I have overheard three or four speakers at college or community events in the last year make the comment that the U.S. population is not sacrificing anything for the war effort. When we think of sacrifice for a war effort it is easy to contemplate what is entailed by considering the WWII years in the U.S. The population lived on rationed fuel and foodstuffs, people were cajoled and heckled by propaganda into joining the effort to collect and recycle everything possible to support the war effort. Nearly every family sent fathers, husbands, sons, uncles, and nephews off to engage in the war effort as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and civilian technicians. Today none of this is being done. But before we condemn or complain about the lack of sacrifice we should stop to consider context.
First, the U.S. and the rest of the world were actually still suffering the effects of global depression when fighting broke out in Asia (1937) and Europe (1939). The amount of fuel, food, and sundry supplies available today was simply not available in the late 1930s. So, if we were going to support a war effort, these supplies in the late 1930s and early 1940s had to be prioritized for use and rationing was required. In the last decade we have not suffered global depression and supplies aplenty exist for both civilian and military consumption. Of course there is an economic cost, funds spent on the military cannot be spent on other areas of popular consumption. Furthermore, and most unfortunately, somewhere along the way after WWII a portion of the U.S. population has developed the attitude that government is supposed to be the provider of quality of life. The government (read Joe Taxpayer) cannot afford to pay for your quality of life and pay for supplies to be sent to the military and pay for the quality of his own life.
Second, what we are experiencing today is not a war. Today we are involved in an extensive and lingering military action. How can I say it is not a war? War can be defined in several ways, but there are two general factors that carry the most weight in defining war. The first factor is a declaration of war. War has not been declared in accordance to the U.S. Constitution. The second factor is the number of uniformed battle deaths per calendar year. To be considered a war requires at least 1000 uniformed battle deaths per year--a number that has been approached only in 2001, 2003, and 2007, and again I say approached, not broached.
So, if the context is not the same and if we are not actually fighting a war, why do we have public speakers bemoaning the lack of sacrifice? Two reasons pop up into my thoughts. One, about two percent (2%) of the U.S. population has served in the military in the last decade so it appears as if the general population is making no human sacrifice to the cause. I would like to point out in response to this issue that if we also want to cut the DOD budget and realize the huge expense of personnel costs in that budget that we cannot support 2% serving, much less a higher percentage. (I am assuming readers of this blog do realize what 2% of 330 million equals). At its peak in 1944 there were about 11 million people in uniform in the U.S. military. Does anyone think we could afford to support that number today? The second reason that pops into my head is the general lack of expressed support of fighting (I will not call it war) in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq. For some reason some people have equated support of the fighting with patriotism. This equation is absurd, but it exists. This equation is nearly as absurd as those who argue that anyone not believing in American Exceptionalism is also somehow less patriotic. I personally support the effort in Afghanistan and believe that Iraq was a mistaken enterprise based on faulty information and analysis. So how do I get characterized?
So, the dilemma is how to make people who say we don't sacrifice enough for this war stop and think about what they are saying. If it is not a war, AND IT IS NOT, then why should I sacrifice for it at all? My tax dollars support the DOD budget and my representatives and senators have cast votes in regard to extending further financial support to the military based on their best understandings of the economic werewithall of the country. Go out and support our military and our foreign policy--oh wait, what if our policy is wrong?
First, the U.S. and the rest of the world were actually still suffering the effects of global depression when fighting broke out in Asia (1937) and Europe (1939). The amount of fuel, food, and sundry supplies available today was simply not available in the late 1930s. So, if we were going to support a war effort, these supplies in the late 1930s and early 1940s had to be prioritized for use and rationing was required. In the last decade we have not suffered global depression and supplies aplenty exist for both civilian and military consumption. Of course there is an economic cost, funds spent on the military cannot be spent on other areas of popular consumption. Furthermore, and most unfortunately, somewhere along the way after WWII a portion of the U.S. population has developed the attitude that government is supposed to be the provider of quality of life. The government (read Joe Taxpayer) cannot afford to pay for your quality of life and pay for supplies to be sent to the military and pay for the quality of his own life.
Second, what we are experiencing today is not a war. Today we are involved in an extensive and lingering military action. How can I say it is not a war? War can be defined in several ways, but there are two general factors that carry the most weight in defining war. The first factor is a declaration of war. War has not been declared in accordance to the U.S. Constitution. The second factor is the number of uniformed battle deaths per calendar year. To be considered a war requires at least 1000 uniformed battle deaths per year--a number that has been approached only in 2001, 2003, and 2007, and again I say approached, not broached.
So, if the context is not the same and if we are not actually fighting a war, why do we have public speakers bemoaning the lack of sacrifice? Two reasons pop up into my thoughts. One, about two percent (2%) of the U.S. population has served in the military in the last decade so it appears as if the general population is making no human sacrifice to the cause. I would like to point out in response to this issue that if we also want to cut the DOD budget and realize the huge expense of personnel costs in that budget that we cannot support 2% serving, much less a higher percentage. (I am assuming readers of this blog do realize what 2% of 330 million equals). At its peak in 1944 there were about 11 million people in uniform in the U.S. military. Does anyone think we could afford to support that number today? The second reason that pops into my head is the general lack of expressed support of fighting (I will not call it war) in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq. For some reason some people have equated support of the fighting with patriotism. This equation is absurd, but it exists. This equation is nearly as absurd as those who argue that anyone not believing in American Exceptionalism is also somehow less patriotic. I personally support the effort in Afghanistan and believe that Iraq was a mistaken enterprise based on faulty information and analysis. So how do I get characterized?
So, the dilemma is how to make people who say we don't sacrifice enough for this war stop and think about what they are saying. If it is not a war, AND IT IS NOT, then why should I sacrifice for it at all? My tax dollars support the DOD budget and my representatives and senators have cast votes in regard to extending further financial support to the military based on their best understandings of the economic werewithall of the country. Go out and support our military and our foreign policy--oh wait, what if our policy is wrong?
