One of the things that differs most in the various countries that I’ve lived in is the armed forces – their size, purpose, reputation and impact. I think these differences are rather revealing and carry lessons for humanity.
I was brought up in the UK, a large traditional military power, indeed one with an empire, albeit rapidly declining. The top brass are very much part of the establishment and retain sizeable influence, for example in the continuing MI5 inspired gibberish that makes its way into The Economist every so often. The military is considered a worthy career, and remains segregated, with most officers recruited from military families and the posh schools: I endured a series of military recruitment lectures at school and we were all forced into playing toy soldiers. As a matured, sadly the reality of the UK military became dominated by a hopeless endeavour in Northern Ireland. That latest humiliation has had the beneficial side effect of inducing some humility into military strategy.
In Sweden, the military was rather an oddity in this deeply pacifist non-NATO nation, and were almost an extension of the police as a civil defence corps, despite the proximity of Russia and the aggressive behaviour of its submarines. As a result, the police and the military became genuinely polite and service minded, never abusing power and with high female penetration before anybody else.
The Norwegians were more proud of their military history, so a military career was more popular there, with a strong bent towards guerrilla defence and external peace keeping. There remains a confidence that not even the Russians would find it easy to invade Norway.
With their scale, geography and history, the Dutch have no such confidence, merely a goal to be strong professional allies to its partners and in its global peace keeping role, where, like Norwegians, they more than pull their weight. It is an unusual career, and one more likely chosen by someone also considering an NGO than someone looking for combat.
No doubt my perception would be different if I had lived in a state where the military often runs the country, or where surveillance is common, or where there is a history of coups. Pakistan, Thailand and Russia come to mind, as does much of Africa. Sadly, China, which achieved much of its growth without resorting to excessive domestic intolerance, is rapidly sliding, as witnessed by the disgrace in XinJiang.
Then there is the US. Here the military is revered. Since 9/11, that reverence extends to what are called first responders, mainly meaning the service and police. It is taboo to criticise these institutions, or their members or veterans, whose image is one of courageous service to a free nation. It is a wonderful marketing coup, and I believe it is very damaging.
The military are major investors in TV advertising. Occasionally in the UK, there would be recruitment commercials, which are fair enough, but in the US it goes much further, a very questionable use of taxpayer money. The military are very smart in sponsoring a lot of sport, consumers of which are a good target audience for them. Sponsorship enables commercials and other brand benefits, and, whether spontaneous or ordered, that extends to endorsements by players and commentators. There may be a segment in an NFL game where a player thanks the military for defending our country and our freedom that makes our great game possible. Commentators spout the same stuff, just more frequently.
What rubbish! It is ridiculous to suggest that the NFL would not exist without the military. Ireland has no real military, but hurling and Gaelic football thrive. Soccer is strong even in Russia. Venezuelans are quite good at baseball.
I have no problem with the use of commercials to encourage recruitment. I have little problem with the branding of military people as driven by service, even though that is only marginally true; most join primarily for the superior pay, training and pensions. But I have a big problem with the relentless branding of the military as defenders of liberty and the American way of life, without whom everything would collapse. That is dangerous nonsense.
I believe a society with military attitudes and approaches is usually a worse society. There are several reasons and manifestations for this.
Most obviously, military spending crowds out other spending. The US invests 3.5% of GDP on its military, despite have almost no obvious threat to its shores (yet it still labels the spending defence and somehow we swallow it). True, some of the money goes on wages to people needing jobs, some on equipment that keeps other honest souls gainfully employed, and some on innovative research. But what an inefficient way to spend so much money! Imagine if the jobs were carers, the equipment on education and the research into health. Instead, much gets blown up on battlefields or spent treating unnecessary veteran illnesses.
Next, military decisions are usually bad ones. The track record of the uber-resourced US military since 1945 is truly lamentable, from Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Shockingly awful policies have been executed terribly with disastrous consequences. They are always fighting the previous war with out-dated methods. If you include the CIA, the track record becomes even worse and immoral. We are led to believe that building ever more nuclear bombs has been the reason that we haven’t all been destroyed by nuclear bombs.
More subtly, military attitudes usually lead to bad places. The first step usually identifies enemies and the home team, to give a purpose for all the resources. Enemy threats are simplified and exaggerated, to the extent that we were led to believe that all Russians were evil. Military thinking always simplifies, and that is toxic when it comes to the home team. They overlook that borders are not fixed, that alliances can be subtle and change, and that personal loyalties are complex, as in the case of immigrants or a diaspora, not to mention white nationalists or homosexuals. Even a nation can be a fluid idea, but a military attitude hates ambiguity and encourages simplified boxes – almost always in a counter-productive way. Having defined friends and foes, a military mind set will set a goal of control, subservience or elimination rather than tolerance or inclusion or learning.
Next, military methods are usually suboptimal. Hierarchy and compliance are emphasised, priorities that encourage abuse of power, constrain innovation and are slow to recognise and embrace trends. It is a masculine way of thinking that might be good at putting out a fire but certainly doesn’t promote diversity or humanity or challenging shibboleths.
The military approach pervades the rest of society. Nations with a military attitude elect generals as political leaders, usually disastrously. An over-strong military can lead to an over-equipped and intolerant police force. Criminal justice policy can become austere. Trade can be viewed suspiciously. There is a habit of declaring war on all sorts of threats like drugs and doing much harm as a direct result. And majoritarian nationalism can flourish in such environments. All these weaknesses are evident in the USA.
I believe history supports my thesis that military is usually bad, notwithstanding what we are all taught about World War II. Just one example - Hilary Mantel displays the genius of Cromwell as somebody putting trade above war. If you look at nations that have punched above or below their weight over the last 50 years, the degree of military attitude feels like a correlating factor – just consider Singapore or Pakistan, Canada or Saudi Arabia.
So when Trump and NATO bang on about increasing defence spending I am a serious sceptic. Since 1960, global military spending has roughly halved as a share of GDP, and that has contributed to an age of rapid development. It would be a disaster if that trend reversed, but sadly that outcome is all too likely.
Still, at least we’ll be safe if we keep building lots more nuclear weapons. Perhaps.
I wish a joyful Christmas and peaceful 2020 to everybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment