars?" In short we go to war because it is in the national interest to do so, and by war I mean the total resources of the nation are put in play to bring about the destruction of an enemy threatening that national interest. What is the national interest? The continuation of our society, all that is best about America.
What we have today are forces lined against us that would see an end to our society. Forces willing to use either armed aggression, or economic pressure, to bring about that end. Most are external, and obvious. Some are internal, and take the form of what I call, exaggerated political correctness.
As free as our society is, it is difficult, nay impossible, to be all things everyone.
Where we need to be united is that we are Americans.
What we have today are forces lined against us that would see an end to our society. Forces willing to use either armed aggression, or economic pressure, to bring about that end. Most are external, and obvious. Some are internal, and take the form of what I call, exaggerated political correctness.
As free as our society is, it is difficult, nay impossible, to be all things everyone.
Where we need to be united is that we are Americans.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Absolutely not, I am on Ft Huachuca every day and There are plenty of fine young people who are proud to serve. The Army is organized and trained to move in behind massive air superiority. That isn't the troops doing, it is flawed thinking at the top. Again and again we bungle into wars that are not the war we trained for.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Religious services are volunteer. No war needed. Squabbling is an outward manifestation of inner warfare about matters pertaining to religious conviction or lack thereof.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yes, Pearl Harbor and 9/11/2001 showed we can unite as a nation. Unfortunately the American (USA) society support can be shallow and have a short time table. We must hope and rely that our Federal government can make the best decisions to end a war in a quick and efficient manner. Our government shown possibilities it's possible like in WWII dropping the atomic bombs end a war that was quickly losing popular support. We have also failed to keep popular support in Vietnam because the actions taken couldn't keep support.
I do feel if our nation was truly endanger by actions taken by Russia or China as the aggressor. We will have the popular support as long as the US has the moral high ground. I don't think Russia or China will take such hostile actions thanks to mutual assured destruction (MAD) and global economic dependency.
I do feel if our nation was truly endanger by actions taken by Russia or China as the aggressor. We will have the popular support as long as the US has the moral high ground. I don't think Russia or China will take such hostile actions thanks to mutual assured destruction (MAD) and global economic dependency.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think that the concept of a "Loyal Opposition" has largely been lost. The divisions between factions in our country are wider and more bitterly held than at any other time in my memory, and I have clear memories going back to the Eisenhower administration. I believe that, in order to mount a truly national effort, along the lines of WWII, there would have to be a clear and unambiguous existential threat to the nation. Either that, or a spiritual revival unlike any that we have ever experienced, that would bring us together within a commonly held faith and goals.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google