<\/p>\n
by\u00a0David Brin<\/a><\/p>\n Today we face (but largely ignore) a major historical anomaly. From our nation\u2019s birth all the way until the end of the Vietnam War, America’s chief approach to dealing with danger — both anticipated threats and those that took us by surprise — was to rely upon a\u00a0robust citizenry<\/i>\u00a0to quickly supplement, augment and reinforce the thin veneer of professionals in a relatively small peacetime warrior-protector caste.\u00a0 Toward this end, society relied primarily upon concepts of\u00a0robustness and resilience,<\/i>\u00a0rather than attempting to\u00a0anticipate and forestall<\/i>\u00a0every conceivable danger.<\/p>\n This emphasis changed, dramatically, starting with the Second World War, but accelerating after Vietnam. Some reasons for the shift toward professionalism were excellent and even overdue.\u00a0 Nevertheless, it is clearly long past-time for a little perspective and reflection.<\/p>\n Over the course of the last two decades, while doing “future threats” consultations for DoD, DTRA, NRO, CIA, the Navy, Air Force, etc., I have watched this distinction grow ever-more stark — contrasting an older American reflex that relied on citizen-level resilience vs. the more recent emphasis on anticipation and the surgical removal of threats.\u00a0 Inexorably, the Protector Class has increasingly come to consider itself wholly separate from the Protected.\u00a0 In fact, our military, security and intelligence services have reached a point where – even when they engage in self-critical introspection – they seem unable to even\u00a0ask questions<\/i>\u00a0that ponder resilience issues.<\/p>\n Instead, the question always boils down to:\u00a0“How can we better anticipate, cover, and overcome all conceivable or plausible threat envelopes?”<\/i><\/p>\n While this is a worthy and admirable emphasis for protectors to take, it is also profoundly and narrowlyoverspecialized.<\/i>\u00a0 It reflects a counterfactual assumption that, given sufficient funding, these communities can not only anticipate all future shocks, but prepare adequately to deal with them on a strictly in-house basis, through the application of fiercely effective professional action.<\/p>\n In fact, history shows that anticipation – no matter how well-done – always and inevitably\u00a0fails<\/i>, sooner or later.\u00a0 (As it did on 9\/11, Katrina, and in the run-up to Iraq.) This emphasis,\u00a0if it excludes all else,<\/i>\u00a0can only be seen as a psychological fixation that is pernicious and deeply dangerous.\u00a0 It is also — in the light of 250 years — deeply un-American.<\/p>\n Granted, the monotonic trend all across the 20th Century was a steady “professionalization of everything” that households used to largely do for themselves. On the whole, we have reaped tremendous benefits from specialization.\u00a0 Moreover, since Vietnam, this High Dogma seemed to have very good reasons (e.g. unpopularity of the draft and a need to train extensively for use of high-tech weaponry). Within a single generation, our focus shifted from utilizing large numbers of “Cincinnatus” citizen volunteers, to the kind of super-elite mobile forces that the Roman Empire relied upon, during its final century of existence.<\/p>\n Some specific results:<\/p>\n I could go on and on with examples where, given a variety of choices, our military\/defense\/security establishment always and reflexively chooses a path that is psychologically predictable.\u00a0 And in geopolitics, predictability is inevitably lethal.<\/p>\n Of course I have commented on all of this before. See one article where I remark upon the great, unheeded fact about 9\/11… all successful and effective actions that took place on that day were performed by\u00a0resilient citizens,<\/i>\u00a0who proved fully capable of augmenting… and even replacing… the professionals when needed.\u00a0 Exactly as their ancestors would have done.\u00a0 This event… followed by the collapse of professionalism exhibited during Hurricane Katrina… suggest that the entire modern premise — putting all our eggs in the professional basket — is seriously flawed. See: http:\/\/www.futurist.com\/archives\/society-and-culture\/value-and-empowerment\/\u00a0 and http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/B000BY2PRQ<\/p>\n Alas, members of the Professional Protector Caste (PPC) seem to avert their eyes, compulsively, from recognition of what this might mean. They avoid ever pondering the\u00a0ad absurdum<\/i>\u00a0silliness of this situation.\u00a0 A huge populace that is vastly more skilled, healthy, educated, capable and technologically empowered than any that came before it, is told that it must rely utterly upon a paint-thin layer of super-professionals, who have almost no reserves, almost no surge capacity and almost no plan for rapid replacement of fallen personel.\u00a0 Does this strike no one else as somewhat… well… brittle?<\/p>\n Has history served this methodology well?\u00a0 There\u00a0are<\/i>\u00a0some examples of where pure professionalism alone has been effective, especially when political leaders applied the entire suite of elite tools, from skilled diplomacy to excellent intelligence to overwhelming and surgically accurate use of force.\u00a0 The Balkans Intervention achieved all aims rapidly, giving the European continent its first peace in 4,000 years, dramatically enhancing America’s reputation and world popularity (especially among Muslims) while leaving readiness unimpaired, at the cost of zero US casualties.\u00a0 In making my argument for citizen-based robustness, I am most definitely not turning my back upon the myriad advantages derived from a corps of professionals with unparalleled training, equipment, doctrines and morale.<\/p>\n Nor should we forget some of the\u00a0reasons<\/i>\u00a0for the professionalization trend. While New Yorkers proved hardy, agile and brave on 9\/11, their skill sets would have been strained to the limit, had that crisis lasted much longer. Moreover, in rosy-hindsight, we tend to forget some of the\u00a0drawbacks<\/i>\u00a0of those old-fashioned American militias. All-too often, thegood posse<\/i>\u00a0might transform into a gang of “bad vigilantes.” We have also seen disturbing trends toward the\u00a0privatization of force,<\/i>\u00a0in mercenary condottieri outfits like Blackwater, that bypass hardwon processes of lawful accountability. As the new administration offers some tentative proposals (see appendix) for beefing up citizen-based robustness, we should remember these and many other lessons from the past, and keep faith with our super-skilled cadres, like the U.S. Officer Corps.<\/p>\n So, yes, we need skilled professionals, more than ever. Nevertheless has it been wise to reverse American tradition so completely? Imitating the way the resilient, citizen-based Roman Republic gradually transformed into a brittle and rigid Empire? Is it possible to turn the clock back just a little, so that some of the advantages of a Nation of Cincinnati can be recovered… without going back to the draft?\u00a0 (For more on this, see my DTRA presentation slides at:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.slideshare.net\/davidbrin\/ )<\/p>\n I contend that the questions I’ve raised here call for a systematic and deep re-appraisal of many aspects of our national security policy.\u00a0 But we can start much more modestly, at first, with a \u201cwish list\u201d of CITIZEN-ORIENTED SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES that could dramatically augment America\u2019s emergency-response capabilities, by returning some traditional emphasis to\u00a0resilience.<\/i><\/p>\n I had a lot more to add.\u00a0 But that should suffice for now. Anyway, specifics are nowhere near as important as recognizing the\u00a0terrifying general trend<\/i>… with a state security apparatus that seems psychologically bent on solving all problems by scooting farther and farther down a single branch.\u00a0 One that grows ever-narrower and easier to cut off.<\/p>\n Today’s emphasis on professional protection – while laudable in certain ways – is also at odds with what has worked for America for most of its history.\u00a0 Psychologically, it is understandable.<\/p>\n But that does not make it wise.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n There is some reason to believe that these ideas have started – at last – to take hold in high places. Take the following excerpts from this\u00a02\/09 article.<\/a><\/p>\n Back in July 2008, Barack Obama, then the presidential front runner, called for a\u00a0civilian national security force<\/i>\u00a0as powerful as the US military.\u00a0We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we\u00d5ve set. We\u00d5ve got to have a civilian national security force that\u00d5s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,<\/i>\u00a0Obama told a Colorado Springs audience.<\/p>\n In his book,\u00a0The Plan: Big Ideas for America,<\/i>\u00a0current Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel writes:\u00a0It\u00d5s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.<\/i><\/p>\n Now, these paragraphs can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Certainly three months of training are inadequate to create a vast pool of citizen soldiers, even if they had only WWII levels of technology to deal with. But that is not the issue or the point.<\/p>\n What three months (a summer) can achieve is:<\/p>\n In any event, one thing is clear. A wind is at last blowing counter to the hyper-professionalization trend. Whether or not any of the points that I have made are truly sensible, it might be wise to study and understand the arguments. We may, indeed, be looking at the future. And truly adaptable professionals ought to be able to roll with it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The folly of relying exclusively on a professional protector caste by\u00a0David Brin Today we face (but largely ignore) a major historical anomaly. From our nation\u2019s birth all the way until the end of the Vietnam War, America’s chief approach … Continue reading \n
\n
\nForgetting our American tradition: Bonus Material<\/h3>\n
\n