Irregular Army: 10-part collection of essays
Introduction to a series of essays exploring how the US armed forces became a social experiment during the War on Terror
By Matt Kennard on Friday, April 24th, 2009 - 599 words.
“Remember why we have a military. The reason is to be prepared to fight and win wars. That is our basic, fundamental mission. The military is not a social welfare agency, it is not a jobs program. We aren’t there to run social experiments. We are there to fight and win wars.”
Then-Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, 1992
“Building tomorrow’s force is not going to be easy. Changing the direction of our military is like changing the course of a mighty ship.”
President George W. Bush, May 2001
“He served up our great military a huge bowl of chicken feces, and ever since then, our military and our country have been trying to turn this bowl into chicken salad.”
General John Batiste, commander in Iraq, on Donald Rumsfeld, 2006
As of September 2008, 1.6 million Americans had served their country in the twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s one in every 200 Americans, or a military bigger than the population of a country like Estonia or a city like Philadelphia. But in spite of this astronomical number of serving Americans, the Bush administration never dared institute a policy of mass conscription, a deeply unpopular political move for an already unpopular government.
The void has been partly filled by subcontracting operations out to private military institutions, like Blackwater and DynCorp, who have received billions of dollars in government largesse to populate the frontlines in the War on Terror. The thin coalition of countries, now incorporating NATO in Afghanistan and the U.N. in Iraq, have also helped ameliorate the chronic troop needs.
But this patchwork hasn’t been anywhere near enough. Maintaining an all-volunteer force while overseeing an occupation force of 140,000 in Iraq and 30,000 in Afghanistan, has meant that the U.S. military has had to change irrevocably over the past seven years and the men and women pulling on the fatigues have got an unprecedented facelift.
In the halcyon days of the First Gulf War in 1990, the U.S. military blocked the enlistment of felons, they spurned men and women with low IQ’s, and would kick out neo-Nazis, gang-members, the obese, alcoholics, drug abusers, and the mentally ill. No more.
Conservative on pretty much every issue of state, the Bush administration has saved its liberalism for the U.S. military, where it has scrapped all the most sacred regulations governing the most powerful fighting force in the world, from weight restrictions to addiction to insanity. Under the aegis of the War on Terror, the U.S. armed forces have become a Mecca for the ‘different’, the weird and wonderful (and dangerous) of Americana.
In the cascade of books about private military contractors and the effects of Afghanistan and Iraq on the changing nature of warfare in the 21st century, there has been nothing which has catalogued the most obvious: the new texture of the U.S. military, which has become inexorably divorced from the pervasive mythology of young idealistic warriors spreading enlightenment values to the dark corners of the world. Instead, neo-Nazis break bread with gangbangers in Baghdad and alcoholics sup ‘Haji juice’ with the mentally ill in Falluja.
Only one in three men in the general population met the pre-9/11 physical, mental, educational, and other eligibility requirements in the armed forces. To re-enfranchize the other two-thirds, the U.S. military had to change in profound ways not seen the Vietnam War. The results have been astounding, not only for the young Americans in the desert, but also the inhabitants of the countries that have been occupied by the U.S. armed forces over the past five years.
The first essay next week will look into the changing treatment of homosexual soldiers during the War on Terror.
(+2 rating, 2 votes)
Loading ...2 Comments
Leave a Reply
Matt Kennard
26London
Matt Kennard graduated from the Journalism School at Columbia University as a Toni Stabile Investigative scholar in 2008. He now works for the Financial Times in London. He has written for the Guardian, Salon, The Comment Factory and the Chicago Tribune, amongst others. In 2006 he won the Guardian Student Feature Writer of the Year Award
mattkennard@thecommentfactory.com
Articles by this author
-
Chavez, Morales and Correa must speak out on Iran
As I said some months ago, when I get depressed about the state of the world I’m always cheered to think of the movements in Latin America that are genuinely empowering the hitherto marginalised sections of those societies. This movement has the power to make itself felt throughout the world – but it needs to apply itself consistently. That can even take the approach of Lula who stopped short of denunciation and just put forward an offer of sanctuary in an effort to shame the Iranian regime
-
The Observer's Chomsky fetish
Chomsky is big enough to put up with this kind of rubbish, but can the Guardian or Observer, the most influential left-wing journal in the English-speaking world, really not find one journalist who doesn’t have a visceral dislike of Noam Chomsky? Sadly, but maybe predictably, for a newspaper made up of liberals pickled in the self-righteous playfields of Oxbridge liberalism, I guess they don’t
-
The fight to preserve Latin America's democratic revolution
For Prof Anderson the template of Spain after Franco’s destruction of civil society “has become the general formula of freedom: no longer making the world safe for democracy, but democracy safe for this world.” Through a confluence of historical factors, Latin America is the crucible where the last chance to make a world safe for democracy is being fought. The importance of this battle shouldn’t be underestimated: if it fails, we might not get another chance
-
Jan Nederveen Pieterse on Globalization and Empire
The fundamentals of American weakness are its shrinking share of world manufacturing, its gargantuan consumption, low savings rate, faulty policies (massive military spending, massive war spending, deep tax cuts) and gigantic financial deficits. Some problems are structural (high American health care costs are a function of lack of restraint on pharmaceutical industries and reflect the large influence of business interests); this prompts outsourcing, which further weakens the American economy. The military interventions are destabilizing (increase risks for others) and costly (adding to American economic problems) and erode American legitimacy. So the problems are not merely overstretch
-
Massive Attack on influences, war and the cult of fame
I think a lot of it is damaging and I feel there has to be at some point a change in the way we deal with different peoples situations and development. I hate double standards more than anything – I hate the current row over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and whether they should be allowed to have nuclear technology or even nuclear energy. It seems to me that our history is littered with hypocrisy and I find that quite hard to live with being a British citizen
-
Matt Kennard on Russia Today extended: 'US Army sent 'hardcore' neo-Nazi troops to Iraq and Afghanistan'
Under the Bush administration, the U.S. military allegedly started to recruit neo-Nazis and gang members to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Investigative journalist Matt Kennard talks to RT about his researh into these allegations and other problems in the US military.
-
Tony Benn on the EU, Cuba and Islam
Well I don’t think it helps to go around saying, “Try Blair for war crimes,” if you’re trying to persuade Labour MPs to vote against the war and they are told they’ve got to arrest and see Blair and Cherie locked up. It’s ridiculous. I said this to all the people… I mean it’s mad… I can understand peoples anger, but it is crazy
-
Hilary Benn on aid, the US, Iraq, and Tony Blair
The truth is: The real answer to the question why did we take the decision that we did, is because on the 18th March 2003 a majority of the House of Commons voted to do it
-
Johann Hari on Chomsky, Hitchens, Iraq, and anarchism
But I think Hitchens arguments are so well put and one should engage with them and take them at face value. He says Saddam was intermeshed increasingly with Islam. Zarquawi, for example, was already in Iraq before the war. I don’t agree with his argument on that. Ba’athism and Islamism are different things, and should be opposed for different reasons
-
Polly Toynbee on Iraq and New Labour
No I think it’s very difficult to navigate because for one thing even if you more want to bring democracy to the Middle East more than you want to take the oil – which I think probably is the case now – but such is the fear of fundamentalism that you wonder if you knock over the Saudi’s who takes over? Is it even stronger Wahhabist, and is that even more dangerous, and even less democratic? It’s very difficult
-
Noam Chomsky on the US Empire and hopes and prospects
They hope that China will organize a coalition of peace loving states to stop the militarism and aggressiveness headed by the US and its British ally. Well it's interesting that they have such contempt for American democracy and British democracy: they don't even dream of it coming from within. I don't agree with it - I don't think we have to wait for China to save us from all doom - I think we can do it ourselves
-
Professor Michael Mann on America's incoherent empire
The most you can have is a kind of informal imperialism where the state remains sovereign - you don’t try to interfere in it but you limit its options. This is what, typically, the US has done in Latin America when it is not intervening. The US is formidable. People contrast so-called multilateralism to unilateralist and they think of the United Nations. The US runs the UN and had run the UN for most of the 1990s and that’s what the US can do because the US provides certain resources that no-one else can provide. Nothing much is going to happen in the way of international activity unless the US is part of it and leading it and that’s what the US can return to again. What I think it cannot do is to reconstruct foreign countries on its own without having considerable local support
This is a really interesting article. Do you have any documents or examples displaying a tendency towards lower standards?
This article goes hand in hand with the rise, as documented in American media, of Neo Nazi groups and White supremacist groups who, it is said, target discharged and distraught veterans for their ranks.
The reason i would want to see documents or get a more quantitative feel to the article is to get a picture of just how bad it has become? How low have the standards been driven down?
Looking forward to the next article
Cheers John, yeah I have documents for the neo-Nazi groups specifically as I am working on a investigative article about that the moment, I did my masters thesis looking into it, the SPLC used quite a lot of the research I did in this article which is quite informative: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/articl...
I have much more evidence now, but you'll have to wait for the article, as I can't publish it on CF before the magazine publishes it. On the other topics I have a lot of anecdotal and other types of evidence so watch this space… This gives you a taste of what I've been looking at though….
http://www.thecommentfactory.com/where-do-you-loo...