vision2020
Re: Risk Aversion
Just a brief comment on Lt. Col. Eccles' very interesting observations:
1) cross-cultural observations (perceptions by someone in culture A
of what occurs in culture B) are nearly always filtered through the
individual's human development and social experiences. So differences are
generally perceived as being at odds with that individual's sense of
what's right or expected behaviors. The British have been acculturated
for at least 200 years in enforced predation on peoples in other
continents, for obvious exploitative motives (we revolted against that
exploitation to establish a republic). Hence, British armed forces have
been, genertion after generation, used to sacrificing themselves for the
King/Queen and for the good of the Empire. Even when I went off to serve
in World War II for the good ol' USA, my father, who was British, told me
not to forget that "you're also fighting for His Majesty!" Now, really,
Dad, let's get with it. Most Americans haven't been raised to that point
of sacrifice for the "motherland", or whatever. So a Brit military leader
senses in us a lesser degree of devotion for blood. We are also a more
democratic, socially flat society, free of royal hierarchy and nobility:
"Noblesse oblige"
2) American politics is super sensitive to the call for all-out
military action in far away places, unless certain vital interests are at
stake -- such as losing control of oil supplies (Sadam Hussein could
control Mideast oil); the Panama Canal is vital to our economy (Noriega
was not trustworthy), to cite two cases where we could get our dander up
and convince Mom and Dad that Johnny was doing a very necessary job, even
if life threatening. We have not become very angry over Bosnia -- let's
see, who used to control that piece? Wasn't Tito a kind of friend? So we
as a nation do not want to risk much in that melee, and politicians will
not stick their necks out. That Clinton and cabinet officers (one was
killed in the mission) are willing to go that far is pretty audacious,
don't you think? But any serious loss of GI's lives would resound nastily
on the home court. The Brits have been conditioned to expect that, for,
afterall, the sun never sets on the British Empire, of which Winston
Churchill was still eminently proud till his death.
3) When it comes down to vital interests and the will to win, I
cannot see that the American military/naval person is any less capable or
committed than the British or any other force. We are no doubt less
consistent in this regard than are the Colonel's men, for reasons I just
mentioned. I have to recall Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal,Omaha Beach ("Saving
Private Ryan" was quite realistic; I served in the European Theatre, 13th
Armored Division) from what I saw and what the troops told me at the
time. Also, I do think our troops are more humane, more caring about
people than are some other national military forces -- we aren't really
"out to get them" for the sake of enemy hostility. Meanness can crop in,
though, as when in the Battle of the Bulge (Dec.-Jan. l944-45), the
Germans tied GI prisoners' hands behind their backs at shot them as the
Wehrmacht retreated. We were bitter mad at such cruel, hateful treatment
of our guys. That waa a brutal, cowardly act violating all the rules of
war. American public opinon was outraged.
I hope my comments serve to soften a bit the judgment of Col. Eccles,
whose whole life and culture are different from ours here. Thanks for
sending it along.
------------------------
William K. Medlin
dev-plan associates
930 Kenneth Street
Moscow ID 83843
208/892-0148
Back to TOC