The Associated Press had an article entitled “Indiana seeing a rise in military recruitment,” which is ostensibly due to the problems with our economy. This made me think of the historical notion that bad economic times lead to military conflict. If nothing else, countries have a surplus of able-bodied citizens and have to direct their energy one way or another in a way that keeps the existing government in power. I’m not especially concerned that unemployment in the U.S. will lead to increased saber rattling by us — we have an uncommonly stable government — but look for increased hostility around the world as other economies go in the tank.
Doug, just to make sure I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the United States government would never stoop to sabre rattling to distract its citizenry from bad news?
Whatever you got there, don’t bogart it.
Number 1: I share all of my mind altering substances — it’s just part of being neighborly.
Number 2: Never is an awfully big word.
Number 3: I had in mind actually *going* to war as a distraction. Seems possible, but unlikely — recent adventures in the Middle East notwithstanding.
Number 4: Blaming foreign countries is pretty much option A for any economic downturn. I came of age when it was the sneaky Japanese and their unfair business practices that was to blame for all of our economic problems during the age of St. Ronald.
Hey, just kidding. About the bogart thing.
“Sabre-rattling” was your term, at least regarding the US, and it’s apropos for two reasons:
1) we don’t, and won’t, have enough ground forces/materiel/money to lauch a credible middling-scale ground attack for a generation, probably, absent another President Nero with no concern for consequences, but we are about to complete the Strategic Build Enough Carriers So We Can Park Them End-to-End and President Gingrich Can Ride To Taiwan On His White Charger program. And threatening tenth-rate nations with a coastline and no air force is about all they’re good for.
2) Look how blinkin’ simple it was to rile people up over Georgia, fer chrissakes, with one little Big Lie.
Now, the conventional “wisdom” in Washington (in Washington is there any other kind?) is that rising unemployment means rising enlistments. But, again, after Bush you still have to pay for them (~$100,000 per recruit the first year in training, equipment, room and board, and medical care alone, absent pay and benefits; most military specialties now require around eighteen months for proficiency). Institute a draft and you might as well announce you’re not seeking reelection at the same time, just for efficiency’s sake.
Which leaves us with real war, however conducted or supplied; our new VP was already out, if not beating the tom-tom, at least showing it around and practicing his drumstick twirls. You mention the Japanese of your youth; I was born just after the Korean War “ended”. Since then we’ve indulged our taste for military adventure (in chronological order) in:
Vietnam, Guatemala, Lebanon, Panama, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Panama, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Detroit (long, hot Summer), US of A (multiple locations following King assassination), Cambodia, Laos, Wounded Knee, Cambodia, Iran, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras, Iran, Libya, Bolivia, Iran, Libya, Virgin Islands (unrest), Philippines, Panama, Iraq, Los Angeles (Rodney King), Somalia, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, US (9/11), Afghanistan, Philippines, Colombia, Iraq, Haiti, Pakistan, and Somalia.
That’s fifty; I just turned fifty-five. And it includes only the publicly-recognized application of US troops, excluding peacekeeping operations and troops caught up accidentally. And just the application of troops, not command/advisor operations, CIA hijinks, or the last thirty years of the War On Drugs.
I’m not saying this has predictive value. I’m just saying your faith in our good nature seems oddly misplaced.
Give me time. I’m relatively young still.
Of course we have a President Nero, without regard for consequences. How else can one promote this borrow-and-spend “stimulus” bunk?
But, to be more on-topic, we have a President who remains as committed to military intervention as the guy who just left, ready to swap Iraq for Afghanistan. Who knows what might present itself sufficient that President Obama sends troops? Without a commitment to non-interventionism, we could be going anywhere, at anytime. I don’t mind a readiness outlook in event of being attacked, but to continue the role of The World’s Cop? That isn’t appreciably different from the out-going failed Amdministration.
I fully agree with Dougs point of view. If the economy goes more and more in the wrong way – some staats possible will find their luck in military conflicts to get economy success in “military-industries” – sorry for my bad english – hope you understand my opinion ;o)