"Liberalize" the military: The usual top-shelf stuff over at Volokh. The post struck a particular chord in me because Capt. Nathaniel Fick, author of One Bullet Away, was a Classics major at Dartmouth. I was a Classics major at Colgate.
The premise of Fick's argument is that when liberal arts students enlist in the military, they have just as much of an effect on it as it has on them, and their influence "liberalizes" it. That is, its principles and modus operandi become more broad-minded and open to creative thinking. I agree with this 100 percent.
The historical record is full of evidence for the success of the "liberal" approach. One of my favorites is that of Gen. John Pershing and his dealings with the Filipino rebellion at the turn of the last century. Rather than assume a predetermined set of tactics would prevail, Pershing learned as much as he could about the culture and lifestyles of the local sultans before engaging them. As a result, he knew exactly how to deal with them, and avoided much bloodshed while winning through.
Of course, no post on this matter would be complete for me - ever the Classicist - without a reference to the Roman army. When the Republic flourished, and even into the early Empire, generals were more than brute fighters. They were learned: they could deliver oratory and compose prose and poetry with equal distinction. Gaius Julius Caesar, budding tyrant he may have been, was steeped in the day's literary milieu. Only toward the end of the Empire did generals and the armed forces become the haven for barbarians and uneducated which gave it its later reputation.
The application of this to our present-day situation is clear. Although we are fighting a war - one we must win, make no doubt of it - the sense of detachment from the struggle is palpable, save for those families and friends directly affected.
So many well-meaning people, after the scandals of torture and incompetence at the top level, may continue to heap abuse on the military and call for its removal from college campuses entirely. This, if history is any guide, is a totally-wrong headed approach. This is the exact approach that has led to both the expulsion of gay linguists from the services and protests against ROTC on campus.
We need the best and the brightest in the forces and we need them always. If they remain aloof from service, and indeed remain hostile to it, how do they expect the country to be bettered for it?
I have to say that military service - particularly in the Marines - has always had a certain allure to me, although I have not (yet) served. I like the idea of serving my country, and the military is a very obvious way to do so. I like the idea of living up to the noble principles of each branch of service.We could all do worse.
The premise of Fick's argument is that when liberal arts students enlist in the military, they have just as much of an effect on it as it has on them, and their influence "liberalizes" it. That is, its principles and modus operandi become more broad-minded and open to creative thinking. I agree with this 100 percent.
The historical record is full of evidence for the success of the "liberal" approach. One of my favorites is that of Gen. John Pershing and his dealings with the Filipino rebellion at the turn of the last century. Rather than assume a predetermined set of tactics would prevail, Pershing learned as much as he could about the culture and lifestyles of the local sultans before engaging them. As a result, he knew exactly how to deal with them, and avoided much bloodshed while winning through.
Of course, no post on this matter would be complete for me - ever the Classicist - without a reference to the Roman army. When the Republic flourished, and even into the early Empire, generals were more than brute fighters. They were learned: they could deliver oratory and compose prose and poetry with equal distinction. Gaius Julius Caesar, budding tyrant he may have been, was steeped in the day's literary milieu. Only toward the end of the Empire did generals and the armed forces become the haven for barbarians and uneducated which gave it its later reputation.
The application of this to our present-day situation is clear. Although we are fighting a war - one we must win, make no doubt of it - the sense of detachment from the struggle is palpable, save for those families and friends directly affected.
So many well-meaning people, after the scandals of torture and incompetence at the top level, may continue to heap abuse on the military and call for its removal from college campuses entirely. This, if history is any guide, is a totally-wrong headed approach. This is the exact approach that has led to both the expulsion of gay linguists from the services and protests against ROTC on campus.
We need the best and the brightest in the forces and we need them always. If they remain aloof from service, and indeed remain hostile to it, how do they expect the country to be bettered for it?
I have to say that military service - particularly in the Marines - has always had a certain allure to me, although I have not (yet) served. I like the idea of serving my country, and the military is a very obvious way to do so. I like the idea of living up to the noble principles of each branch of service.We could all do worse.
posted by Joshua @ 10:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home