franknews

Robert Neer: U.S. Military History

by Robert Neer

April 24, 2018

This interview with Robert Neer, a professor and scholar of U.S. Military History, was conducted and condensed by Tatti Ribeiro for frank news. This is part 1 of an ongoing conversation.

My name's Bob Neer. I'm a lecturer at Columbia University and teach a class there called Empire of Liberty: A Global History of The U.S. Military, which I've been teaching for the last several years. So I have a little bit of a perspective on how history of the U.S. military has been taught. Naturally when I first started teaching my course I started looking around at other universities to find a syllabus that I could copy, because that's the easiest way to get started teaching a course. And I was absolutely stunned to discover that at the top American universities, the most selective ones, had almost no courses focused on the U.S. military. There were military history courses about, for example, the campaigns of Alexander, or the way that the German army was successful at the beginning of World War II. Things like that. But if you wanted to understand the U.S. Army as an institution in the context of the history of the United States, at those schools, it was very, very difficult to find out much about that part of our past. There are places where one can learn that history, West Point for example, the service academies, and some state institutions that are centers of excellence for the Study of Military History. Ohio State University for example. But at the institution I was teaching at, Columbia, and other similar elite universities there was very little. Which I found really quite striking because historically American universities have taught a lot of military history, and it's been a very popular subject for people to learn about. So I've talked to people and tried to understand why that might be.

It would seem that one aspect of that change is that there's been a broad shift in the role that universities play. In the past in this country, they would educate a kind of social elite in many respects, and that was often very closely related to the officer corps.

I'm talking about 200 years ago, or 150 years ago, a considerable period of time ago. So a smaller fraction of the overall population went to college and the officer corps, as in Europe, was a place where people from socially elite families could often find a socially elite position.

Those classes were very focused on the actual practicalities of military history. Why Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo, or how it could be that Britain ruled the seas. Not so much the way that history is taught today as a broad inquiry into the past, and the forces that shaped the present. So one thesis was that the role of American universities has changed ,and therefore the subjects that they teach have changed, and therefore, especially at these elite schools, there wasn't such a demand for that kind of practical military history.

Another thesis was that in the wake of the Vietnam War, American academia in general had turned away from the military. So historically, in this country, there's been quite close connections between institutions of higher education in the military, and certainly that continues today. The tremendous protests that convulsed these institutions of higher education, especially the most elite institutions, were dramatically affected by these protests. The reaction has been in many cases to turn away from the military.

“I ain’t gonna study war no more”. The thesis is that somehow by studying this subject you empower it, or encourage it in some way, which many people haven’t wanted to do.

And finally I guess you could say that although in many respects American universities are meritocratic and have generous financial aid policies often in practice, they generally serve the people who already have money and resources.

And the professional military, as it's developed in the United States in the wake of the Vietnam War and the ending of the draft, is in general an institution that doesn't draw its base from economically advantaged sections of the country.

Most people who have to have a job, and find that to be a job that is relatively remunerative and attractive financially, end up joining the armed services.

I think it's a very important aspect of our past because studying the past is really kind of a way of studying the present. For example, the United States each year spends more money on its military than of all of its institutions of postsecondary education. So all the colleges, all the business schools, all law schools, all the Ph.D. programs, all the community colleges, everything after high school combined — is less than the spending on the military. So that's kind of a lot of money, and an important sort of statement of the country's social priorities. And it's beneficial to learn where it came from as a way of understanding the present.

Let's talk a little bit about how it might be useful or valuable to study the history of the U.S. military. As I mentioned before, history is really just a way of talking about the present.

If it wasn't, then presumably somebody could just write the history of World War II and be done with it. But since the importance of World War II keeps changing, and what was significant keeps changing, people's minds and the issues that they're concerned about today keep changing. People keep writing new histories of World War II.

And if you go and look at the history shelves in a bookstore or on Amazon, I think you'll see that the vast majority of history books that are sold have been written in the last 10 to 20, years as opposed to 100 years ago. Even though the past hasn't changed. So in that sense, it can really illuminate the present.

We're right now in these very long conflicts in Afghanistan and greater Iraq, let's call it against Daesh. It's useful to consider whether that's unusual in our past, or consistent with earlier precedents in the United States. It's popular in many respects to call this current conflict a new type of war, or a forever war, or a conflict which is unprecedented. And it is unprecedented in certain respects. I would say for example, in its global reach, in the thesis that we can use military force almost anywhere in the world without having a specific declaration of war against that particular country, which was characteristic of U.S. military engagements earlier in our past in many respects.

But in fact, the history of the United States, and part of the United States is success I would say, is because of its exceptional ability in warfare, and in the exceptional achievements of its armed forces - dating back to the inception of the country. So if one considers the conflicts with the Native Americans to be a kind of generalized Indian war, as it's sometimes described, then that might really seem to be like a much longer conflict than even the current war in Afghanistan.

And if you look at American history, one characteristic presentation of it, the one that I was taught in high school, was that the United States was essentially a peaceful country that was forced into certain wars at limited times in its past because of perhaps misunderstandings, or the bad behavior of others.

But I think if you examine the past objectively it seems that in fact, the United States has been engaged in wars for most of its history, and that the standard type of existence for this country has been one of fighting various enemies in various places

For the early part of the country's history, as I mentioned, there were constant conflicts with Native Americans in different locations, as well as more precisely defined wars with European powers, for example the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War. So in that sense it helps to appreciate the current conflict, perhaps not so unusual, and that in turn for people who want to modify it in various ways, arms them you might say. If you think that this pattern is objectionable, you need to be aware that it is perhaps characteristic of the country and people will react accordingly if you try to modify it. If you think that it should be encouraged, you have great resources to draw on ,where you say that one reason the country is the way it is now is because of this past practice.

That's just one example of how studying the broad scope of the history of the military in the United States helps to understand contemporary events at a level of detail and context which is extremely empowering, but which you really can't get if you're not familiar with the fact that there were dozens of wars against Native Americans, that the first time that U.S. troops were ordered abroad was by Thomas Jefferson against the Barbary pirates, that was a war fought in North Africa. I mean maybe many Marines know that because of the song, but most people who live in this society don't know that.

To open them up to that kind of knowledge is, I think, both valuable and important.

It's also worth considering the extraordinary power of the military in this society right now. If you look at how we spend our money, which in any family, or for any individual, is is a strong statement of what's important to them. We spend more money each year on our military than on all postsecondary education combined. Maybe by necessity, maybe because it leads to our success. Maybe it's a good thing or a bad thing, but to put it in the context of the relative importance of these different fields, suggest to me that everybody in the United States should be familiar with this history, as much as they're familiar with works of literature, or the basic principles of physics, and mathematics, or all the other things our students are taught, because it's such a critical part of our contemporary existence. To shut yourself off from that leaves you almost blind to that important area.

And when you're blind, intellectually blind, other people make the decisions for you because they are informed and they know.

We're Teaching Our Kids Too Late

by frank

April 19, 2019

This interview was originally published on November 18, 2018 in our Civics issue.

This interview with the students of The Young Women's Leadership School of East Harlem was conducted and condensed by frank news.

From left to right: LaShay Fernandez, Morgan Carter, Javeria Amir, and Fargana Alden.

Morgan: Right now, we're learning about how to take an issue that we feel passionate about and see how we can impact our local government - legislative, the mayors, governors. To see how we can change the issue, or see if we can get more engagement so people will pay attention. The issue we all picked was sexual assault in schools, from colleges, middle schools, high schools...

Why did you choose that?

Morgan: At first, it was separated for a week. Some people wanted to do education and the other side wanted to do sexual assault. We were debating for a week or two and none of us wanted to do it together, and then eventually we just had to decide - why don't we just put them together? Now we're doing sexual assault in schools. And how education and money affects why we don't have sex ed.

That's amazing.

Javeria: There's this thing that there's enough about raising awareness for it. It's time for us to take action and the way we can take action is contacting our local office members rather than just going for the governor or the president. We're saying oh my god the President's doing this and what are we doing? We know we can't directly affect what the President is doing himself, but we can work at a local level which is what we're going to do now.

Who are your local officials?

Javeria: Our mayor and our city council members. We would start contacting them rather than the governor.

LaShay: We did a whole thing where we sat down with people in our neighborhood or district to look up all our local members and see what they're doing and see if they're good. We looked them up and really tried to see if our representatives are everyman or superman. To see how much of our representation is actually what we want, or actually accurately depicts the people that are there - us.

What's the conversation around sexual assault? What are the things you want to see done and what are the sort of modes of getting those things done?

Morgan: Today we learned about root causes and systemic causes. We're starting in elementary schools and high schools. People have sex ed, but we realized that a lot of the problem is that people don't actually know what counts as sexual assault. No one has consent classes. You can't just start at high school, because by that time a lot of people are already having sex. We said that maybe we could start with 7th and 8th graders and give them sexual education - maybe not assault, but basic knowledge so that later on they can know - this is what we do, this is how this works.

LaShay: It's very hard because since people are so young and it's such a fragile thing even though yeah, you should learn about it, we're also talking about different ways to tackle the situation. Instead of just saying "consent" and just straight talking about sex with 12 year olds, it's using different methods. There's this video that a college made about tea and offering people tea and it's really weird, but it really pushes the message of consent and not forcing people to do what they don't want to do.

It's also hard to figure out how we want to approach certain grades or approach people in general in ways that don't make their parents uncomfortable if their parents have an issue with talking about sexual assault and consent in classes.

Fargana: To add on, some parents don't have a lot of knowledge on sexual assault or how to to keep safe, or they feel uncomfortable talking about it. For us to teach kids at a young age about safe sex and just making sure everyone's using protection, what no means if someone is saying no to sexual intercourse. It's very important for us, and also since we are young teens, it'll be easier to talk to students because we're in the same generation in a way. We would just be considered like their older sister, we'll have that bond if they ever need something, we can help them out.

Are you learning about how to communicate with your representatives directly? How can you make sure your voice is heard outside of the classroom?

Javeria: We haven't gotten to that point yet. We're trying to figure out what part of the issues are we focusing on, what are the factors that are leading to such issues, and once we have those down, then we can go and be like this is what's wrong with our system, and this is what we have to fix. Once we get that correctly done, then we'll be approaching them, but we haven't learned how to do that yet.

Morgan: It's hard because sex ed is like - a lot of parents don't want their kids learning about that and it's not just girls, it's boys that have to learn about it, too. It's kind of hard knowing exactly what we want them to do because it's often a societal thing. It's hard for them to say, oh we want a rule against this. You have to make something specific.

Do you guys feel empowered by the class?

LaShay: Yes, I was just talking to a friend about it today because I think a lot of times we sit in our class, and especially going to TWYLS, we talk about this stuff, like since freshman year we've been talking about this stuff, and it's such a big issue and we always talk about it, but we never talk about what we're going to do about it. And I think sometimes when you're just in your little city, you think this is huge and this is happening in the government and I can't do anything about it.

I think one thing that I've definitely realized in the class is you can do something.

Even if you're starting small, it's a ripple effect. I think that's what the class has really done for me. I can do stuff, even if it's really small, it's important.

Javeria: People talk a lot and they don't do anything about it. We have a social justice club and I feel like that has empowered us in general and then having Generation Citizen - being able to take action now, instead of just talking about it. What should we do? I feel like it's a wonderful opportunity for us to have.

Fargana: In addition, compared to other schools, TYWLS really prepares you. We're really thankful to be offered Generation Citizen because in other schools, again, they would talk about it - or not even, the topic wouldn't even come up in their conversations - it would just be ignored rather than at least being talked about it and seeing different ways how we can help. For us to talk about it and see how we can fight as young teens, it really impacts us.

Can you tell us more about the social justice club?

Javeria: The social justice club is led by Jessica Taylor, our 10th grade global history teacher. In that club, anyone - I think it's mostly high schoolers - can come in the beginning of the year, we focus on an issue and advocate for the issue we think is affecting our community right now. We're in 10th grade and we raised some funds for the Syrian refugees, that was around $500 by doing food sales. It's just the little things we're doing. We're seeing what current issues are affecting the people around us. It's giving back and even though our school doesn't have that much, we're trying to take initiative.

Fargana: We donated a bunch of toiletries to a women's shelter as well. Every year we would do something - I think of it as a main project and then a mini project. So the mini things are some local things - like donate toiletries, donate money, and then our main project is what all of us are mainly focused on and how we can help.

That's amazing. Have you guys learned about civics anywhere other than Generation Citizen?

Morgan: I think some of us learn it at home, but in school, other than government or AP US History, not a lot. I think as a whole, they always push us to change something or if you feel something, talk about it, try to change it so not directly, but I think that we all get encouraged throughout our years of being here to try to change something.

We always give stuff even if we don't have it, we're always just trying - we're always taught say something, do something, don't just watch.

Javeria: Our government class is coming senior year, it's important, but other than that we're not used to having that - what policies are, how they're made. It's senior year and Generation Citizen. For me, even if we're in AP Government, you're getting that in senior year which is a little late, but.

We're teaching our kids too late and Generation Citizen is going to help us. It'll end that battle a little earlier.

How early do you think civics should start?

Javeria: I feel like middle school. They're going into that 9th grade year where they're like we're going to be like high school, and they're already empowered so you might as well give them another boost.

Fargana: Yeah, it would really impact a person if you're starting in middle school. It would be perfect to teach them about the government issues and who's your local representative, what does it mean? Then when you're in high school, as the years go by, you'll have more knowledge. Each grade, we can all come together and create a bond within us and be able to go out and do something. For seniors, since we're capable of doing it, we can continue it in college and teach others that really didn't have this opportunity when we were in high school.

Are any of you about to be 18?

Yes, yes.

Are you planning on voting?

Javeria: Yes! I was going to say that. Us turning 18 - I feel like this is encouraging me at least to vote. That's one of the ways my voice can be heard, so why not? I feel like that's part of the issue. We need to tell them - yeah, voting may seem like your voice is not heard at all, but we're the people and you're one person so we need all the people to make that voice be heard, so vote, please.

Are you excited to vote?

Javeria: Yes, I'm really excited. I've been waiting. I've been waiting to turn 18 so I can vote.

LaShay: I think it's so funny that she's acting like that because my parents don't vote and it's really weird. I'm always like why don't you vote? "Well it's not gonna matter." I'm really glad I took this class because you're influenced by your political socialization - you're influenced by the people that you're around, and you inherit these ideas and you're kind of conditioned to believe this one thing and I think before I came to TYWLS, I kind of did have that mindset of well, I can't make a change, I'm one person. I'm so excited to vote now and it's so weird because before I didn't think it would matter.

Fargana: I don't turn 18 until another year, my parents are immigrants - they're both US citizens - so it's for them, the only main election they worry about is presidential because that's the big one, but I feel like now that I have more knowledge on this, I'm literally waking my mom up early so she can come with me to go vote. Well, for her to vote, I'm just gonna be there making sure she's there.

Morgan: I'm the exact opposite. It's weird because my mom has always been - my mom is the kind of person, even if she doesn't like anybody on the ballot, she'll still vote. She's always told me to pay attention to what's going on and vote. And I was always just like, I don't really care, but I think Generation Citizen has made me really want to do something now because every single thing counts. I kind of wish, like a lot of things, that we would've learned it in middle school.

I think the problem is we underestimate young people. They think they're not old enough to understand it. When a lot of times, the middle schoolers know more than you think they do. Like a lot more. And I think that they need to start encouraging them and teaching them because I feel like 11th graders and 12th graders, we're about to leave, there's no point. I feel like if I would've heard it in 8th grade, maybe I would want to vote more. I can change a lot more things than I thought I could have.

Never underestimate the youth.

On Climate Security

by Hannah Teicher

April 17, 2019

This interview was originally published May 31, 2018 in our Urban Planning issue.

This interview with Hannah M. Teicher, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT, was conducted and condensed by frank news.

How did the path you're on now begin?

By 2014, things had transitioned in the sustainability field towards an emphasis on climate change. I did a project looking at how the real estate industry in Boston was adapting, or if they were, because it seemed like city governments weren't doing enough. And it seemed like real estate companies should have major vested interest in doing something.

They seemed to be doing something, but still just the bare minimum, the low hanging fruit, and mostly disaster response or disaster preparedness.

I was lucky to see an ad for the Dutch Dialogues in Norfolk, Virginia.

Why is it called the Dutch Dialogues?

Whenever there's flooding anywhere people look at the Dutch—

bringing Dutch experts to U.S. cities. It was started in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina by a big architecture and urban planning firm down there, Waggonner and Ball, that has led flood infrastructure projects since then. They had been looking at the Dutch example, and began this workshop process to bring Dutch and local experts together. To think about how you could address flooding in a more innovative and integrated way— and a way that wasn't necessarily typical of American design.

They replicated the process in Norfolk, because Norfolk is also one of the cities on the East Coast that is very vulnerable to sea-level rise. I went and it was a really interesting process. I was somewhat critical of the design approach, it was a little bit facile and convenient at times.

Dutch people coming in and drawing plans with canals. It's like hm, that's not really gonna happen here.

Right.

It's not that easy to turn a street into a canal.

I hadn’t been aware of the huge naval presence in Norfolk. There were some members of the military there talking about how if the community doesn't adequately adapt, then the military might have to leave. I thought that was a pretty interesting threat on top of sea-level rise.

So that's what really got me interested in the intersection of the defense presence and climate change. That's how I came to the topic I'm looking at in my dissertation.

Which is?

Urban defense collaborations for adaptation to climate change.

So, the Department of Defense and climate change.

Yeah. It's a tricky topic because I'm always concerned that people will see me as somehow being pro-military by looking at this but that's -

The idea that studying the military is in any way advocating for the military is ridiculous.

Ok, they are a hugely powerful institution in American society and they have a huge amount of money at their disposal. I wondered to what extent that could be a resource, and whether communities could leverage a military presence for adaptation.

And what's the conclusion been?

So far, I think there's a qualifying yes. It's one avenue that cities can take. New York City has Wall Street, other cities have other resources. This is one way some smaller cities, secondary and tertiary cities, might be able to get access to more dollars and federal resources. In Norfolk right now, there are several joint planning processes going on between multiple bases and municipalities that seem promising. They're actually sponsored by the Office of Economic Adjustment, which now appears to be on the chopping block. One of these vestiges of the welfare state, and Republicans have gotten hip to that. They're like, oh we can ax that too.

Does the DOD have a line item in the budget for environmental research?

No, not at all.

Though, what I've heard is there is an incredible amount of environmental expertise in the DOD.

If anything, what they do is mainstream environmental and climate efforts into their larger codes and plans. That seems to be a way to make it more neutral, non-political, and less vulnerable to being axed.

The perspective I tend to hear is they're concerned about any and every threat. Clearly, climate change is a threat, sea-level rise, drought, whatever climate impacts. They're all a threat. They're going to be aware of those and plan for those.

And they don't need to get into the climate politics to address that.

What defines the community, and what is the difference between, let's say, the physical community adjacent to Norfolk, and someone's individual mission to be a leader in climate change adaptation?

When I say community I'm using it very loosely, and not how it's always used in planning.

I'm not really talking grassroots efforts. I'm talking about urban leadership.

I'm talking about what city elites are doing. And they seem to be the ones championing this. For obvious reasons, they have the power and the resources and the networks to do things.

But those efforts won't get where they want to go without larger, systemic support?

Without federal support. Right now, especially with us withdrawing from Paris, there's this huge move to want to say that cities are the answer, and cities can do it on their own. But cities don't have the resources for this scale of infrastructure. Whether it's gray infrastructure or green infrastructure, it requires a huge amount of money, and cities don't have that. That's why they need federal resources.

I do look to the Dutch model and other European models in terms of more comprehensive spatial planning, where it's not this fragmented effort.

If you built a sea-wall one place, that just pushes the water somewhere else.

We need comprehensive spatial planning, though I can't foresee that happening here.

The spatial planning toolkit seems to have been born out of the Army Corps and looking at nature as a threat. Is pushing adaptation out of the DOD furthering one idea that might actually be maladaptive?

That's always a big risk. Highly likely. The culture within the Army Corps is changing. Of course, the Army Corps is fairly de-centralized too. They are a bunch of different districts. I spoke to people in the Army Corps in the Norfolk district and there's definitely an interest there in starting to integrate these nature-based solutions. But their procedures are slow to catch up, so they have these ossified cost-benefit ratios that they use, and those don't really allow for adequate evaluation of what green infrastructure can do. But there is an awareness of that, and an effort to change that.

How does the conversation between the Army Corps and the Department of Defense happen?

That’s an interesting inflection point. I see the Army Corps as potentially being this boundary organization that does work across military and civil agendas— though they try very hard to keep them separate. There have been some efforts to bridge that, because it's clear, in the case of a large Naval base, that you can't just put a wall around the Naval base, or off the coast of the naval base, and then leave the rest vulnerable. It's been a really strong theme with almost everyone that I talked to. They realize there is inter-dependence between the bases and the communities, largely because of transportation.

It's really obvious. Roads get flooded and people can't get to the base. Most people who work on the base live off the base. There have been some lobbying efforts now to try to be able to bridge that fence-line. One of them is through Army Corps means. There's also a new initiative I found out about recently called the Sea-Wall Coalition. They're trying to expand defense access roads policy to infrastructure. It already allows military spending off-base to improve roads. All of these are very long term efforts, none of the change is going to happen quickly.

In resilience planning, you hear the rhetoric of ‘protect critical infrastructure first.’ Which can be used to justify protecting only the naval base.

All of this has a big risk. I don't think it's a necessarily good solution to open up defense spending to be able to be spent off-base, because clearly it's still going to protect certain interests, and it's not going to protect a lot more vulnerable people in the community.

Can you talk about the idea of threat and threat-multiplying, and how climate plays into the view of threat both at home and abroad?

2003 was the first defense report that was doing future scenario planning about climate change. It was Sherri Goodman who had been at the DOD and is now a defense analyst at the Wilson Center. She coined the term threat multiplier for climate change with the specific intent of getting political momentum behind that, and it seemed to really work. Convincing people that climate change itself wasn't going to cause conflict, but it would enhance all of the other drivers of conflict that might be out there. That's the basic thesis.

If you already had things that might be causing migration or resource wars, then climate will just enhance that, and it is much more of a international or geo-political view rather than a domestic view. That's one thing I'm trying to bring to this. Look more at the urban, and more at the domestic interface of military, climate change, and communities.

Some cities that are more advanced have formal relationships and procedures where they meet on a regular basis. The city and the base both let each other know about their plans.

How do you plan on getting this message out there?

What I'm most interested in coming out of this is how can communities partner with unlikely allies? I see the military as being one. But there are other ones. It really gets at best practices for collaboration and working together, and what can support that, and even what kind of political messages might help to do that. Climate security framing is really interesting from that perspective because it does seem to help bridge a partisan divide on climate change. It helps to reach a more conservative audience. There is also some potential for backlash against that, but from what I've been hearing on the ground, it sounds like it has been somewhat effective.

We’re not gonna talk about who's causing this...

Yes.

We'll skip that conversation, and that's a good way of getting past it.

Avoiding causes is kind of across the board, especially for more conservative audiences. But then the climate security angle, specifically saying that this is a threat to national security. When you have top military brass on the stage saying that, more people are going to listen than otherwise would.

Really my message coming out of this isn't that the military is some kind of cure-all. It's just one avenue to pursue. Another avenue that could be really interesting is the large hospital systems. They're also invested in having to weather disaster, and having to be there for the long-term. There's the whole public health argument for climate change.

I view that as potentially being very parallel.

frank news is dedicated to storytelling across all mediums. A space for debate, discussion, and connection between experts and a curious readership. Topics are presented monthly with content delivered daily.

Founders

Newsletter

Issues

Categories