December 23, 2003
Casualties

It is axiomatic in the third world that the best, indeed only, way to defeat the United States in battle is to inflict the maximum possible casualties at all times. Eventually, the reasoning goes, the weak and vacillating commoner leading them will pull the troops out in order to win the next election. Failing that, the people will rise up and install a leader that will do it for them. Either way, the result will be the same, because Americans have no stomach for battle.

The thing is, they're right. History has proven time and again that the United States has a very low "pain threshold" for it's own casualties. However, to paraphrase a line in a movie I once saw, "that does not mean what they think it means."

"You will kill ten of our men and we will kill one of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it." -- Ho Chi Minh

Part of the problem is the definition of what, exactly, constitutes a casualty. To most of the rest of the world, a nation's existence is defined not by the survival and prosperity of its people, but of its elite. For nations (and supra-national paramilitary organizations) such as these, the success of one man's (or a small group of men's) will defines the success of that nation (or group). A failure of will naturally means apocalypse.

In a situation like this, the life of one soldier is meaningless. The lives of battalions of them are meaningless. They can, indeed should, be sacrificed to ensure the will of the nation (i.e. the exclusive will of its leadership) is expressed in victory.

The United States simply isn't like this. In fact, we are so different it's often difficult for us to comprehend this sort of mindset. Regardless of chicken-little airheads' and washed up radicals' accusations of "fascism", the United States has been, is, and always will be the expression of a collective, not individual, will. The survival of the nation is not bound up in a single man, but is instead defined by the combined wishes of a majority of its inhabitants*.

In a situation like this, the life of every soldier has value. The loss of battalions of them simply unspeakable. They are us, and because we have no particular wish to die we do not wish our soldiers to die either, sometimes regardless of the cause. When our nation's forces leave a war zone it is never a defeat because that departure represents the will of the nation as a whole. We leave not because we must, we leave because we want to.

This has important implications for all sides. A totalitarian ruler would be well advised to stop wasting money on fancy weapons his indoctrinated troops could barely use anyway and spend the money on Madison Avenue and the New York Times's advertising department instead. A few clever Super Bowl ads here, a few full-page print sections there, and pretty soon it won't matter what the President thinks, because the people will be planning vacations and the editors will spin negative stories like tops just to keep the business.

This is not to say we're stupid. Far from it. It's just that, if it doesn't intrude directly on our lives, most of us don't care what the rest of the world does. In this we are no different from the rest of humanity. A Briton, Indian, or Chinese may protest their civility versus our barbarity, but when was the last time you saw a campaign to relieve the poor on Manhattan's streets?

An aside, for a moment, on the myth of the vaunted Western concern for civilian casualties. Significantly vocal but most definitely small minorities will violently disagree, but for the most part if it's someone else that's getting blown up, we're no more concerned about it than a Guyanan, Congolese, or Trobriand Islander would be. Oh, we'll feel bad about it, sometimes to the point of actually doing something to stop it. But if it comes down to a choice of protecting our troops or their civilians, well that's no choice at all. History has shown time and again most people (not just Americans) are quite willing to believe the most outrageous lies about battlefield victims as long as victory is swift and their own are not the ones filling the bags**.

For Americans, it's important to admit that it is in fact possible for an enemy to win (by their definition) simply by killing enough of our soldiers†. However, it's also important to understand that the values which make this possible: rule of law, citizen soldiers, universal education, and free inquiry, are at the same time what makes our military the most effective and powerful fighting force in history.

By emphasizing the value of each soldier while instilling in him or her pride in both their service and their country, we do not create soft cowards, we create mean clever bastards who fight harder and smarter than any opponent who may face them. They'll evaluate, innovate, and implement whatever works wherever possible, faster than any tinpot dictator or religious wack could ever hope to match.

Because, as citizens of the United States of America, they simply have better things to do.

Posted by scott at December 23, 2003 06:21 PM

eMail this entry!
Comments

I strongly agree with the sentiments in this article, but it would have been so much better if you had substituted the words "liberal democracies" for "United States" throughout. This would have changed the tone(that so irritates those of us who have the misfortune to come from parts of the world other than the USA) from "aren't we wonderful" to "isn't democracy wonderful". This latter is, I hope, your message.

Posted by: John Prowse on February 10, 2004 08:20 PM

With respect, we are from the US and therefore will tend to be quite US-centric in our views. I'd expect a certain Austrailia-centric view from an Aussie.

For what it's worth, you could probably substitute "Australia" for "United States" and the essay would still be the same.

Posted by: Scott on February 11, 2004 08:00 AM

Interesting point, Scott, and it highlights one of the primary reasons I read your blog every day: you are always honest about your opinions.

They are YOUR opinions, not those of an Australian or a liberal arts major who thinks it's more important to be "inclusive" than honest.

People wonder how our intellectual elite can have the most incredibly racist attitudes, from the bigotry of low expectations to the unreasoning hatred of one's own race. I think it's because they are too caught up in a culture of newspeak, to even realize the implications of anything they say. To proclaim yourself a "citizen of the world" is the highest goal, and if that means you have to declare your beliefs the correct ones for any and all world citizens to have, then so be it. Make the proclamation enough times, and it will be believed, at least by one's fellow newspeakers.

I am, of course, not referring to present company, just drawing an example from the Maureen Dowds and Michael Moores of the world.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian on February 11, 2004 08:21 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?