I ran across some twitter folk who think the U.S. military did not want to disengage from Afghanistan (not that they’ve done so entirely). This reminded me of something funny that I read a few months after Biden was elected and had appointed the very large Gen. Lloyd Austin (US Army ret.) to head the War Department.
Austin wrote an op-ed appearing in the Washington Post on May 5, 2021, in which he made a plea, poorly disguised as an exposition of his understanding of the military’s raison d'être, for more money.
It’s funny in part because he uses a quote from John F. Kennedy, who had no idea that the U.S. military would soon embark on a lengthy series of formal military failures, to set up the joke. (This assumes that “failure” means a lack of military success.)
The cornerstone of America’s defense is deterrence, ensuring that our adversaries understand the folly of outright conflict. “Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt,” said President John F. Kennedy in 1961, “can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.”
“Sixty years later,” says Austin, “we are still the best in this business.”
Guffaw.
Obviously he’s not talking about the kind of business we did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and so forth, or the kind of business we continue to do in War on Terror sublets across the Middle East and Africa. He’s talking about Great Power competition, which means China and Russia.
(Russia is a late addition because they’re only Great in the single sense of having more nukes than anybody else, but nevertheless. They get talked about a lot as a looming threat, and that means they’re Great at least for propaganda and budgetary purposes (to the extent those can be severed).)
The Politico story linked above includes one hilarious note: “You have an unprecedented war of choice [emphasis mine] that hasn’t happened since the end of World War II and you’re gonna put [a new National Defense Strategy] out like it didn’t happen?”
(If you think about it, you can probably winkle out what makes the Ukraine-Russia conflict unprecedented in the post-WWII “war of choice” field.)
Anyway, while comers in the military may miss the opportunities for battlefield promotions and other perks associated with decades-long losing combat efforts, the most senior brass clearly would like to avoid future such entanglements and stick to developing new and better (if they work, although no matter if they don’t, really) weapons the use of which will probably result in nobody caring about anything ever.
Generals will still get their consulting and media and board of directors gigs in retirement; they just really don’t want to study war no more. The sort-of switch from Cold War, after we supposedly won it, to hot democracy-spreading wars didn’t work out real well, so we’re switching back.
Of course the real losers in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Ukraine—not counting blown up, traumatized, displaced or otherwise affected humans—are the war industries. One reason the U.S. continues to shovel weapons at Ukraine faster than the country can digest them is to make up for war industry revenue hits caused by the sanctions on Russia. Austin’s switch back to GPC means more money for massive, complicated weapons systems and weaponry platforms, with no pressure to actually finish a working one.
The good thing about all this is that if our malign overlords really do stay out of hot wars, the military may be able to trim their carbon footprint some. Always look on the bright side of life.
(Contributors to this post include Crazy 8’s Law and Order (thanks Kirt!), and The Blasters’ The Blasters Collection.)