Military History – Studying the Past, to Understand the Present, and Prepare for the Future

July 21, 2022July 21, 2022

The “Post-War,” 1945-2022, Part V.

The “Post-War,” 1945-2022

Part V

John M. Lane

The Thirty “Greed is Good” Years, 1978-2008

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country… corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Abraham Lincoln, before the U.S Civil War (1861-1865).

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge in mankind, and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.”

The fictional character, “Gordon Gekko.”

In the film “Wall Street,” 1987

Beginning in the late 1970s, the reaction against what was believed to be the excesses of the 1960s and early 1970s began in earnest. Many thought it was time to restore “traditional” American values. The revolution in “rights” had gone far enough. What about “personal responsibility” and ownership? After taking office in January 1981, Ronald Reagan began implementing his program to end liberal “activism” and restore American greatness. It was the fulfillment of their career dreams for Laissez-faire/free-market economists from the “Chicago” and “Austrian” schools of economic philosophy. Both Milton Friedman and Alfred von Hayek had lived to see the ideas of their philosophical foe, John Maynard Keynes, overturned.

At every level of government, officials tried to balance budgets, cut costs and taxes, and “privatize” as much as possible. Taxes were cut, mainly for the wealthy, believing they would create more jobs and growth, trickling down to the rest of the population, thereby improving everyone’s well-being. “Reagan and other conservatives adopted what became known as “supply-side economics,” based on the erroneous belief that, by increasing the rewards to effort, tax cuts would generate more than enough through growth to compensate for the cuts.” (Lind 378). To confront the Soviets, the defense budget was increased to 1.7 trillion dollars over five years. The result: inflation remained high, the deficit grew (perversely, the deficits were used to show that spending on social programs could not be continued. The money was not there to spend.), and nothing trickled down. The wealthy kept the extra money and spent it on themselves.

To fight inflation, the Federal Reserve raised short-term interest rates by 7 percent over the rate of inflation to 19 percent. These moves resulted in two recessions in three years. (Lind 387). By 1984, inflation was under control; the way was paved for Reagan’s landslide reelection over Walter Mondale. He carried 49 of the 50 states.

There were “two Nixons” and there were “two Reagans: President Ronald Reagan visiting the suburban Maryland home of an African American family in 1982 that had a cross burned on their yard in 1977.

The squeeze on the working and middle classes became tighter. Unemployment reached 10.7 percent in 1982. In the same year, there were 2,700 mass layoffs/plant shutdowns. The new policies devastated American manufacturing and its ability to compete globally. The manufacturing sector of the American economy has still not recovered. The labor movement was also crippled as the hollowing out of non-college-educated working, and middle-class workers accelerated. In 1987, the savings and loan industry collapsed after they began using “junk bonds” to invest in commercial real estate and businesses. It cost the American taxpayer 200 billion dollars to bail out the industry. By 1989, 31.5 million Americans were classified as poor. In the 1980s it was Japan that was the giant of growth and prosperity. The term “Japan Inc.” was accurate. “The deficits were easy to finance because of the inflow of foreign money, much of it from Japan…The United States was now the world’s largest debtor and Japan the world’s largest creditor. The Japanese central bank bought huge quantities of US government bonds to keep the yen artificially low, thereby subsidizing Japanese exports while hurting American exports. The same mercantilist technique would be adopted on a much larger scale by China a few decades later, with disastrous results for the economy of the United States and the world”. (Lind 389-390) History lesson, anyone?

To help fund education in their states, states developed the “innovative” idea of starting state lotteries to fund public education and college scholarships. States began to rely on gambling by the people who could least afford it to fund education because they were no longer able (or willing) to. Local jurisdictions that could afford it raised property taxes to help support their schools.

Technology, especially (by the late 1990s, the Internet), finance, and service, became growth industries while manufacturing jobs were sent “offshore.” Lavish lifestyles were praised and admired. Television shows, fictitious (“Dallas” and “Dynasty”) and “reality”- based (“Lifestyles of The Rich and Famous”), glorified the wealthy, promoting a lifestyle of “premium,” “deluxe,” “exclusive,” and “first-class.” Any product with those terms attached to it was seen as the best. Having an account at Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, or Bloomingdales was a sign of status and success. Tax cuts for the wealthy began the most significant upward transfer of wealth since the late 19^thcentury: (“the ratio of CEOs’ pay to their employees’ pay double(d) (before sextupling in the 1990s.), The top income tax rate on the richest is reduced from 70 percent to 28 percent.” (Andersen 120) This trend has continued unchecked as of 2022. Stocks and the stock market were seen by many as the leading indicators of economic growth, which every credible economist knows is false.

Throughout the West, but especially in the United States and Britain, working and middle-class wages and salaries stagnated, and quality of life declined. In the United States- (“Consumer credit was deregulated excessively, causing consumer debt suddenly to increase by a third and interest payments to balloon, home mortgage foreclosures quadrupled. Federal spending on housing programs for low-income people was cut by 75 percent. The number of jobs requiring a college degree started increasing significantly. The cost of a four-year college (education) and the student debt to pay for it started increasing significantly.” (Andersen 121)

The working and middle classes had to take on more and more personal debt while working at more low-paying jobs to maintain what they had. (“Jobs in manufacturing rapidly disappeared- by 22 percent during the decades {the 1980s}).” (Andersen 120) Social mobility all but stopped. The idea that younger generations might not do better than their parents and grandparents was becoming a reality. During the 1981-82 recession, the departure from the Midwest to Texas and the West could have reminded people, although the scale was smaller, of families leaving for California in the 1930s.

A new emphasis on “the war on drugs” would devastate African American communities. The 1980s drug of choice was cocaine and its synthetic partner, “crack.” Crack came into African American communities and crushed them. (“The large-scale movement out of poverty for black men from 1960 to 1980 stopped”, “Incarceration of “criminals” began its massive increase, doubling (before doubling again in the 1990s), and the first private profit-making prison companies were founded.” (Andersen 123) The use of cocaine would be just as pervasive as the use of crack. However, cocaine was the drug of the rich, the elite, and the white, and although law enforcement did attempt to enforce the law against cocaine users and dealers, it was never done with the single-mindedness of the effort against crack. Prosecuting crack offenses could bring 25 years to life sentences in prison; the punishment for cocaine offenses rarely reached that extent.

Combined with the de-industrialization of the country and the jobs that went with it, the cuts in funding for housing, education, medical care, and childcare, in addition to the “war on drugs” and the resulting mass incarceration to feed the rural, job-creating, prison-industrial complex (much of which would soon be in the hands of private companies); set back African American economic and social progress for at least thirty years. Maybe that was the point. In the 1980s, white Americans suffered from the cuts and elimination of the same programs, even more so because their numbers were more prominent. The question must be asked: Why would the great bulk of the majority population accept less than what they could realistically receive?

In short, using resentment, particularly racial resentment, as a political strategy worked and continues to work in the 21^st century.

George H.W. Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan as President in 1989. His foreign policy credentials to be President were beyond reproach (CIA director, Representative to China, UN Ambassador.) Bush would oversee the end of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany, and the end of the Soviet Union. Bush used the US military in 1989 to invade Panama to remove Manuel Noriega from power. However, He is remembered for the “Gulf War.” The 1991 Persian Gulf War was the last war of the second industrial revolution (1850- 1990, oil, steel, natural gas, and coal, the “commanding heights” of economic development dominated by the Americans, British, and Western Europeans). The Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had decided to acquire the oil fields of neighboring Kuwait to rebuild his depleted financial resources resulting from the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War. Saddam calculated that the West and the United States would not intervene because they no longer had the stomach for combat that might involve heavy casualties. He calculated wrong. The West needed access to Persian Gulf oil to keep their economies going.

Britain, France, and the United States sent an overwhelming force to Saudi Arabia and significant contributions from Arab countries as well. The American force alone numbered close to 500,000. For whatever reason, Saddam had decided to engage the West in a decisive battle, and in turn, he was decisively defeated. The armies created by the United States, Britain, and France to fight a massive battle of “decision” on the plains of Central Europe against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were unleashed on Saddam. This war happened because the now decrepit Soviet Union could do nothing to stop it, and the Chinese looked the other way. (Lane)

The First Persian Gulf War, January-March 1991

The victory was spectacular in its swiftness but was not decisive. Many of the best Iraqi units escaped and were relatively untouched when a cease-fire was declared. The Americans decided not to march on to Baghdad and remove Saddam. (Lane) The Americans believed the Iraqi people would do that. They did not. An uprising in the Basra region was attempted, and ordinary Iraqis paid a terrible price for trying. Comparatively speaking, casualties for the Allies were light, as the public could watch incredible images of smart bombs hitting their targets. It almost looked like a video game. Maybe this was the future of war: “cool” images with little or no casualties.

Domestically, Bush discovered that his inherited federal budget deficits were becoming untenable. He reached a five-year budget agreement with the Democrats that included tax increases. He had to renounce his “no new taxes’ campaign pledge to reach an agreement. The Budget deal, combined with slow economic growth in 1991 and early 1992, finished Bush politically. H.W. Bush lost to Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton (in a three-way race with Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot.) after having an 89 % approval rating at the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. His primary domestic achievement was the passage of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) in 1990.

President George H.W. Bush signing the American with Disabilities Bill in to law, 1990

The Democrats, desperate to win back the White House and Congress, chose another southern governor, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, as their candidate in 1992. Clinton was a “new Democrat,” supported by the Democratic Leadership Council, which would showcase the Democrat’s new moderation. The new Democrats would be “tough on crime,” advocate welfare reform, be “fiscally responsible,” and “carry a big stick” on foreign policy issues. The election of Clinton validated the policies of Nixon, especially Reagan, and indicated to the Republicans that they had been right. The same thing happened in Britain in 1997, with the ascendancy of “New Labor” under Tony Blair as Prime Minister. The Tories knew there would be little effort to roll back Conservative policies. Like the American Democrats, Labor would show they were better managers than the Tories and the Republicans. Other than that, nothing of substance would change. As Clinton said, the days of “big government” were over.

President Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair

Clinton got the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress in 1993 as the movement toward economic globalization continued. Congress also passed the “motor voter” registration act, making it easier to register to vote, the Brady gun-control act, and a family-leave law. For the first time since the Truman presidency, an attempt to expand and reform health care coverage was introduced. The forces that defeated Truman’s effort again mobilized quickly to crush the proposal. Clinton lowered his sights and policy ambitions for the rest of his presidency. This was especially true after the Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994. Virulence, anger, and hypocrisy characterized American politics for the next 25 years.

Clinton, and his wife, Hillary, would be under constant investigation and attack for the eight years of his presidency. (She would become a US Senator from New York, US Secretary of State, 2008 Presidential candidate, and the 2016 Democratic nominee for President.) They were accused of murdering a top aide to keep him quiet about alleged criminal activity in a land transaction: “Whitewater.” Clinton faced a special prosecutor in 1998 after easily being reelected in 1996 because of unspecified wrongdoings that eventually focused on an affair with a White House intern. That affair led to Clinton being impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate after a televised trial. Clinton’s approval ratings remained high, even in the face of the attacks. This was due mainly to growing general prosperity, his effective use of the media, and his “baby-boomer” celebrity status.

Trade was a significant focus of the Clinton administration in foreign policy, especially attempts to strengthen the World Trade Organization (WTO). Clinton met several times with Russian Federation President Boris Yeltsin to shore up the fledgling Russian “democracy.” (Those efforts failed). Militarily, after the chaotic attempts of nation-building and peacekeeping in Somalia, Clinton would be hesitant to commit US ground forces anywhere. A 1994 invasion of Haiti was avoided at the last minute, as hectic negotiations allowed for the invasion to become a peacekeeping mission. In 1999, in the former Yugoslavia, in support of Kosovo’s independence, NATO mounted a bombing campaign over Serbia and Kosovo (including bombing Belgrade) that forced the Serbs to back down without sending in ground forces.

In the year 2000, the world survived Y2K and was on the cusp of a new age. The Third “Industrial Revolution” was underway. The “World Wide Web” made the world even smaller, while incredible wealth was being made for the few at the expense of the many. In the United States, 2000 was an election year. Vice-President Al Gore was running as the Democratic candidate to succeed Bill Clinton. The Republican candidate was Texas Governor George W. Bush, son of President George H.W. Bush. For a modern Republican, Bush ran a surprisingly moderate campaign, as did Vice-President Gore. There were no major foreign policy issues to debate as both candidates explained how the United States would continue to manage affairs as the world’s remaining “superpower.” Domestically, they seemingly argued over how best to work Reagan’s legacy, with a few “tweaks” around the edges. Bush promised to lower taxes and return the government surplus to the people built during the Clinton “boom” years; he also encouraged homeownership and expanded local “faith-based” charitable activity as an adjunct for and replacement of government aid. Gore wanted to continue encouraging four-year college enrollment as a means of social mobility while supporting the continued growth of the “tech” sector and bringing attention to the signs of environmental damage. Again, it was a relatively moderate plan for a political party seen popularly as full of dangerous liberals, socialists, and radicals.

Bush won in one of the closest elections in American History. The election was not decided on election night, as ballot problems in Florida delayed counting ballots. The fight over ballot counts and recounts (“hanging chads”) went into December. Inevitably the fight ended up in the Courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ended the Florida recount. Gore reluctantly and gracefully conceded defeat, even though he had won the popular vote by over 500,000. There were no calls of “fraud” and no storming of the Capitol building. George W. Bush was sworn in as President on January 20, 2001.

Gore lost in 2000 because the historic political alignment that began in 1964 was complete. Gore did not carry his home state of Tennessee or Clinton’s home state of Arkansas. During the campaign, Gore kept Clinton at a distance, a grave mistake. However, it probably would have made little difference. The non-stop, incessant echo chamber “dog-whistle” racism of the previous 36 years had taken its effect. It was time to end the “hand-outs,” the “preferential treatment,” the “special favors,” the “reverse discrimination,” and the “coddling of criminals.” These attitudes were (and are) nothing new. In an opinion in a Supreme Court ruling on cases involving Civil Rights Laws in 1883 written by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, the “court majority found the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (was) beyond Congress’s powers under the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments.” (Schmidt, Jr. 461: 1982) Congress could not regulate private discrimination. In a statement that echoes down to our own time, Bradley, near the end of his opinion, wrote:” When a man has emerged from slavery…. there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen and ceases to be the particular favorite of the laws.” (Schmidt, Jr. 462:1982- also from Lane) It is doubtful whether many African Americans considered themselves “particular favorites of the laws.”

As President, George W. Bush pushed ahead with his tax cuts, which Congress passed in 2001. He advocated for more deregulation to “stimulate” economic growth and for more education reform and restructuring. His entire presidency changed on the morning of September 11, 2001. The country and world would never be the same.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the “rollback” of Communism, the United States no longer had an enemy upon whom their entire foreign policy was based. In the 1990s, going into the 21^st century, American foreign policy focused on spreading free trade, open markets, and “Jeffersonian” democracy. The Americans did eventually find a new enemy: “Global” Terrorism. Terrorist attacks steadily increased from the mid-80s, leading to the ultimate attack: September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, four hijacked aircraft were used to attack the United States. Two crashed into the World Trade Center Towers in New York City.

Another crashed into the Pentagon in Northern Virginia. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers resisted and fought the hijackers. The loss of life was the heaviest the United States had suffered since Pearl Harbor. The attack was planned and carried out by the Jihadist terrorist group, Al Qaeda, led by the Saudi Arabian terrorist Osama Bin Liden. The United States responded by allying with anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan and intervening. The Taliban “government” in Afghanistan was overthrown, and Al Qaeda was crippled. Most of the Taliban leadership escaped to Pakistan; its military and intelligence service had helped create them. Bin Laden escaped and became virtually powerless to control Al Qaeda while hiding in Pakistan.

The United States and Britain invaded Iraq in March 2003 (while the fighting in Afghanistan continued) to remove Saddam Hussein from power and destroy his “weapons of mass destruction” (which no longer existed). Crushing the depleted Iraqi Army took a matter of weeks. However, the invasion force was not big enough to secure the country, and no plans were made as to what to do with Iraq after it was conquered. As in Afghanistan, a government was created, and as in Afghanistan, guerrilla war and insurgency began, killing Allied troops in ambush after ambush. Surges went into an area, cleared it, left, and inevitably. Allied forces would have to return to repeat the process.

Marines crossing a bridge in Southern Iraq, under fire, March 2003

By 2008, the United States was in two unwinnable wars. The traditional, historical American definition of victory in war: total annihilation and defeat of the enemy could not be achieved. It is tough to defeat a “tactic.” Terrorism is a tactic; it is not a strategy. To paraphrase, Max Boot describes: Terror is the tactic the weak use against the strong (to carry out a strategy, in this case, to strike at the United States and the West). The overall campaign after 9/11 was called the “Global War on Terror.” American forces were deployed in direct combat or advisory roles in Asia, Africa, and South America, fighting or helping to fight groups identified as terrorists. The “terrorists” knew what a new generation of American “leaders” failed to learn from Vietnam. It is tough to convince free citizens in democracies/democratic republics to commit to an “open-ended” military campaign with vague goals, which entails the loss of blood and treasure indefinitely, no matter how good you think your” counter-insurgency strategy and tactics” are. In addition, the Americans did not draft soldiers. Consequently, only around one percent of the American population fought the “Global War on Terror”; the rest went on with their lives.

2008 was an election year. Not only was the country reeling from the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, with no end in sight, but the economy, especially the housing market, was in “freefall” as well.

In the first year of the FDR administration, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act (1933). The law divided the banking industry. Commercial banks would be for mortgages, other loans, checking and savings accounts, etc. In other words, everyday banking. Investment banks would be for investments, stocks, bonds, securities, etc. The law was designed to separate investments, which were riskier, from regular banking. It made banking “boring,” which is a good thing for most people. At least until 1999. In another case of a peculiarly American phenomenon called “history does not apply to us,” Glass-Steagall was overturned. The barrier between commercial and investment banking was removed. The result was a “wild west” of financing. Anyone with financial assets or access to “hedge-fund” cash rushed to acquire the “easy money.” Exciting “new products” were developed out of old concepts (derivatives) that most of the executives running the banks could not explain. Banks and investment houses that should have known better got involved. There was simply too much money to be made, especially in financing mortgages. Anybody could get a mortgage: no assets, no employment, no problem. An adjustable-rate mortgage will solve the problem. We are an “ownership society,” and you need to be an “owner.” The poor, especially in the inner cities, were pulled into situations that destroyed their lives. Were they forced to sign the papers: No. However, the documents should never have been offered in the first place. The process used to be called professionalism, honesty, and morality. What was the result? “…in August and September 2008, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury mounted the greatest economic rescue effort in world history. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed corporations that underwrote a majority of America’s home mortgages, were effectively nationalized. Most of the great investment bankson Wall Street, including Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch, victims of bad gambles on home-mortgage debt, either vanished or were absorbed by or converted into large commercial banks. In a desperate effort to stop the contagion of bad debt and avert a credit freeze that could cause a new depression, the US government promised a bailout of the financial sector of more than a trillion dollars.” (Lind 446) To repeat, the means to have prevented this was repealed in 1999, 8 years earlier.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke: Fall 2008: Barely averting disaster

As all this occurred, a first-term senator from Illinois with a funny-sounding name was considering a presidential run. Barack Obama, of mixed Black-White ancestry, would have to defeat doubters in his party, an opposition with a media apparatus that could destroy his candidacy, as well as history. Would he be able to convince the country to do what many still considered to be unthinkable?

Works Cited

Bibliography

Andersen, Kurt. Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America- A Recent History. New York: Random House, 2020.

Gellman, Barton, “January 6 Was Practice.” The Atlantic, January/February 2022.

Lane, John M. “Freedom Deferred: Frederick Douglass and The End of Reconstruction, 1865-1895”, 2022. www.jmlww2.com.

Lane, John M. “Geography, Culture, Technology and Conflict Through the Ages, Part III.” 2021. www.jmlww2.com.

Lane, John M. “Geography, Culture, Technology and Conflict Through the Ages, Part IV.” 2021. www.jmlww2.com.

Lind, Michael. Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins, 2012.

McGee, Heather. The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together. New York: One World, 2021.

Schmidt, Jr. Benno C, “Principle and Prejudice: The Supreme Court and Race in The Progressive Era. Part I: Heyday of Jim Crow” Columbia Law Review Vol. 82, No. 3 (April 1982), pp.444-524. JSTOR 18 September 2009. http://www.jstor.org/se

May 3, 2022

War,Peace, Authoritarianism, and Democracy

War, Peace, Authoritarianism, and Democracy

John M. Lane

Democracy is the most fragile form of government that humans have devised to rule themselves. Various forms of dictatorships, monarchies, absolutist rule, and theocracies, have for most of the time that humans have lived in what we call “civilization” (give or take 7,000 years), have been how humans ruled and governed themselves. It was simple to implement. Those with the most weapons and largest armies won. The populations depended upon them for protection, order, and leadership. The victorious warlord established an elite resource/landowning class accountable to the ruler/warlord and installed it in power. The “power elite” installed a priestly class to legitimize the new order. Everyone knew their place in what would be called society.

The significant deviation from this order was Ancient Athens, where the first direct democracy exercised authority with minimal participation from only the elite male population of the city. Millennium later, the ideas of the Enlightenment brought forth the concept of rule through the consent of the governed: Democracy or the Democratic Republic. The original manifestation of this idea was the creation of the United States, the first democratic republic with a written constitution. Although far from perfect (the list is long, beginning with the “three-fifths” clause created to count enslaved persons for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives), the document did establish fundamental rights for citizens that have expanded (often grudgingly) over the past two hundred plus years.

The United States Constitution has been repeatedly copied and imitated over two centuries. Even the vilest, repressive regimes in history have felt the need to create a document that at least reads like the United States Constitution. Around the world, most people are aware of the document’s contents, except, sadly, Americans themselves. Many of whom do not have an accurate idea of what the document says (Political Science/Civics/ Government instruction is currently not in vogue) and attribute it to its “rights” that are not mentioned in any part of the document. Americans do not have the “constitutional right” to practice the “personal liberty” of not stopping at stop signs or driving through lights at intersections.

“Classical liberalism” reached the point of becoming a viable political philosophy by the 1840s. Classical liberalism, at its core, promotes the rule of law, rule by law, free and fair elections, representative democracy, capitalism, free trade, and equality of opportunity. By the beginning of the 20^thcentury, Classical liberalism had split into two camps: The Tories (Conservatives) believed that the role of government should be “limited” and that lightly or unregulated capitalism and opportunity were the best ways to improve life for most people over the long run. The Social Democrats (liberals/progressives in the United States) felt that the government was obligated to intervene to “level the playing field” to ensure that markets and capitalism worked for all populations through regulation, fair taxation, and worker representation. The struggle between Conservatives and Social Democrats over how to define classical liberalism and implement it has continued into the 21^st century. In the past, politics in a democracy/democratic republic meant that neither side got everything it wanted. This situation used to be called “compromise,” which is now a “dirty” word, a sign of “weakness,” and a failure to stand up for “core values.” Because of the refusal to compromise, actual governance in the United States has ground to a screeching halt. Nothing of any substance is accomplished or agreed to. Today, what is substituted for governing management is who can “score the most points” over the latest incarnation of the “culture war.” Meanwhile, for example, the country is burning and melting under our feet, while close to one million people died because a public health crisis was turned into an “us” vs. “them” political battle.

Historically, the political extremes have been waiting to take advantage of the situation under the circumstances described above. When compromise fails in democratic republics/democracies, either the Communist Far Left or the Fascist Far Right were ready to offer easy solutions to society’s problems. The Communist Far Left will promise that state control of all the means of production will solve everything, while the Fascist Far-Right blames “those other kinds of people” for stealing your jobs, taking your money, and ruining the country. Today, four countries can be called “Communist”: North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and China. North Korea and Cuba are “basket cases.” Vietnam is a threat to no one and seeks better relations with the United States. China is positioning itself to challenge the United States to control the “Commanding Heights” of the world economy in the 21^st century.

The main threat to the democratic republic/democracy in the 21^st century comes from the Authoritarian Right. They offer the comforting notion that it is possible to return to the world of 1950; when the “right kinds of people” were in charge politically, economically, and culturally, no matter what your situation was, you knew you were superior to “those other kinds of people.” In the United States, that guaranteed “superiority” meant that you would be willing to accept higher costs in education and housing, a lesser quality of health care, public transportation, and infrastructure to ensure that “the other” did not benefit from your “hard-earned tax dollars.” To gain and retain power, the Authoritarian Right will build on resentment to stoke anger and frustration in the “working class” against “the other.”

What does the war in Ukraine have to do with any of the above? It has everything to do with it. If the Democracies do not stand with Ukraine to fight against the savage, authoritarian attack on that country, the aggression will continue. It appears that Western democracies have decided that they will make that stand. Their battle will be both internal and external. In the recent French presidential elections, the authoritarian candidate received only 41% of the vote. However, that is ten points higher than that candidate received five years ago. Five years from now, it could be even closer.

In Britain and the United States, authoritarians are making gains at every level of government, confident that soon they will gain power, permanently, they hope. Externally, authoritarians worldwide are connected and coordinated. They use the same “playbook,” media outlets and technology, conferences, and propaganda techniques to undermine democratic institutions, the rule of law and spread division. (In the West, they are protected by the same freedoms and constitution they seek to undermine and destroy.) Democracies must fight back with an equally vigorous effort on all fronts. From time to time, “carrying a big stick” works: At the height of the Cold War, in the 1960s/1970s, the United States had 300,000 troops stationed in Western Europe (while fighting in Vietnam). The Warsaw Pact/USSR never seriously considered a westward attack. That number is not going to be placed there today. Right now, there are around 65,000.

Authoritarians must be made aware that further aggression, both military or otherwise, will be met with determined political, economic, and, if necessary, military resistance.

October 20, 2021November 5, 2021

Geography, Culture, Technology and Conflict through the Ages: Part IV

John M. Lane

Original Conclusion -2009

The world has come full circle since East and West first faced each other on the plains of Marathon. The “Western Way of War,” in the 21^st century, is a fading memory of a by-gone era. The world has changed, and so has the way war is conducted. Since 1973, the West, particularly the United States, has been in a crisis over military service and the conduct of war. World War II was and will remain the quintessential American war for the foreseeable: clear goals, decisive battles, and undisputed victory. Wars since 1945 has been anything but that for Americans. The concept of limited war to achieve narrow political and geostrategic objectives has been a problematic concept, indeed, for most Americans to grasp and accept. Vietnam was the tipping point. An army made up of forty percent draftees, with the average age being nineteen, was demoralized in a manner already described. The Vietnam draft was grotesquely unfair. College students were given deferments, which had far-reaching socio-economic implications that reverberate to this day. The Reserves and National Guard were not activated and were not sent to Vietnam. Coveted spots in those units became a matter of class privilege and political manipulation. It is, small wonder, as mentioned earlier, that Vietnam is constantly being re-fought.

Military service is optional in the United States, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and is seen as a career choice. It is sold to the public as a job and a place to get to a great start in life. Combat, sacrifice, and hardship are rarely, if ever mentioned. It is an odd circumstance because that is what militaries do, and that is what war is. War in the West is now characterized by a deep aversion to casualties, which means, if possible, the use of air forces only and having an “exit strategy” before the battle even begins. Somalia, 1993 is a prime example of casualty aversion. In the “Black Hawk Down” battle, eighteen American rangers were killed in a day-long firefight (the deadliest the Army had fought since Vietnam, dwarfing anything from the Persian Gulf), and over 1,000 Somalis died. The Rangers wanted to go back in and finish the battle the next day. They were not ordered to return to the fight. Pictures on CNN and Fox of two dead American soldiers being mutilated stunned the country. The mission in Somalia, no matter how ill-conceived, was over. Westerners now prefer their combat vicariously through shockingly realistic video games and World War II movies.

Western militaries are now made up of those who choose to serve and have a calling to do so and those who must serve as a means of having a chance to better themselves. This, however, is one more indication of the dangerous gulf that is growing within western societies in almost every facet of life. The privileged and the upper classes have no connection to the military. Constant military deployments are easier to accept and to ignore when your family is not affected.

History is a continuum. It is ongoing. In the conduct of war, the world’s cultures eventually adapted to and have learned to cope with and even defeat the “Western Way of War” while remaining true to their own cultural beliefs and adopting Western technology. The West is currently rebuilding its militaries to fight asymmetrically. If history is any indication, the success of that effort is in doubt because change is difficult.

New Afterword- 2021 and Beyond

On September 11, 2001, four hijacked aircraft were used to attack the United States. Two were crashed into the World Trade Center Towers in New York City. Another crashed into the Pentagon in Northern Virginia. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers resisted and fought the hijackers. The loss of life was the heaviest the United States had suffered since Pearl Harbor. The attack was planned and carried out by the Jihadist terrorist group, Al Qaeda, led by the Saudi Arabian terrorist Osama Bin Liden. The United States responded by allying itself with anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan and intervening in that country. The Taliban “government” in Afghanistan was overthrown, and Al Qaeda was crippled. Most of the Taliban leadership escaped to Pakistan; that country’s military and intelligence service had helped create them. Bin Laden also escaped and became virtually powerless to control Al Qaeda while hiding in Pakistan. After a relentless search, American intelligence found his hiding place, a compound, in Abbottabad, Pakistan. American special forces raided the compound in May 2011 and killed Bin Laden.

Afghanistan could never be stabilized. All attempts to establish an accountable, honest central government failed. The societal and governmental structure of Afghanistan had never been based on centralized authority. It was based on families, tribes, and clans. For twenty years, the Americans could not accept that ultimate reality. The American military could not defeat the Taliban, no matter how many engagements it won. “Nation-building” failed after hundreds of billions of dollars had been invested. The decision to withdraw was made in 2020 and carried out in 2021. Afghanistan was another lesson in the limitations of power.

**Afghanistan, 2006 – Carefully notice the terrain**

So was Iraq, the United States, and Britain invaded the country in March 2003 (while the fighting in Afghanistan continued) to remove Saddam Hussein from power and destroy his “weapons of mass destruction” (which no longer existed). Crushing the depleted Iraqi Army took a matter of weeks. However, the invasion force was not big enough to secure the country, and no plans were made as to what to do with Iraq after it was conquered. As in Afghanistan, a government was created, and as in Afghanistan, guerrilla war and insurgency began, killing Allied troops in an ambush after ambush. Surges went into an area, cleared it, left, and inevitably. Allied forces would have to return to repeat the process.

The Americans were now in two unwinnable wars, with no apparent way out that would not look like a defeat. The withdrawals took place. Both US administrations that decided to withdraw were blamed for abandoning our friends and not staying the course. Some of this criticism came from many of the same people who initiated the wars in the first place. Their only real solution was to stay, continue fighting and hope for the best.

How does the West, particularly the United States, proceed militarily into the 21^st century? Since the end of the First Gulf War, China has geared its military efforts to confront who they believe is their number one military threat: the United States. That includes not just advances in cyber warfare but the development of advanced weapons systems, such as anti-ship missiles designed to sink American aircraft carriers and advanced surface to air missiles to use against American aircraft. In the area of nuclear weapons, the Chinese are experimenting with “hypersonic missiles” that could overwhelm American missile defenses. The Chinese hope to force the Americans out of the Western Pacific, if possible, peacefully through “soft” power and diplomacy. However, they intend to be ready if they must fight the Americans, probably in the Western Pacific and the South China Sea. The “wild card” in Asia is, of course, North Korea. If North Koreans decide to attack South Korea by some descent into insanity, the Pyongyang regime can expect a withering American and South Korean response. The question, as it was in 1950, will the Chinese intervene?

In Europe, Russia will continue to develop closer ties with China in an open effort to challenge and isolate the Americans. Russia will continue its efforts to destabilize Western European democracies through cyber warfare and support for right-wing authoritarian parties (with backing from similar elements in the United States). Despite its apparent flaws, especially the post-Cold War move eastward, the United States must continue its membership in and support of NATO. The reason should be apparent. Without having a clear defense strategy, while looking through the rearview at their previous glory, the Americans continue to build what the experts call “legacy” weapon systems because members of Congress want them built in their state or district. In the 21^st century, the American military requires the latest, cutting-edge, high-tech weapons systems to face current and future threats, not unnecessary or redundant weapons systems.

The United States spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Money readily appropriated with little debate or argument in Congress in twenty years of war. While the Americans were trapped in the Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires, The Chinese, as mentioned above, were moving ahead with their military (and economic) development. The Russians developed their plans to undermine and weaken the West; these plans (with a lot of inside help) have been successful.

It is now 2021. The current American defense budget is approximately $750 billion annually. As mentioned, defense budgets pass Congress with little or no debate. Meanwhile, there is a fierce and vitriolic debate on whether to allocate $4 trillion, spent over ten years, to invest in the United States and its people. Something that has not been done in any meaningful, public way for over 45 years. The evidence of this lack of investment is obvious. You just must look. Maybe it’s time to try “nation-building” at home. National power has four measurements. One is military; the others are economic development, social stability, and political stability. Continuing to ignore the latter three measurements while mismanaging the first one is entirely irresponsible, and what potential adversaries want the United States to continue to do.

The “Third Industrial Revolution” (1991-????) Computers/Chips, Artificial Intelligence, Electric Cars, Renewable Energy/Fuel, Fiberoptics, Hydrogen-Powered Planes, and more) is well underway. We are now in year 30 of the third industrial revolution. As of now, it is uncertain which nation or groups of nations will reach the “commanding heights” first and dominate the economy of the third industrial revolution. If history is any measurement, we will have a good indication around the years 2040-2045. In the second revolution, by 1880 (year 30), the United States was steadily advancing in oil and steel production. In 1941 (year 91 of the second revolution), the United States was the world’s leading oil exporter. (History Lesson: in mid-1941, the US placed an oil embargo on Japan, over their actions in China. The result was war with the US in December.) By year 91 of the third revolution who will dominate solar panel production and hydrogen power?

By 1901 (year 51- second revolution), the Americans had surpassed the British as the world’s leading manufacturing nation. In 1901, the British had slipped to third in steel production behind the United States and Germany. Germany had only become a unified nation-state in 1871. Historical decline is relative and is hardly noticed at the time it is happening. With their empire intact and fresh from their victory in the Boer War (1899-1902), the British elite were confident that the 20^th century would be a “British Century”, just as the 19^th century had been. There would be no need to change, reform, or modernize anything. We are at the top of the “pyramid.” Our way is the right way because it works.

The newly unified Germans (1871) took a completely different approach from the British and Americans. Led by their “arch-conservative”, anti-communist/socialist chancellor (1871-1890), Otto von Bismarck, Germany instituted measures incredibly far-reaching and “liberal”: national health insurance, workers compensation, a living wage, “kindergarten,” free public education, free university, affordable housing, expansion of the ballot (by 1912, the largest political party in Germany was the left-leaning Social Democrats) and more. German corporate taxes were increased, however, except for wages, corporations had no financial obligations in the other areas mentioned above, unless they chose to contribute (Many did).

**Otto Von Bismarck – architect of German Unification and first Chancellor of Germany (1871-1890)**

Bismarck did not make these reforms out of the goodness of his heart. He and Germany’s major corporations (unfortunately, many of the leaders of those corporations supported the Nazi takeover of 1931-1933 under the delusion that Hitler could be controlled) realized that for Germany to be strong, it needed (see above) political, economic, and social stability, as well as military power. In one shape or form, these reforms are still in effect in Germany today in the 21^st century, as Germany remains Europe’s biggest, most robust economy. The British made gradual reforms in the 1920s and substantial changes after the Second World War. The Americans made changes in the first decade of the 20^th century, during the 1930s, and 1960s. (These changes were always done in the shadow of how much these benefits should go to African Americans) The Americans, and to a lesser extent the British, have been locked in a political/ideological struggle over the meaning of reform and change. For many Americans, and their leaders, remaining in 1960 is a good idea. In a shocking, but not surprising, recent development; one American senator has probably stopped an ambitious clean energy program, which could cripple the American effort in the race to the “commanding heights” of economic development during the ongoing third industrial revolution.

Pointing out the deficiencies in American defense policy regarding potential adversaries should not be taken as a call for a new “Cold War.” Far from it. The United States, after over four decades of neglect, needs to get its domestic house in order if it is to retain any ability to influence the rest of the world in a positive manner.

Hopefully, one lesson has been learned: No matter how powerful a country believes itself to be, a military solution is not always the best solution. Use your power wisely. “Speak softly and carry a big stick”, modernize and update that “stick” for the future not the past, let your potential adversaries know that you have it, and use it only when absolutely needed.

We have reached full circle in our discussion. No matter how modern weapons are, in the end war is about occupying territory and defeating the enemy force, on the ground. Someone must pick up their infantry weapon and go forward… whether it is an Athenian/Spartan “hoplite” or a 21^st century infantry soldier. Nothing has changed, while everything has.

Works Cited

Anderson, Duncan. The Falklands War 1982. Oxford, England: Osprey Books, 2002.

Archer, Christon I., John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig, and Timothy H.E. Travers. World History of Warfare. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.

Black, Jeremy. War and the World: Military Power and the Fate of Continents, 1450-2000. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998.

Black, Jeremy. * Rethinking Military History. New York and London: Routledge, 2004.

Dunnigan, James F. How to Make War: A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare in the 21^st century. New York: Quill, 2003.

“Gates Approves Cyber Command.” Cincinnati Enquirer 23 June 2009: 2

Hanson, Victor Davis. * The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Hanson, Victor Davis. Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. New York: Knopf, 1993.

Krepinevich Jr., Andrew F., “The Pentagon’s Wasting Assets: The Eroding Foundations of American Power”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.88, No. 4 (July/August 2009) 18-33.

Liddell Hart, B. H. History of the Second World War. New York: Putnam’s, 1970.

McPherson, James M. Tried By War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief. New York: Penguin Press, 2008.

Shanker, Thom and David E. Sanger. “Privacy May Be a Victim in Cyber Defense Plan.” New York Times 14 June 2009: 1-3

Singer, P. W. “Robots at War: The New Battlefield”, The Wilson Quarterly, Vol.33, No. 1 (Winter 2009) 30-48.

Thornton, Rod. Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the 21^st century. Cambridge, England: Polity, 2007.

Weigley, Russell F. The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973.

October 13, 2021October 19, 2021

Geography, Culture, Technology and Conflict through the Ages: Part III

Part III

John M. Lane

The Cyber Revolution, Asymmetry, and Conflict: 1991-2009

The last war of the second industrial revolution (1850- 1990, oil, steel, natural gas, and coal, the “commanding heights” of economic development dominated by the Americans, British, and Western Europeans)was fought in the Persian Gulf in the winter of 1991. Later that year the Soviet Union would collapse, completing a process that had accelerated in the late 1980s. The Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had decided to acquire the oil fields of neighboring Kuwait; to rebuild his depleted financial resources resulting from the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War. Saddam calculated that the West and the United States would not intervene because they no longer had the stomach for combat that might involve heavy casualties. He calculated wrong. The West needed access to Persian Gulf oil to keep their economies going.

Britain, France, and the United States sent an overwhelming force to Saudi Arabia and along with significant contributions from Arab countries. The American force alone numbered close to 500,000. For whatever reason, Saddam had decided to engage the West in decisive battle and in turn he was decisively defeated. The armies created by the United States, Britain, and France to fight a massive battle of decision on the plains of Central Europe against the Soviet Union was instead unleashed on Saddam. This war happened because the now decrepit Soviet Union could do nothing to stop it and the Chinese looked the other way.

F-16A, F-15C and F-15E flying during Desert Storm. (U.S. Air Force photo)

The victory was spectacular in its swiftness; however, it was not decisive. A large portion of the best Iraqi units escaped and were relatively untouched when a cease-fire was declared. The decision was made not to march on to Baghdad. The Iraqis had been ejected from Kuwait. The mission had succeeded. For the West two unsettling phenomenon emerged from the Persian Gulf. First, there had been” fewer than 300 deaths, unprecedented for an operation involving half a million troops. This had unexpected side effect: the American public promptly decided this was a new development in warfare, and that all future American military operations should have equally low casualties.” (Dunnigan 369)

Second, the advent of high-tech video war changed how people viewed combat. The video images from the cameras of PGMs (programmable guided missiles) were stunning and at times surreal. It was clean, antiseptic, and oddly beautiful. Only the “bad guys” were hurt. This was arguably the beginning of the age of modern video-gaming. Finally, the euphoria over the victory, particularly in the United States, went beyond what the war had been about. There were victory parades in New York City and Washington D.C., the first such military parades since World War II. It was as if the war had been a psychological catharsis for Korea, Vietnam, Iran, and Lebanon.

The Cold War was over, and the “ghost” of Vietnam was dead. By the end of 1991, the United States stood alone as the world’s superpower. The Americans, and to a lesser extent the Europeans, saw this fact as the opportunity to spread “Jeffersonian democracy” and free markets into the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe, indeed to those parts of the world that had not seen the light of “liberty and freedom”. NATO was expanded into countries bordering the former USSR and those countries were encouraged to subject their populations to the shock treatment of instant capitalism, instead of applying a transition period. The expansion of NATO, the European Community, and later the European Union right up to borders of the former USSR, humiliated, and angered Russian nationalists. By the second decade of the 21^st century, through various means, they would exact their revenge on the West, especially the Americans.

The expansion of NATO since the end of the “Cold War”

The end of the Cold War was supposed to mean peace. However, peace would be elusive. After 1973, the United States ended conscription (“the draft”). The mechanisms have remained on the books to bring it back if needed. After thirty-six plus years, however, if any American politician (regardless of party) seriously proposed bringing back conscription, their political career would end at the next election. From the 70s through the 90s, all Western countries ended mandatory service. The consensus was and remains that it is no longer needed. The days of mass western citizen armies are over, at least for the foreseeable future. Another significant change began in the early 80s. The second industrial revolution was ending, and the cyber age was beginning.

By the mid-1990s a revolution was taking place that would change how people communicate, conduct business transactions, and live their everyday lives. Like every other technological breakthrough, it would also affect how people conduct their wars. The telegraph, telephone, steam ship, airplane, and jet engine shrank time zones and made the world smaller. The Internet, the World Wide Web, made the world interconnected and one. Space had been reduced to cyber space and the virtual had become real. The addition of mobile (cell) phones and digital communications truly made for a global, interconnected world.

The Cyber Revolution was also made for asymmetric warfare. “Cyber war can range from the planting of viruses within computers (where both means and target are cyber) to physical attacks… where aircraft bomb buildings that house the computers that control, for instance, a telephone system or a radar that feeds a computer. Cyber war can have non-military targets and be sourced to non-military actors (such as terrorists).” (Thornton 57) By the late 1990s, potential enemies of the West realized that the Internet had the potential to equalize their chances for success against Western forces. (Dunnigan 372)

The United States heavily relies on low-orbit satellites. “In recent years, the Chinese military has shown that can neutralize or destroy satellites in low-earth orbit (where most satellites are located) by launching anti-satellite ballistic missiles or firing ground-based lasers.” (Krepinevich, Jr. 25) Attacks on American military computer systems have increased steadily since the mid 1990s. The origins of the attacks have ranged from teenaged hackers to massive, coordinated efforts. In 1994, a 16-year-old in the Britain hacked into 100 US defense systems. (Thornton 60) “Another Briton carried out the biggest military computer hack of all time and made the U.S. military district of Washington…inoperable in 2001-02.” (Thornton 60) Both Russia and China are suspected of engaging in cyber war. “Russia has been accused of conducting cyber warfare campaigns against Estonia in 2007, Georgia in 2008, and Kyrgyzstan in 2009. China is reputed to have been behind cyber-attacks that disabled computer systems at the Pentagon, as well as cyber-attacks against France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.” (Krepinevich, Jr. 25)

The United States military has a massive cyber presence. “The Department of Defense runs some 10,000 different networks using 1.5 million P.C.s. Most are linked to the Internet, providing access to malicious hackers worldwide. Some 2,000 of the Pentagon’s nets are critical, controlling essential functions like command and control, logistics, nuclear weapons, research, and intelligence.” (Dunnigan 373) The United States is having a difficult time retaining highly trained systems administrators and cyber warriors in uniform. The lure of private sector riches is very enticing. (Dunnigan 375) As the first decade of the 21^st century approaches its end, it appears the “the cyber warfare competition is so shrouded in secrecy that it is difficult to determine the United States’ level of vulnerability, let alone options for addressing it. It may be that a defensive strategy cannot be successfully pursued and that the United States will be forced to develop its cyber weapons and rely on deterring the worst sorts of cyber-attacks. In short, the potential for a surprise of the worst sort in this realm remains a real possibility.” (Krepinevich Jr. 30-31)

It appeared that the United States decided to centralize its cyber war efforts in response to a growing threat. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered the creation “of a new military cyber command that will coordinate the Pentagon’s efforts to defend its networks and conduct cyber warfare”, it is scheduled to be operational by October 2009 (Associated Press) American command authorities have decided on an defensive and offensive strategy: “The Obama administration moved ahead with efforts to protect the nation from cyber-attack and to prepare for possible offensive operations against adversaries’ computer networks .” (Shanker and Sanger 1) In plain language, the United States will attack, if given probable cause, the computer networks of identifiable non-state entities and state adversaries to decisively cripple them. The “western way of war” has entered cyber space.

Where the United States has a clear technological lead is in the military application of robotics. They are currently being used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the ground and air. MARCBOTs are used to scout the road ahead for explosives devices, hand-held, four pound “Ravens” can be launched by an individual soldier and fly low over nearby terrain on reconnaissance missions and Predator aircraft are flying attack missions, piloted from bases in Nevada and Missouri. Robotics and cyber war fit into the mindset of the 21^st century western citizen. “Whether it’s watching wars from afar or sending robots instead of fellow citizens into harm’s way, robotics offers the public and its leaders the lure of riskless warfare. All the potential gains of war would come without the costs, and even be mildly entertaining.” (Singer 48) This is a cautionary tale as the memory of the price of war fades, generation by generation.

Intellectual Property of John M. Lane Copyright@ J.M. Lane -cannot be reproduced or copied without permission.