What worries me is how deeply dependent that peace has been on policymakers having living memories of how terrible World War 2 actually was
I worry about the same thing, and not just policymakers but the public too. I hypothesize that a few behaviors are connected to it:
* The disregard for the importance of the multilateral international institutions built after WWII: The UN, the EU, the WTO, the Geneva Conventions, and the general rules-based international order. Many conservatives seem to describe these as naive, idealistic and unrealistic, but these institutions were built by the survivors of WWI and WWII. They knew far more of war than we do; if anyone is naive, it's us.
* The war-mongering: Within a large segment of U.S. political arena, people compete to show who is most aggressive with the use of the military, as if to prove that they are not 'liberal'. War is not a last resort for them, but almost a first choice.
* The embrace of ideology and nationalism: It seems to me that a lesson of the World Wars is that nationalism and dogmatic ideology leads inexorably to war, and integration with your neighbors and pluralism prevents it. But now xenophobic nationalism and extreme ideologues, unmoderated by skepticism, are mainstream, from the U.S. to Europe to East Asia to the Middle East. We all know where that ends.
* The civilian-military divide and the glorification of the military: Also a product of the move to an all-volunteer force, few Americans have experience in the military or know someone who does, a far remove from the days of WWII or the draft. The results (based on what is written about more and more): Civilians that recklessly send people to the horrors of war (see "war-mongering", above); a military that resents the burden they carry for the civilians; and a highly partisan military. Another result is the recent glorification of the military: Around WWII (and other wars during the draft era), when a large portion of the public had military experience, the military was associated with terms like SNAFU and Catch-22, a bureaucratic disaster that soldiers had to overcome. Now, from a distance, with so few having familiarity with its realities, the military is glorified by civilians. It's almost unpatriotic to criticize it (which incidentally creates a lack of accountability that endangers the personnel we claim to care so much about).
> the military is glorified by civilians.
> It's almost unpatriotic to criticize it
I think that's because many people are unable to separate the idea of criticizing the decisions the military makes, or the fact that we're at war in ${Country}, from having respect for the courageous men and women willing to be soldiers.
You can see the same divisive narrative in the discussions of Bad Behavior by Police in the US (any criticism is derided as "hating the police", rather than opposing behavior), or in the discussions about Snowden's revelations.
Loving and Supporting someone doesn't mean that you agree with their behavior, nor does it mean that you don't hold them responsible for poor/illegal/destructive choices. I can hold deep respect for our soldiers and the jobs they do, while still feeling that we should not be sending them to kill/die in remote locations, or while criticizing the way we treat our enemies in prisons. For many people, they seem either unable or unwilling to take a nuanced view like that.
Comments
I worry about the same thing, and not just policymakers but the public too. I hypothesize that a few behaviors are connected to it:
* The disregard for the importance of the multilateral international institutions built after WWII: The UN, the EU, the WTO, the Geneva Conventions, and the general rules-based international order. Many conservatives seem to describe these as naive, idealistic and unrealistic, but these institutions were built by the survivors of WWI and WWII. They knew far more of war than we do; if anyone is naive, it's us.
* The war-mongering: Within a large segment of U.S. political arena, people compete to show who is most aggressive with the use of the military, as if to prove that they are not 'liberal'. War is not a last resort for them, but almost a first choice.
* The embrace of ideology and nationalism: It seems to me that a lesson of the World Wars is that nationalism and dogmatic ideology leads inexorably to war, and integration with your neighbors and pluralism prevents it. But now xenophobic nationalism and extreme ideologues, unmoderated by skepticism, are mainstream, from the U.S. to Europe to East Asia to the Middle East. We all know where that ends.
* The civilian-military divide and the glorification of the military: Also a product of the move to an all-volunteer force, few Americans have experience in the military or know someone who does, a far remove from the days of WWII or the draft. The results (based on what is written about more and more): Civilians that recklessly send people to the horrors of war (see "war-mongering", above); a military that resents the burden they carry for the civilians; and a highly partisan military. Another result is the recent glorification of the military: Around WWII (and other wars during the draft era), when a large portion of the public had military experience, the military was associated with terms like SNAFU and Catch-22, a bureaucratic disaster that soldiers had to overcome. Now, from a distance, with so few having familiarity with its realities, the military is glorified by civilians. It's almost unpatriotic to criticize it (which incidentally creates a lack of accountability that endangers the personnel we claim to care so much about).
You can see the same divisive narrative in the discussions of Bad Behavior by Police in the US (any criticism is derided as "hating the police", rather than opposing behavior), or in the discussions about Snowden's revelations.
Loving and Supporting someone doesn't mean that you agree with their behavior, nor does it mean that you don't hold them responsible for poor/illegal/destructive choices. I can hold deep respect for our soldiers and the jobs they do, while still feeling that we should not be sending them to kill/die in remote locations, or while criticizing the way we treat our enemies in prisons. For many people, they seem either unable or unwilling to take a nuanced view like that.