Jeremi Suri

Archive for July, 2009

   The last two decades have witnessed noted increases in violence  across the globe. Think of the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, the genocide in Rwanda, the Intifida in the Israeli Occupied territories, the terrorist attacks from Nairobi to New York to Madrid and Bali, and the subsequent global War on Terror.  With Russia invading territory in the republic of Georgia and North Korea firing missiles into the Sea of Japan, we see how this violence involves traditional state actors, as well as unconventional non-state groups. We live in a time of prevalent brutality.

The violence of our time is not unprecedented. What is unique is the very low death rate among soldiers. Despite the prevalent violence, American, European, Chinese, Japanese, and many Latin American military forces are suffering fewer battle casualties than ever before. For many countries with large military forces, especially in Europe, more soldiers die in training each year than in combat. 

Take Great Britain, for example.   Last week the newspapers in London published headlines pointing to recent British deaths in Afghanistan, where more of Her Majesty’s citizens-in-arms have now died than in Iraq or any conflict since the 74-day Falklands War of 1982. The 180+ British soldiers who have died in Afghanistan are a tragedy, but the fact that the nation has lost so few soldiers over the last 27 years is striking. Although Great Britain remains a global financial, political, cultural, and yes military force, it sheds less blood to maintain its wealth and status than ever before. Even in the golden years of the Victorian Pax Britannica, the Empire expended more lives to maintain its power. Now a weaker Great Britain gets more for much less!

   The same is true for the United States.  After more than seven years of intensive combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other countries, a little more than 5,000 American soldiers have died. These deaths are a true tragedy, but the numbers are again remarkably low.  During a decade of combat in Vietnam more than 10 times that number of U.S. servicemen and women died.  Say what you will about the comparative U.S. military deficiencies from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, but the latter campaigns have been far less bloody for Americans.

What do we make of this? How has the world become more violent, the big powers more involved, and yet the combat less deadly for soldiers? This is a question historians will puzzle over for many years to come. Here are three interrelated hypotheses:

1. Force protection: For reasons of domestic politics and military strategy, professional militaries emphasize force protection more than ever before. They do everything they can to minimize combat deaths, even if that requires an alteration in basic mission. More than ever before, “winning” in war means losing fewer of your own, rather than killing more of the enemy. Force protection is humane, but it also hamstrings the military at times, especially in counter-insurgency operations.

2. Air Power: The most powerful militaries make heavy use of air power.  Bombing with some precision from the air allows forces to kill the enemy with minimal risk. The distance between the bomber crew and the population on the ground protects those shooting through the sky; it also reinforces the distrust and animosities that fuel conflict in the first place. Air power kills enemies but it does not build new nations.

3.  Proxies: For a variety of reasons, the most powerful militaries in the world rely on local proxies to do much of the heaviest fighting for them. Think of the roles played by warlords in Afghanistan and the Pakistani military around the Northwest Frontier. This is, in part, an old and wise strategy: use forces with local knowledge and legitimacy to make the tactical decisions necessary to destroy the enemy and win the hearts and minds – or at least the quiescence — of the local population. In another light, however, this strategy leaves the most powerful militaries beholden to corrupt, venal, self-serving, untrustworthy, and often widely hated figures. Hiring private military contractors composed of retired thugs from South Africa and elsewhere only compoounds this problem. No military can fight alone, but no military can win if it sub-contracts the most essential tasks. As historians write about Osama bin Laden’s escape from the caves of Tora Bora, this will be their verdict, I fear.

Please do not misinterpret my argument. I am very happy that fewer Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, and Latin Americans are dying in combat than ever before. May that trend continue. I am, however, struck by the continued spread of violence and the deficiencies in military operations to date aimed at reversing that other uglier trend. What we need are fewer combat deaths AND less global violence overall.  That outcome might require more military operations, it might require less. It will surely require smarter military strategy.

I would love to read your thoughts. How can the world become more violent, our military become more globally involved, and yet combat deaths remain so low? How should we think about this paradox?

July 4th celebration

Patriotism often gets a bad name from its most bombastic exponents. Is it really patriotic to tell other people how to live their lives? Is it really patriotic to proclaim the universal greatness of everything American?

I consider myself a proud American patriot, but I disdain American self-centeredness. Patriotism, I believe, is an appreciation for the many accomplishments of our society and a commitment to improve those areas where we are not at our best. For other societies we can offer a model in our behavior, not in our bombast.

This is why I love the fourth of July. It is a perfect way to celebrate the kind of patriotism that I embrace. July 4 is a holiday for family and friends when we reflect on our nation’s past and look to learn from that past for the future.  We eat, drink, play, talk, and plan for the rest of the summer. Most of all, we appreciate our society’s environmental and consumer abundance, hoping that we can all work together to build on these blessings for ourselves, our children, and those who are less fortunate. July 4 encourages the good patriotism that would please our greatest predecessors.