Victory Record (book interview)

NRO ^ | 6/14/06 | Kathryn Jean Lopez - NRO Q&A

[blitzgig]

This just in: We’re going to win the war on terror. Or so University of Dayton history professor Larry Schweikart says. He is author of the new book, America’s Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror and thinks the case is made in American military and political history. Schweikart went through some of it in an interview with National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: So why does the U.S. win wars?

Larry Schweikart: The glib answer is (cue Bill Murray from Stripes), “We’re Americans, dammit!” In fact, there are several characteristics of American fighting forces — some of them unique to us, some common to most Western nations — that make it difficult for us to lose. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, all free individuals in a volunteer force, come from a remarkably typical cross-section of American society, and always have.

-snip-

Lopez: Besides possibly thinking you’re delusional for reasons already discussed, someone skimming your book is going to think you’re an unfair partisan. You have a subhead that reads “Why Does the Left Hate America’s Citizen Soldiers?” This is a book for right-wingers, right?

Schweikart: My editors forced me to exercise restraint, as my original subtitle was, “Why the U.S. Wins Wars and the Left Hates It That We Do!” Actually, this is a book for anyone who honestly wants to understand why our military is so damn good. Far from “broken,” as Jack Murtha claims, our military is kicking tail and taking names, and it has done this for 200 years. What I’m struck by, though, Kathryn, is how often in the past — and even now — our enemies have underestimated us.

[blitzgig]

The whole interview is pretty cool.

[ODC-GIRL]

When our military is allowed to properly perform their duties, without tinkering from ignorant politicians, we succeed every time!

[KarlInOhio]

As for character training, not long ago and exasperated Bill O’Reilly wondered why “we train soldiers in six weeks” and we still haven’t been able to train Iraqi soldiers. The answer is that we aren’t training the Iraqis to be soldiers — many of them already were soldiers. We are, essentially, training them to be “Americans,” to have American values of sanctity of life, to learn from loss, to submit to civilian audit, and so on. We’ve had 200 years to do that. Give the Iraqis a couple of years, Bill.

Also, it is pretty quick to train a bunch of privates and a few second lieutenants. I can think of few things more dangerous to itself than an army consisting solely of new privates and second lieutenants. How many years does it take to make a good platoon sergeant or a colonel?

[Tolik]

Larry Schweikart:

...I’ve loved Victor Hanson’s analysis in NRO, and use his Carnage and Culture for my classes. But I always wanted a brief, one-volume explanation of why we are so successful militarily, and the invasion of Afghanistan — which we completed in a matter of weeks, when the Soviets, with 80,000 men, could do it in years — convinced me that this was the time.

...Military success does not come merely from great generals or high-falutin’ technology: It comes from an ongoing, widespread set of values that make it phenomenally easy to turn civilians into well-trained, disciplined fighting troops. Americans need to know that their fighting men and women reflect them — their sacrifices, their core beliefs, and their unrestrained optimism.

LS Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[BJClinton]

One of my all time favorites:

We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans. With a capital A, huh? You know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts.

But there's no animal that's more faithful that's more loyal, more loveable than the mutt.

Who saw Old Yeller? Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end? Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I'm sure. I cried my eyes out.

Yeah.

So we're all dogfaces. We're all very, very different. But there is one thing
that we all have in common. We were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army.

We're mutants.

There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us. We're soldiers, but we're American soldiers. We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10 and 1!

[LurkLongley]

Great post!

This nails it, nails it again, and keeps on nailing it!

Hope that he's right about GW and the mullahs in Iran.

[LS]

Well, as I say in the interview, it won't be pretty. If you think Iraq is bloody, anything we do (and will probably have to do) in Iran is going to make Iraq look like a tea party.

[LurkLongley]

The one hopeful thing in Iran is the existence of a real and vocal resistance movement to the mullahs. In eliminating a generation of Iranian men, the regime has had little to fear from an underemployed and repressed populace. That situation is rapidly coming to a halt with this current generation. I read figures on Iranian population that showed an inordinate number of people under the age of 25. Most of these are, if not pro-American, then at least anti-autocratic and that could work in our favor. The scary thing is that if we do have to take military action, this group's nationalism would be used by the mullahs against us.

I am going to be getting the book, and I enjoyed the interview. You really seem to understand the American psyche and its impact on military and foreign affairs. Thank God there are a few people willing to put something other than socialist/Marxist tripe into the heads of today's utes!

[LS]

I spoke to an Iranian expat a few months ago---and who knows what his political stripes were---but he said not to be fooled by the student protests in Tehran. He said the "democrats" control the few big cities, but the mullahs have the overwhelming support of the countryside where the majority of the population is.

[Huber]

My copy of your book just arrived today from Conservative Book Club. Without having read a word other than those excerpts cited here, I wonder whether some of the lessons of your book could be used in business leadership training? There could be a profitable market!

FReepmail me if you'd like to discuss further...

[GOPJ]

Schweikart: My editors forced me to exercise restraint, as my original subtitle was, “Why the U.S. Wins Wars and the Left Hates It That We Do!”

Rerelease it. Schweikart's first title was best!!!!

[Mr. Silverback]

Larry rocks!

[GOPJ]

As for character training, not long ago and exasperated Bill O’Reilly wondered why “we train soldiers in six weeks” and we still haven’t been able to train Iraqi soldiers. The answer is that we aren’t training the Iraqis to be soldiers — many of them already were soldiers. We are, essentially, training them to be “Americans,” to have American values of sanctity of life, to learn from loss, to submit to civilian audit, and so on. We’ve had 200 years to do that. Give the Iraqis a couple of years, Bill.

Ping

[Mr. Silverback]

How many years does it take to make a good platoon sergeant or a colonel?

Even more to the point, how many years does it take to turn a platton sergeant or colonel who served Saddam Hussein into a guy who is as dangerous on the battlefield and as just and righteous in the barracks as his American counterpart?

[Mr. Silverback]

Well, as I say in the interview, it won't be pretty. If you think Iraq is bloody, anything we do (and will probably have to do) in Iran is going to make Iraq look like a tea party.

I'd like your opinion on something: I've been of the opinion for the last few months that the only way to deal with Iran would be massive airpower. No major invasion, no hitting the nuke facilities and going home, I'm talking B-52s, three or four carriers, Tomahawk strikes up the wazoo, the whole bit. We bomb everything military--plink every tank, level every airbase, low up every ship and plane-- and also destroy any piece of civilian infrastructure that won't involve massive collateral damage.

Basically, we bomb until we run out of targets. Iran then has to choose between being a nation-state or being a pile of rubble with a seat at the UN and a few nuke labs. In any case, the sheer toll of repairs would force them to put the nukes on the back burner, or bring the regime down.

Is this something we could do? Is it something we should do? Please keep in mind I've never been a believer in "airpower only" stuff, but I think this would be more workable than invading and changing the regime.

[LS]

You're probably on to something, and the reason this might work is that there are large numbers of disaffected people in the cities, where the infrastructure is. If we were CAREFUL, and SELECTIVE---so as not to kill too many of our potential allies---we could do "decapitation strikes" on the mullahs and the students would take over, much more so than with Iraq.

Does the U.S. have the fortitude to launch such a strike? Dunno.