One common theme in this blog is the concept of the collapse of systems. Human beings survive and progress through the construction of various systems. The family is a system. As is school. Churches are systems. The government is a system. In nomadic societies there are more primitive tribal systems that are utilized to preserve order. In virtually all areas of life there are systems in place which people use in order to define themselves, leverage their efficiency, protect themselves, establish boundaries, and better communicate. Cultural and national classifications are used to identify people as a group, as well as to provide common ground. These systems are based on the premise that the group is inherently more powerful and effective than an individual could be. And in many cases, this is true.
Take a moment and think about how you identify yourself. For example, I am a woman. A mother. An American. I do not affiliate with a specific religious group, but many people do. I am Caucasian. Of European decent. I am a Californian. From a scientific perspective, I am a homo sapien. These are all categories utilized to give order to life. To create understanding and structure so that we can progress as a society from a basic point of common understanding. Language is a system. Math is a system. Use of these systems on a large scale allows for efficiency in communication and common parameters for growth.
Any student of science knows that inherent in the building of systems is the eventual breakdown of said systems. In biology, birth gives way to death. In physics, energy changes forms and eventually degrades. In social science, systems for the advancement of various groups are created, take on one form, then change, breakdown, and either cease to exist, or reemerge in another form. Sometimes this happens quickly, and sometimes it takes decades or even centuries to change. But eventually, the system will give way to new ideas and formats.
One example of a long held paradigm currently in flux, is that of the military industrial complex. Historically speaking, that term is mainly a cold war pejorative used in reference to the relationship between the military and the various industries that exist to support it. In America, companies like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon are large defense contractors; private businesses that earn enormous profits by developing and providing military equipment. The key term here is "private." These are private businesses. Operated by civilians. Not government owned and operated. This is a critical distinction because in other countries which are not operated as democracies, the government controls both the military and the production of technology. North Korea and Iran are both under constant scrutiny with regards to their government sponsored nuclear programs. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were both in totalitarian control of all tangentially relevant aspects of their military. Science, technology, aviation, manufacturing, weapon production and distribution, even agriculture; all government controlled.
Post World War II, this traditional alliance in America between the military and private business has been largely axiomatic. We have utilized fairly traditional and straightforward models of military aggression. We have four branches of the military. We need uniforms, supplies, weapons, technology, transport. It's all pretty easy for people to wrap their minds around. We have all seen war movies or military news footage. We all have a common idea of what the face of the American military is. We accept that as a necessary part of our lives. We see it as the vanguard of our birthright as Americans. The need for a large military seems inherent in our quest to preserve and promote democracy. It defines us to a certain extent.
Enter 9/11. The game changer.
Technically, the 9/11 attacks were a terrorist attack on American soil. They were not an invasion. They were not intended to have permanence. They were a protest of sorts. An ideological temper tantrum. The attackers ostensibly have deep resentment of America and Western culture in general. So they made a statement. They showed us our vulnerability. They used our own freedom against us. Made us think twice about immigration. Made us question the safety of our transportation. Made us stop and and think about what we have. What we want. What we stand for. It was the seminal culturally redefining moment of my lifetime. The moment in which you realized that as great as your life in America is, the freedom you have comes at a very steep price. Every citizen, institution and ideal was and is forever changed by the events of that day. Not the least of which has been the traditional concept of military. On that day, rescue workers became surrogates of the military. Civilians were called upon to behave in valorous roles traditionally only reserved for men and women in uniform. Journalists were on the front lines, this time not as observers but as potential intended targets. In that moment, every soldier was a civilian and every civilian a soldier. We were united as never before. It was an exhilarating, terrifying, revolutionary and evolutionary. Long held boundaries and group identities were broken down. The bankers who jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center were every bit the heroes that any soldier who raised a flag at Iwo Jima ever was. Who among us can hear the phrase "Let's Roll" without tearing up at the thought of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers on Flight 93, who put their own immediate safety firmly behind their patriotism in an attempt to derail an attack on the Pentagon? Each and every one of these Americans died a hero. The bankers, a living embodiment of our cherished free market which has provided a home for capitalist ideas. The rescue workers, a symbol of American selflessness and commitment to progress through ensuring the safety of our populace. The journalists, fierce protectors of our right to open information dissemination and free speech.
These are but a few examples of the new face of the American soldier.
This is not an attempt to in any way diminish the role of our men and women in uniform. They have always and will continue to set the standard in this country for the ideals of patriotism and sacrifice for the common gain. They are the front line. The public face of American strength. But what has changed since 9/11, is the idea of what it means to be a civilian. When all the wars are on foreign soil, it is easy to distinguish between military and non military. But when the war is at home, the enemy ambiguous and chameleon like in its form, this becomes a much more difficult task. The 9/11 attacks used our private corporations to expose our vulnerability. If the airline industry had been government owned and operated, it is unlikely that this type of attack would have even been conceived, let alone executed. So in this way, we as a nation now rest on a fulcrum. We have to decide how much influence the government can and should have on private businesses. For example, should Apple be forced to stop outsourcing the manufacturing of its goods to China for fear that there could be potential associated national security risks? What role does privately funded science and technology play in our efforts to thwart potential cyber attacks? Does there reach a point when private industry holds so much control over our safety and progress, that the LACK of governmental control creates vulnerability to foreign enemies? How do we balance those issues? And, correspondingly, aren't we all, in fact, soldiers for freedom at this point? Our ideology and way of life is certainly under attack. Isn't every teacher who helps a student understand Locke's "Social Contract Theory", in reality, preparing that student for an ideological battle in a world where the freedoms that we hold dear are increasingly becoming the exception and not the rule? The theories with which that teacher arms her students, that knowledge, is her contribution to the continuation of American life as we know it. Isn't every small business man who creates jobs by exercising his right to utilize the free market, actually demonstrating the power of the aggregate in a society that rewards creativity and progress instead of thwarting or stealing it? Is that man not also a soldier for economic freedom?
These are not new concepts. Every generation has had its wars. Every generation has felt its system breaking down around them and questioned what the future holds. The Civil War was fought over domestic ideological differences. During the Cold War, communism was the perceived threat to American life. Now it is Islamic terrorism. At each juncture of American history, its citizens have been called on to rise to the challenge, allow the old system to disintegrate, and make way for a better and more efficient model. This is no different. Our military industrial complex still exists as a viable force in the world, albeit a changing one. The armed forces remains our best line of defense, their immediate sacrifice is immeasurably valuable. But ask yourself today, the day we honor so many who have given so much on our behalf, what does it mean to you in a post 9/11 world to be an American civilian? What are you doing to keep the American dream of freedom and prosperity alive? Are you willing to soldier your ideals?
If so? Let's roll.
BB
No comments:
Post a Comment