[barce]

Which historians is he referring to here?

It is no real secret that as a discipline, military history is sometimes held in low regard by other historians.

The crux of his argument is that military history needs to be studied so that we can have less wars. He throws shade at other historians for looking down on military history. But as a total outside to this debate, who am I to trust?

[scarmig]

It's the red-headed stepchild of historian specialties, in significant part because popular military histories rarely even qualify as histories, except insofar as they refer to particular dates and historical figures.

See https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6br8ck/why_d... for some context, and a useful example:

> As Peter Paret summarised in 1966 (!?), "Is there another field of historical research (military history) whose practitioners are equally parochial, are as poorly informed on the work of their foreign colleagues...and show as little concern about the theoretical innovations and disputes that today are transforming the study and writing of history?"

[nickik]

But this is also simply a value judgment by historians. The argument that its all about 'culture', like in so many other fields is a very questionable approach. Similar arguments are often made about Political Scicne that we must study 'political culture' and that this will give us information about why things happen.

In both cases I think this is very questionable assumption being made. Individual choice in one battle or one political move can and does change things, and if you want to understanding what happens is absolutely relevant.

Also, things like doctrine that has been studied for a long time, are very related to culture so I don't even fully agree that military historians have ignored culture.

[UncleMeat]

> The argument that its all about 'culture', like in so many other fields is a very questionable approach.

That isn't the argument. Cultural history is indeed trendy, but the bulk of new writing is not cultural history.

[kodah]

> The crux of his argument is that military history needs to be studied so that we can have less wars

Former military here, now a technologist. When they teach military history in the military (and I imagine the goal of academics like this person are similar) the goal isn't explicitly to fight less wars. That's a lofty goal, and maybe attainable, but probably far off for humanity as a whole.

This article talks about war and militaries in general but I wanted to talk about how this can benefit Americans.

The reason they teach military history is so that we learn what's worth going to war for, what's not, and what we can do differently in the future. Ignoring what popular culture entertains around military logic for a second, the military (and governments) put a lot of factors into going to war. Those deserve some honest review, what often happens is outright downplaying, dismissal, etc because as they said the sentiment is that war is ugly. No matter the side you find yourself on this is the case.

This thought can be refined that war is ugly, but someone has to do it. Critical to any military, much less society, is the concept of a warrior class. Americans by in large, at least the ones I know, have no knowledge of the qualities, creeds, or convictions of the warrior class and thusly don't respect it much beyond some stuff they see in movies or read in books.

History can help shape the warrior class through the generations but also gives us good lessons on how to be healthier, more efficient, and more effective when needed. Learning from groups like the Israelis or the French Foreign Legion who maintain strong warrior cultures can teach us things about mental health, strategy, traditions, etc...

Also by teaching military history you actually form trust in the institution of the military. For instance, America's military at the time of it's forming was quite unique. You had a military force of volunteers that sprung up and after the revolution maintained some autonomy from the government but took a solemn vow of apoliticalness. This vow is still alive and well in military institutions but it can wane. Not only could it garner the trust of the public that people like the Joint Chiefs have the American people in mind but it would also remind service members why that vow is sacrosanct in a world that increasingly pressures you to be and act politically.

The last thing I'd like to mention is that provides some real pride around the military. Not nationalistic, chauvinistic pride but pride that even the people who have to do the most seemingly in-humane jobs have some humanity about them. Additionally, there's some confidence that if a powerful foreign nation did start World War III that we would be well equipped with citizens who can deal wit it. In my life I've met people who have some facade appreciation of the military or people who clearly hate the military and let those convictions infect other thoughts. Seemingly there's pretty few inbetween and I think a lot of this comes from a lack of understanding.

One of the stories I found more recently is the story of The Bonus Army (further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#:~:text=The%20Bonus....) Patton and McArthur are widely regarded as champions for the idea that no service member should be left behind, even if they were a corpse. It's the same ideology that fuels us continuing to search for bodies to this day. These same people, of the same convictions, right before the war attacked an encampment of veterans from WWI who were seeking early cash out of their war bonds because they were already homeless and had lost everything. They drove tanks into DC with Army Infantryman to take down peaceful demonstrators of their own ilk. I don't think McArthur and Patton are bad people, on the contrary I think they're people of astounding convictions, but knowing this history lets us understand a bit about people and maybe a little about life.

[nickik]

> Also by teaching military history you actually form trust in the institution of the military.

An easy argument can be made that the pretty absurd deference the US population has for its military is harmful both to the military and the population.

For me we don't need claims of the use of military history, other then that it is history. If we measure by impact on history, military history is undeniably important.

[WalterBright]

> the pretty absurd deference the US population has for its military is harmful

I'm still going to have some respect for the people who rush to stand between me and the bullets aimed at me. The local Starbucks, for example, has a sign that says free coffee for military personnel. A relative who used to run a coffee shop also always offered free coffee to military people. It's a small thing, but important.

It's not about glorifying the military, but about acknowledging the risks they take on our behalf.

[isbvhodnvemrwvn]

They don't stand between you and the bullets, they are the ones firing bullets at others. There is next to no military risk of the US being invaded, if only because you are surrounded by two oceans.

[skybrian]

Yes, it's often the wrong kind of deference, one that puts people on a pedestal but doesn't try to get to understand what's going on well enough to discuss war and military issues in a serious way.

I'm reminded of James Fallow's article:

The Tragedy of the American Military https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tra...

[kodah]

> An easy argument can be made that the pretty absurd deference the US population has for its military is harmful both to the military and the population.

I wouldn't call what I see in modern times deference. As I described it in my post it's more nationalistic and chauvinistic. There's a big difference.

[nickik]

I disagree. When hearing Americans talk or in American media its not 'raw raw nationalism' its more like 'the army is really good and you should always honer and support them even when shitty politicians give them shitty jobs'.

The amount of deference to veterans and how they are all heroes is not about nationalism or chauvinism, its about the genuine believe that everybody who served in the military has served the country. Saying anything against the military is often interpreted as a direct attack on veterans and soldiers. Giving out metal before ever sports match is not exactly normal in most of the Western world.

The people in the US have a incredible deference to military, they trust it more then almost anybody else. The military as a institution specifically, not the nation. This is true even for people who have no trust in the presidency, congress or literally any other federal institution. Consistently the military is the most trusted institution.

Even people who are not very nationalistic or chauvinistic almost universally support the military, are happy with or want to increase military spending. Decreasing military spending in US politics basically gets you labeled as a traitor and despite people voting for anti-war candidates, they don't vote for 'reduce military spending candidates'.

All this without people even having the slightest understanding of what the military does and why. This goes even for politicians, most couldn't tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia or point out Afghanistan on a map. That of course doesn't matter, all that matter is that we are supporting the bois, a couple 10s of billions for new <thingding> that help even 1 solider is worth the cost. Just never ever question why any of this is done in the first place, those boring details don't matter.

Something actual military history could help people understand, but that is besides the point.

[phist_mcgee]

I understand your sentiment, but your arguments are presented as facts and not as reasoned arguments. You might be right in the general sense, but the assertion that 'most couldn't tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia or point out Afghanistan on a map.' is probably not true.

This is a long running debate inside and outside America, and while your opinion is useful, presenting it as fact is not.

[nickik]

Are you talking about politicians or normal people? Avg people have no idea what Sunni and Shia mean. And we have many examples of high level politicians and bureaucrats who don't know what it means.

And that is before getting into any even remotely complex questions about Iraq and the Middle East.

[_ktx2]

> The people in the US have a incredible deference to military, they trust it more then almost anybody else.

This is probably situational. I moved from the South to the West Coast and I've observed the behavior you described as well as people who exhibit a total breakdown of rationale as soon as they hear the word military. I'd say both perspectives are worthless.

> Decreasing military spending in US politics basically gets you labeled as a traitor and despite people voting for anti-war candidates, they don't vote for 'reduce military spending candidates'.

and

> Saying anything against the military is often interpreted as a direct attack on veterans and soldiers. Giving out metal before ever sports match is not exactly normal in most of the Western world.

Not quite. I served from 2009-2013 which means I got to witness "The Tea Party" and it's affect on the military by cutting DOD funding. [1] These efforts garnered some good support of Democrats as well, it was an unholy alliance of sorts. [2] Did they cut a couple planes, tanks, trucks, and programs? Maybe, but they also closed the Single Marine Program and our commissary on base. I was going to the range less and sitting in the field more. You likely didn't hear about this stuff in the news because the nature of a base is a bubble. I think taking a good honest looks at spending and decision making are worthwhile endeavors that should be reviewed constantly but the outcomes cannot be like when I served and all too often they are.

Spending decisions also play personally into the lives of troops, so I think it affects how they view someone who wants to take that money away. If you go down to Camp Lejeune to some random barracks room and ask to see their gear you might find some units with new gear but for the most part it's heavily worn, heavily used, heavily abused equipment that we try to replace before deployment. My plate carrier had some nasty fraying on my deployment that made it difficult to attach MOLLE gear but others have had to deal with. [4]

Even policy decisions play important factors in how veterans end up viewing people, motives, and parties. The notable rules of engagement change during Obama's presidency remains in a lot of peoples minds and was sparsely covered by news outlets who preferred putting lists of the dead on TV [3].

I think Republicans often are in a position where they're trying to do something beneficial for military members or veterans but it's often for show. If you want a good example of what "for show" looks like with veterans then simply examine how Veteran's Choice has evolved over the times. The problem was clear and yet it took us three different presidents to get it where it needed to be. What's too much is when they begin to use us as a political pawn and create some adoration culture out of it. I was personally shocked when I saw a veteran returning home used in a speech more than once and I think this sends a really terrible message to the American people. We can't descend into the 70's when liberals thought it okay to spit on military members but we can't be walking around thinking they're gods either. The latter I don't think is really happening outside of small circles but it's good to watch out for.

Democrats often don't realize their policy and fiscal positions with the military have impacts on troops which are seen and remembered when those troops are veterans. Having some empathy and understanding for these scenarios could totally be aided by teaching military history but I also think it necessitates some change in the anti-war constituent rhetoric. Learning to talk about and criticizing a war without insulting the people who fought in it or had their lives changed by it is a tricky business, but it's one you subscribe to when you get into the business of critiquing war. This rhetoric probably deserves it's own thread but it's one that I think can't be had online.

All the same, as a veteran and someone who falls on both sides of this debate, I understand your frustration.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/fe... [2] https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-08-05/trimming-defense-budg... [3] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/rules-of-en... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-afghani...

[wolverine876]

I have a hard time understanding what these statements are talking about.

> to fight less wars. That's a lofty goal, and maybe attainable, but probably far off for humanity as a whole.

It's not only lofty and "maybe" attainable, it's already happened, beginning decades ago. You're living in the most peaceful time in human history. There are almost no international wars (maybe Armenia and Azerbaijan count?). The great powers fight no wars with each other. War is almost unimaginable across vast geographic areas: Europe, especially sans Russia. North America, South America - the entire Americas. South and Southeast Asia, with the possible (and significant) exception of India and Pakistan. East Asia except North Korea. Etc.

It's not an accident or luck; it was a program of the early 20th century to make war illegal, and that came to fruition after WWII when the victors (who were not daydreamers - they knew more about war than we can ever imagine or want to know) formed the UN and the roots of the EU explicitly to prevent future wars.

It's like saying that extending human average human lifespan past 50 years is "a lofty goal, and maybe attainable, but probably far off for humanity as a whole."

> Critical to any military, much less society, is the concept of a warrior class.

There is no "warrior class" in the West or in the democratic world. For most of American and democratic history, wars were fought using draftees and citizen soldiers, like the Minutemen - everyone, not a class. The current American and most wealthy country militaries are filled with volunteers, people from all walks of life - not a class, unless we redefine the meaning of "class" as 'any group of people in the same job'. They are not trained over generations; in fact, many in the U.S. military are immigrants and the children of immigrants.

A 'warrior class' doesn't have a place in U.S. society, which is explicitly anti-class. That doesn't mean there is perfect social mobility, but generally we expect and encourage individuals to follow their own paths - not many reading this follow the family profession (especially in IT!) - and to succeed or fail by their effort and merit. If Mary's mother was a farmer, we aren't shocked if Mary becomes a programmer or doctor or artist. Obviously, we have much work to do to achieve those ideals, but the ideal is certainly not a caste system.

[icegreentea2]

There is certainly less war now than before, but from the standpoint of "should a society be prepared for thinking about use of force", the reduction is basically immaterial, ESPECIALLY for America. America weighs the question of "what force should be used, where, when and for what purpose" constantly.

America also has a "warrior class" in a few different ways of looking at it.

A) If you look at how America is, rather than America's goal, there is a warrior class of sorts (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/us/military-enlistment.ht...). 30% of recruits have parents who served, 70% have a relative who served.

B) While the body of America military is nominally grafted from the same stock of the rest of the populace (see above for distortion), a significant portion the leadership of the military is absolutely a distinct beast. While yes, they are nominally just another citizen, they have part of a distinct culture (how could you not if you spent 10+ years in service of an institution) with a distinct way of seeing the world.

In both senses, it is worthwhile to consider that something "like a warrior class" exists, and that we should take its presence, its way of thinking and acting, and its implications seriously.

[wolverine876]

> America weighs the question of "what force should be used, where, when and for what purpose" constantly.

Yes, but I think every country makes those decisions and uses its military from time to time, at least every major country (kudos to Costa Rica for eliminating its military!) including all the NATO countries. The U.S. is a different case; it has been the guarantor of the post-WWII order and so uses its military more than some others (that doesn't justify the actions).

> 30% of recruits have parents who served, 70% have a relative who served

I'm surprised those numbers aren't higher for the population as a whole. For one thing, people were being drafted as recently as the 1970s. I'd expect that almost everyone has a relative who was in the military. I don't come from a military-oriented family in any sense, and I have at least three living ex-military relatives and of course many deceased ones.

But of course there is some continuity from generation to generation. That applies to any profession, locale, etc. People aren't surprised that the engineer's child becomes an artist, but the child is more likely to become an engineer than most people. Does that mean there is an 'engineer class'?

> a significant portion the leadership of the military is absolutely a distinct beast. While yes, they are nominally just another citizen, they have part of a distinct culture (how could you not if you spent 10+ years in service of an institution) with a distinct way of seeing the world.

The GP was talking about a sort of caste (my word), trained and treated distinctly from generation to generation. Every profession, community, ethnicity, etc etc. creates a distinct way of seeing the world. Look at people in SV! Y Combinator does the same. Other parts of government do the same. There's nothing special about the military in that regard.

[jholman]

>> Critical to any military, much less society, is the concept of a warrior class

> The GP was talking about a sort of caste, ... treated distinctly from generation to generation

If it's true that the kodah meant that, then it is patently hilariously absurd. There are many militaries, and many societies, that haven't worked that way, and some of them have been successful. You mention the modern "west" (though I don't know why, because it's just as true in the USSR or in China or in etc etc), but this isn't even the best example. Many societies required all citizens to be equally warriors, such as most first nations societies, or for example the Mongols. So clearly, if kodah meant what you claim they meant, they would be really really really wrong, like ludicrously wrong.

As such (and this is my point), it's probably better to assume that the kodah didn't mean that. It's probably better to steelman, rather than strawman.

[wolverine876]

I just said the West because I was thinking quickly and didn't know clearly about other countries. It was conceivable, even if unlikely, that officers in China or Russia (USSR? :) ) or someplace else are mostly hereditary, and I saw no need to raise that issue.

> So clearly, if kodah meant what you claim they meant, they would be really really really wrong, like ludicrously wrong. / As such (and this is my point), it's probably better to assume that the kodah didn't mean that. It's probably better to steelman, rather than strawman.

Always important to remember. And I should have phrased it that way. Thanks.

[refurb]

It's not only lofty and "maybe" attainable, it's already happened, beginning decades ago.

That is a very rose-colored glasses viewpoint. WW2 ended only 80 years ago, which is a minuscule amount of time in the grand scheme of things.

And since that time we haven't had a global conflict, but add up all the proxy wars, civil wars, "low intensity conflicts" and we're still looking at millions of dead.

I'd argue that the reason why we haven't seen a major global conflict is just the immediate post-WW2 global order (2 major superpowers with nuclear weapons) which drove it to multiple smaller conflict. Depending on how the world order changes (i.e. China) there is nothing to say we won't see another major global conflict.

And yes, organizations like the UN are great ways to address conflict before they become major wars, but I'd argue the effect has been incredibly small. The UN existed at the same time as the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, the Rwandan genocide, both Gulf Wars and it was basically "the UN issued a strongly worded statement" and the wars happened anyways.

[wolverine876]

> That is a very rose-colored glasses viewpoint.

No, it's factual. I didn't say there were no wars; I said there were fewer than at any time in human history.

If our standard is perfection, then every human endeavor has failed and we should return paleolithic life. People still die of illness, so we could argue that modern healthcare has failed; don't bother using it. Regarding the UN, in politics there is no certain proof ever of cause and effect, so arguably we should eliminate all political institutions.

The lack of war is the fact. The parent's theory of why or how and its predictions have no basis that I see.