Anglospheric countries historically do not like their armies and would like to do without them and fill their armies during the periods between major wars with ethnic and regional minorities who have a military heritage.

I was looking at The Regulars: the American Army, 1898-1941 by Edward M. Coffman. There is a lot of material in there about how the public at large had disdain for the Army in the period after WWI. One lady recalls being shunned at school by the other girls because her father “killed people for a living”. This was in the 1920s.

The period from 1941-1965 was one of extremely unusual unanimity.

Upon returning from several years abroad, including two years in Iraq, I find myself amazed whenever I hear any American dismiss any mention of a threat to the US as merely some sort of propaganda. I am at times amused, but more dismayed, when I read opinions supporting the idea that if America was just less internationally dominant, and enacted more “likeable” policies, all would be well.

While I don’t want to be alarmist and claim the wolf is at the door, there are genuine threats that seek to destroy America, but first and most importantly, minimize America’s involvement and influence outside its own borders so that something far less benevolent than democracy can be imposed.

Trotsky may not have said anything else that I’d agree with, but this quote, “You may not be interested war, but war is certainly interested in you”, is a truth that one should not forget. The nationalism, or religious fanaticism, demonstrated by other sects or nations may not be be understood by us, given credence by us, or fully appreciated by us, but it should be examined by us as a genuine motivation for conflict. The possibility that conflict might occur is what we need to recognize, and we also need to prepare for it, and hope we never have to enact those plans.

Gee, sounds so familiar.

I’ve been wondering for quite some time if the ebbing force of “warrior spirit” in this country, and the west in general, could continue much longer without serious consequences. As Kaplan demonstrates much more comprehensively than I ever could, it is, and will continue to be, a very serious problem well into the future.

And now, as some seemed determined to hijack this thread, as they have so many others, with worn out variations of “my politics (or politician)is better than yours”, I won’t bother going any further.

It would be so nice to have an intelligient conversation in depth about such issues, without the mandatory intrusion by political advocates and their lists of out-dated talking points that they recite endlessly, like memorized catechisms from the “Church of what everyone I know was saying last month”. Ah well…

Are you better off than you were ten years ago? Yes for some. No for most Americans.

It’s worth noting that the Anglosphere states that have substantial presence in the Pacific are much more likely to retain the classical nation-state outlook than those who are primarily or entirely Atlantic-oriented. Even Canada has been waking up under the Harper government — and of course Harper is the first prime minister who is western and Pacific-oriented rather than Atlantic-oriented by origin and outlook.

Australia will probably backslide under the rudd governmet for the next three or six years. But I suspect they will be woken up by a bang ad the nuclear tests get closer and closer to home.

“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now,” the Illinois senator says.”