War
I find it curious that so many in the media are shocked – shocked – to discover that the United States can't win two little wars against Third World countries. Shocked to the core.
I mean – why? Why so shocked? Really?
And their only explanation for this tragic state of affairs is that it must mean that "America is in Decline!" To these members of the media, it is just one more bit of evidence in the accumulating case against America.
But, really, since when has the US won its wars?
Why, even still now within living memory, there was Vietnam, and Korea, and that failed quo in Cuba, and Cambodia, and Kosovo. But we can back even before that, because America's war record has always been poor, all the way back to the ill-fated invasion of Canada in 1812.
Which isn't to say there haven't been some wins. The conquering of the Phillippines, for one. The Kuwait War for another. World War II: Pacific Theatre for a third. But, overall, there has always been more losses than wins, even against Third World countries.
What I find even more interesting, though, is back in the previous century, when the US lost in both Korea and Vietnam, the common consensus was that people were proud that the US had lost – they wanted the troops OUT of those countries. The failure of those wars was seen as a victory, not as a sudden loss of power.
Korea and Vietnam also were both wars filled with military error and hubris-inspired disasters. Most major battles were won, but they were often ugly wins. Near to being Pyrrhic victories. Stragically, poor decisions were often implemented (whether at political behest or not), such as the invasion of China during the Korean War. All in all, they were filled with military blunders.
These two new wars – although they are filled with a great deal of sleaze and savagery on America's part, same as those previous wars – were militarily very well-executed. So, how it, then, that America's army is somehow in decline? It's fighting much better than it did even 30 years ago.
Equipment handed out to a lot of regular soldiers was of low or non-existent quality, sure. But that was a choice made to put most of the available military funds into Special Forces and research. And just take a quick glance at the amount spent on mercenaries. If the Pentagon chose to spend that on regular troops, they could all be outfitted in tip-top gear. Or, for that matter, cancel a single stealth bomber, and use that to outfit the troops.
Priorities, you see, are other.
But that's actually beside the point. The military fought well in these latest wars. And won the fighting. So, how is that a decline of the military?
It isn't.
Instead, it's the politics of the situation that the US is losing. The politicians and diplomats haven't been able to capitalize on the military's victories. Which is a pretty regular result when you send the military in to do a quick but dirty job, and then have no plan for what to do with the politics of what the military has just given you. Which America didn't.
Then there's the whole question of not having enough troops. Again, though, that is a choice. The military stated – from the very beginning – that it didn't have enough troops for what the politicians were asking. And the politicians fired anyone who said it.
So, we don't currently have enough troops to go around, but, again, that is a political choice. The politicians could have put out a call for soldiers – people were ready to volunteer in droves. When they didn't ask, and the volunteer impetus faded, the politicians could have instituted a draft. But politically, they didn't want to do that either.
So, we have plenty of money and not enough troops. So, we have the mercenaries. It was pretty much inevitable, once those earlier political choices were made.
And finally, the question of how is it that America – with its hugely expensive army – can't beat up on a couple of Third World countries, and put an end to all this resistance and uprising? Surely, that must be a sign of decline, right?
But once again, the military did win. After that, you either have to – as the military recommended – (a) go in with heavy forces and secure the area, or (b) you have to use terror in order to control a larger group with a much smaller force (ie, the manner in which Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq amidst hostile and much larger tribes than his own).
But, once again, politics interfered. The politicians decided it would be best to do neither, to instead simply cross their fingers and trust that God would make it all turn out right, since He was on America's side.
So, instead, the US ended up with this half-assed in between system going seemingly nowhere. And thus you end up with Abu Graib. Abu Graib and all of the other Inquisition chambers like it.
The US military hasn't shown any signs of decline, and thus its military cannot be taken as one of the signs of America's decline.
So, then, where is the source of all this unrest coming from, if it's not because of the endless wars?
It comes from a general malaise, mostly originating from the Middle Class. A lot of bubbles have been burst. The bubble of the shining light on the hill – the country that everyone adored. The bubble of America's omnipotence (the US military is good, but not omnipotent). The belief in America's divine business and monetary sense. The tech bubble. The various loan bubbles. The looming insurance bubbles.
None of these were ever true. They were beliefs. Bubbly beliefs.
And when a bubble bursts, when an illusion gets torn down, a feeling of malaise often settles in on the people who held the illusion.
And a lot of bubbles burst all at once in America, spreading a great deal of malaise around.
