With reference to your disdain for "nation-building" let me recommend a book:
Unwinnable Wars: Afghanistan and the Future of American Armed Statebuilding by Adam Wunische
Ostensibly a post-mortem of the Afghanistan war, this is actually a compelling and provocative thesis on why success in limited interventions is difficult, if not impossible. Afghanistan is the primary case history relied upon, and referred to throughout. But it is not the sole example. Wunische also draws upon numerous other examples to illustrate and support his points – Iraq, Cuba, Vietnam, Haiti. The paradox is that everything done in pursuit of victory actually becomes creates conditions that will prevent any such victory from being realized. He rejects the term "nation-building" in favor of "armed state building" - I think his case for it is compelling.
Re Afghanistan. I felt from the get go that we should have bombed the you know what out of them. Then said if you raise your stinkin heads again and mess with us directly or by outsourcing, we will turn your country to glass. Imagine how many Americans would have not been killed in the senseless un winnable war, hands strapped behind our backs by silly ROE, money not spent and wasted, billions of weapons not left behind and unvetted afghanis not brought here by the idiot Biden.
We try to do too much, and we take on too much of the other guy’s responsibility to defray the consequences of his actions. It is one thing to rebuild a Germany or Japan after having obliterated the existing society and cultural ethos that created the problem leading to war … working from a societal ground zero up pretty much insures that you can substitute friendly governing systems based on liberal concepts (liberal in the classic Western Judeo-Christian sense). But when we go to war with an ancient culture inimical to that liberal grounding, and do not erase that culture, it is sheer folly to think we can impose our alien ethos on top of it and it will work. Afghanistan a case in point (19 years, trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and nothing substantive is changed — the entire facade depends upon our presence enforcing it and disappeared when we did). The greater Mid-East another. We assuage our innate guilt at having “hurt” them by throwing endless money and resources at them while assuming with little support that it will change everything. We preach aspirations instead of confronting reality. It just defrays the responsibility that other people/cultures/countries bear for the consequences of their own free and willing choices. Absent a societal erasure a la WWII it won’t work.
What we need is a revitalization of the concept of punitive expeditions. The WWII solution is always available for existential external threats and declared wars, but the punitive expedition would cover most other limited, regional threats (again, Afghanistan a good case in point)… you hurt us, support or enable those who actively seek to hurt or damage us, cost us American lives (or similarly hurt or damage those we ally with because they share or values and way of life) and we will come in and do what we do extraordinarily well - break things and kill people extensively. When we are done, we leave… essentially, dust off our hands, hand them back their shitty little country, and advise them to listen to us in the future... “but remember, fuck with us again and we will be back!” Instead of fretting over the reactions of those opposed to us, they should be apprehensive of our reactions to what they do.
The scope and extent of such a response can be tailored to the opponent, but the bottom line is that the opponent bears full responsibility for his acts. Free will always has costs - even among nations.
My imagination, which I believe to be at least "active", cannot even begin to imagine a combat veteran in a professor's position. And a tank driver, yet, good heavens.
But I will take one tiny exception to the good doctor's essay about being educated. I am, myself, highly un-educated, a high school dropout at barely sixteen whose prior educational experience was more corporeal than mental.
But still I was blessed and gifted from the very earliest age with the ability and desire to read. I thank my mother for taking this as a project of importance for her first-born and to say it stays with one, being in my mid-seventies now, is very much true.
Would I be more of curious person, and reader, now, had I gotten education? We'll never know. Had I ventured to university, it likely would have been civil or architectural engineering, and we all know about those STEM guys.
Thank you for the reminiscence. You've made Dr. Rood someone I wish I had known.
If you read, and are willing to think, you have a far better education than most of the Yalies with their leather bound diplomas and heads full of mush. I suspect Prof. Rood would approve.
My mother taught me to read before I went to school and I did the same for my children and some of my grandchildren. I also took them to the library and told them that everything that was in any of those books would be available to them if they continued to build their reading skills. I am in my mid-seventies too and I am amazed at how little most of my friends, many who are college graduates, which I am not, read now and how little they have read in their lives. I read that many college students say they didn't read an entire book all through high school and that they are intimidated by the reading lists they are given in college. That is incredibly sad.
Our grandchildren have been through a variety of public and private schools, and some have been homeschooled until high school, and they have learned to read well.
I don't know if it can be reversed or, if it can, how. I believe that parents need to take the lead. My granddaughter has three children ages 6, 2 and 1. She has been homeschooling and the 6 year old has been reading for over two years. The 2 year old is already sounding out some words. Her mom was an early reader and reads as much as being the mother of three can. Her dad became a more avid reader after they married. I think seeing parents reading for pleasure, having books in the house and reading aloud to kids is the key and is sadly lacking in many homes.
Judging by the description in this post, I don't think Harold Rood would limit his definition of "educated" to those with an Ivy League degree, or any other degree, for that matter.
Given what has become of academia, personally I no longer consider college graduates necessarily to be educated. They are more like to be indoctrinated, and that ain't the same thing as educated.
It's a shame that our educators did not attend Professor Rood's classes. Instead, they elected Randi Weingarten to represent them and their union. I hope they thoroughly enjoy their decision.
In junior high school, in the early 1960's we had a "show and tell day". I brought in a 7.7 caliber rifle my father had brought home after fighting in the Philippines. I had removed the bolt, wrapped it in paper and then covered the rifle with newspaper while I rode the school bus to school. The other kids thought that was neat, as many of their fathers had also fought in the War. The 'show and tell" day was a success. All the kids appreciated history and were happy to see a relic of it in their classroom. Back then, kids I knew were proud of their families. Baseball in the summer and hockey in the winter were their major activities, not demonstrating to save the environment or other things they could not accomplish. Those were the "good old days!"
What a wonderfully-written post and what a delightful man this Professor Rood must have been. And engaged enough with his brightest and best students to actually sit down and EAT with them!
Our country and our world were better when Professor Rood was bringing his rifle to class and young Nino Scalia was riding the NYC subway with his en route to rifle team practice.
The heads of our major universities and 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices who appear to fear guns should consider what that attitude has wrought.
We had a rifle range in the basement of our high school. Students brought their rifles to school in gun bags and stored them in their lockers. They competed in matches with other area schools. No one ever shot anyone, either on purpose or by accident.
"The Rifle," by Andrew Biggio is highly recommended. WWII taught sober lessons, pray we don't have to learn them again. Yet the world is full of tough choices, and a theocratic nuclear Iran is a mortal threat.
Heres a realist proposition for you. War: a bunch of ornery old men sending young, naive men to kill and be killed by other young, naive men, sent by other ornery old men. Typically the ornery old men and their friends on each side get much richer, while the young men on each side die or become much poorer. Oh yeah, if you dont want this with all your heart, mind, and soul, you’re a traitor to you country. 🤷🏼♂️
I had an English teacher my Jr year in HS who had been at El Alemein. He was one of the best I ever had; should have been teaching in college. I'd give a lot to be able to ask him about his experiences, he didn't talk a lot about it.
The wall and the air... And an M1 in class. Those were the days, my friend, too bad they had to end. Of course if he was a tanker he probably had an M1 Carbine. Sweet little gun.
I hope nobody got an M1 Thumb when the professor passed the rifle around. I got an M1 Thumb one time doing an "Inspection Arms" during ROTC drill my freshman year in college, and it hurt like hell.
And yeah, it's been a long time since ROTC used the M1 in drill and ceremonies. But I was in college a long time ago.
My favorite class in college was a military history class I took 20 years ago. Like Professor Rood, my professor brought a WW2 rifle to class to share with students. Of course, he had to check it in with the campus police, etc. Unfortunately, he retired right after that semester. I wish I could have had more classes with him.
With reference to your disdain for "nation-building" let me recommend a book:
Unwinnable Wars: Afghanistan and the Future of American Armed Statebuilding by Adam Wunische
Ostensibly a post-mortem of the Afghanistan war, this is actually a compelling and provocative thesis on why success in limited interventions is difficult, if not impossible. Afghanistan is the primary case history relied upon, and referred to throughout. But it is not the sole example. Wunische also draws upon numerous other examples to illustrate and support his points – Iraq, Cuba, Vietnam, Haiti. The paradox is that everything done in pursuit of victory actually becomes creates conditions that will prevent any such victory from being realized. He rejects the term "nation-building" in favor of "armed state building" - I think his case for it is compelling.
Re Afghanistan. I felt from the get go that we should have bombed the you know what out of them. Then said if you raise your stinkin heads again and mess with us directly or by outsourcing, we will turn your country to glass. Imagine how many Americans would have not been killed in the senseless un winnable war, hands strapped behind our backs by silly ROE, money not spent and wasted, billions of weapons not left behind and unvetted afghanis not brought here by the idiot Biden.
We try to do too much, and we take on too much of the other guy’s responsibility to defray the consequences of his actions. It is one thing to rebuild a Germany or Japan after having obliterated the existing society and cultural ethos that created the problem leading to war … working from a societal ground zero up pretty much insures that you can substitute friendly governing systems based on liberal concepts (liberal in the classic Western Judeo-Christian sense). But when we go to war with an ancient culture inimical to that liberal grounding, and do not erase that culture, it is sheer folly to think we can impose our alien ethos on top of it and it will work. Afghanistan a case in point (19 years, trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and nothing substantive is changed — the entire facade depends upon our presence enforcing it and disappeared when we did). The greater Mid-East another. We assuage our innate guilt at having “hurt” them by throwing endless money and resources at them while assuming with little support that it will change everything. We preach aspirations instead of confronting reality. It just defrays the responsibility that other people/cultures/countries bear for the consequences of their own free and willing choices. Absent a societal erasure a la WWII it won’t work.
What we need is a revitalization of the concept of punitive expeditions. The WWII solution is always available for existential external threats and declared wars, but the punitive expedition would cover most other limited, regional threats (again, Afghanistan a good case in point)… you hurt us, support or enable those who actively seek to hurt or damage us, cost us American lives (or similarly hurt or damage those we ally with because they share or values and way of life) and we will come in and do what we do extraordinarily well - break things and kill people extensively. When we are done, we leave… essentially, dust off our hands, hand them back their shitty little country, and advise them to listen to us in the future... “but remember, fuck with us again and we will be back!” Instead of fretting over the reactions of those opposed to us, they should be apprehensive of our reactions to what they do.
The scope and extent of such a response can be tailored to the opponent, but the bottom line is that the opponent bears full responsibility for his acts. Free will always has costs - even among nations.
We shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Which goes for rest those listed. It want about nation building. It was about stealing resources
The world understands power. Talk, not so much.
My imagination, which I believe to be at least "active", cannot even begin to imagine a combat veteran in a professor's position. And a tank driver, yet, good heavens.
But I will take one tiny exception to the good doctor's essay about being educated. I am, myself, highly un-educated, a high school dropout at barely sixteen whose prior educational experience was more corporeal than mental.
But still I was blessed and gifted from the very earliest age with the ability and desire to read. I thank my mother for taking this as a project of importance for her first-born and to say it stays with one, being in my mid-seventies now, is very much true.
Would I be more of curious person, and reader, now, had I gotten education? We'll never know. Had I ventured to university, it likely would have been civil or architectural engineering, and we all know about those STEM guys.
Thank you for the reminiscence. You've made Dr. Rood someone I wish I had known.
If you read, and are willing to think, you have a far better education than most of the Yalies with their leather bound diplomas and heads full of mush. I suspect Prof. Rood would approve.
My mother taught me to read before I went to school and I did the same for my children and some of my grandchildren. I also took them to the library and told them that everything that was in any of those books would be available to them if they continued to build their reading skills. I am in my mid-seventies too and I am amazed at how little most of my friends, many who are college graduates, which I am not, read now and how little they have read in their lives. I read that many college students say they didn't read an entire book all through high school and that they are intimidated by the reading lists they are given in college. That is incredibly sad.
This is indeed sad. Can it be reversed?
Our grandchildren have been through a variety of public and private schools, and some have been homeschooled until high school, and they have learned to read well.
I don't know if it can be reversed or, if it can, how. I believe that parents need to take the lead. My granddaughter has three children ages 6, 2 and 1. She has been homeschooling and the 6 year old has been reading for over two years. The 2 year old is already sounding out some words. Her mom was an early reader and reads as much as being the mother of three can. Her dad became a more avid reader after they married. I think seeing parents reading for pleasure, having books in the house and reading aloud to kids is the key and is sadly lacking in many homes.
This is excellent.
Judging by the description in this post, I don't think Harold Rood would limit his definition of "educated" to those with an Ivy League degree, or any other degree, for that matter.
Given what has become of academia, personally I no longer consider college graduates necessarily to be educated. They are more like to be indoctrinated, and that ain't the same thing as educated.
It's a shame that our educators did not attend Professor Rood's classes. Instead, they elected Randi Weingarten to represent them and their union. I hope they thoroughly enjoy their decision.
In junior high school, in the early 1960's we had a "show and tell day". I brought in a 7.7 caliber rifle my father had brought home after fighting in the Philippines. I had removed the bolt, wrapped it in paper and then covered the rifle with newspaper while I rode the school bus to school. The other kids thought that was neat, as many of their fathers had also fought in the War. The 'show and tell" day was a success. All the kids appreciated history and were happy to see a relic of it in their classroom. Back then, kids I knew were proud of their families. Baseball in the summer and hockey in the winter were their major activities, not demonstrating to save the environment or other things they could not accomplish. Those were the "good old days!"
Where have you gone, Prof. Rood? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
What a wonderfully-written post and what a delightful man this Professor Rood must have been. And engaged enough with his brightest and best students to actually sit down and EAT with them!
Susan Vass
His students were blessed to have such a man in their lives. I have to wonder if there are any of his kind left.
Our country and our world were better when Professor Rood was bringing his rifle to class and young Nino Scalia was riding the NYC subway with his en route to rifle team practice.
The heads of our major universities and 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices who appear to fear guns should consider what that attitude has wrought.
We had a rifle range in the basement of our high school. Students brought their rifles to school in gun bags and stored them in their lockers. They competed in matches with other area schools. No one ever shot anyone, either on purpose or by accident.
What are the “good books” Dr. Rood assigned his classes?
Coming soon in a follow up post.
"The Rifle," by Andrew Biggio is highly recommended. WWII taught sober lessons, pray we don't have to learn them again. Yet the world is full of tough choices, and a theocratic nuclear Iran is a mortal threat.
Let’s hope the lesson of NOT doing nation building anymore has been learned.
Like a dog to it's vomit...
Wonderful article. Will re-read it many times. Thank you.
Steve, I wish I had just one professor like Rood. It seems that you had several like him and you prove it in your posts. . Best, Mike
PS. It seems that you liked Norway? We have very good friends there that we visit.
Heres a realist proposition for you. War: a bunch of ornery old men sending young, naive men to kill and be killed by other young, naive men, sent by other ornery old men. Typically the ornery old men and their friends on each side get much richer, while the young men on each side die or become much poorer. Oh yeah, if you dont want this with all your heart, mind, and soul, you’re a traitor to you country. 🤷🏼♂️
I had an English teacher my Jr year in HS who had been at El Alemein. He was one of the best I ever had; should have been teaching in college. I'd give a lot to be able to ask him about his experiences, he didn't talk a lot about it.
The wall and the air... And an M1 in class. Those were the days, my friend, too bad they had to end. Of course if he was a tanker he probably had an M1 Carbine. Sweet little gun.
I hope nobody got an M1 Thumb when the professor passed the rifle around. I got an M1 Thumb one time doing an "Inspection Arms" during ROTC drill my freshman year in college, and it hurt like hell.
And yeah, it's been a long time since ROTC used the M1 in drill and ceremonies. But I was in college a long time ago.
My favorite class in college was a military history class I took 20 years ago. Like Professor Rood, my professor brought a WW2 rifle to class to share with students. Of course, he had to check it in with the campus police, etc. Unfortunately, he retired right after that semester. I wish I could have had more classes with him.
Simplistic but on target, from the late Carter era:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8hEtI9AI0U