Each year, in the final week of instruction at the U.S. Army War College there is a four-day event that takes place known as the National Security Seminar (NSS). The resident seminars grow by six to seven members apiece as approximately 160 invited guests from many walks of life across the country join the students to engage in candid dialogue about national security issues, the U.S. military and the viewpoints of the citizenry of the nation. The new seminar members typically have no close association with the military and are invited via a nomination process.
The four-day itinerary includes distinguished speakers covering topics of civil-military relations, globalization, foreign policy, international security issues and the role of the United States in the world. The guests are able to attend several social events where the conversation is less formal and they close their week with a staff ride tour of the Gettysburg Battlefield.
In 2022 one of those guests was John Roderick, a musician, singer, songwriter, podcaster and politician. He was in podcast editor Ron Granieri’s seminar and he’s in the studio today to share his experiences during his four days in Carlisle.
This is part one of a two-part episode.
During what would have been my peak military years I was sitting around in cafes writing plays no one would ever see and arguing politics with a bunch of long hairs. So I come from a community of people that don’t have very much exposure to the military unless it’s through their parents.
Podcast: Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | Pandora | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Podchaser | Podcast Index | TuneIn | Deezer | Youtube Music | RSS | Subscribe to A Better Peace: The War Room Podcast
John Roderick cohosts the podcasts The Omnibus Project with Jeopardy host Ken Jennings, and Roderick on the Line with pundit Merlin Mann. He’s also the frontman of indie band The Long Winters. He lives in Seattle.
Ron Granieri is an Associate Professor of History at the U.S. Army War College and the Editor of A BETTER PEACE.
Photo Description: When John Roderick attended the National Security Seminar in June 2022 he posted thoughts about his experience to several of his social media accounts.
Photo Credit: Screencaps courtesy of John Roderick’s personal Instagram account.
In my opinion, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Army War College have much to do to undo the propaganda of the 1619 Project. It will lead to the disuniting of the United States of America. For further details see Debunking the 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America by Mary Grabar
In my opinion, we see much in Joe Biden and Democrats where they seek to silence and engage in forced assimilation of many Americans. In too many institutions in America there is a lack of the idea that people can disagree on how to interpret historical facts. For more insight on the lack of willingness to listen to the other side, see Conservatism: A Rediscovery by Yoram Hazony. There are profound and incompatible divergent views on the moral standards to guide America.
Finally, if one is to invite civilians to the U.S. Army War College, we need to consider what will be our needs in a major war when we take in many civilians into the U.S. Armed Forces. One could include in the lecture series Douglas Southall Freeman on Leadership by Stuart W. Smith. In talking to some former Soldiers issues in the U.S. Civil War still plague the U.S. Army today.
During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington had to deal with the leaders of the various states who raised the troops that would serve in the Continental Army. The state politicians believed many things that were not so. It took extreme diplomacy on the part of General George Washington to be able to forge an effective army. In my opinion, the U.S. Army faces similar problems where politicians believe ideas that are false. It will be prudent to study George Washington and the American Military Tradition by Don Higginbotham to see how General George Washington handled similar problems.
In seminars relating to such things as national security at the U.S. Army War College, are New/Reverse Cold War matters — such as those presented below — discussed?
“RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES AS SCREENS FOR EACH OTHER’S PROJECTIONS: Russia and the United States are once again becoming screens for each other, on which corresponding actors project some of their own images arising from the internal logic of corresponding societies. The transformation, the inversion of each other’s images that has taken place since the Cold War, is remarkable. During the Cold War, the USSR was perceived by American conservatives as an “evil empire,” as a source of destructive cultural influences, while the United States was perceived as a force that was preventing the world from the triumph of godless communism and anarchy. The USSR, by contrast, positioned itself as a vanguard of emancipation, as a fighter for the progressive transformation of humanity (away from religion and toward atheism), and against the reactionary forces of the West. Today positions have changed dramatically; it is the United States or the ruling liberal establishment that in the conservative narrative has become the new or neo-USSR, spreading subversive ideas about family or the nature of authority around the world, while Russia has become almost a beacon of hope, “the last bastion of Christian values” that helps keep the world from sliding into a liberal dystopia. Russia’s self-identity has changed accordingly; now it is Russia who actively resists destructive, revolutionary experiments with fundamental human institutions, experiments inspired by new revolutionary neo-communists from the United States. Hence the cautious hopes that the U.S. Christian right have for contemporary Russia: They are projecting on Russia their fantasies of another West that has not been infected by the virus of cultural liberalism.”
(See the December 18, 2019, Georgetown University, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs article “Global Culture Wars from the Perspective of Russian and American Actors: Some Preliminary Conclusions,” by Dmitry Uzlaner. Look to the paragraph beginning with “Russia and the United States as screens for each other’s projections.”)
As to why the U.S./the West, in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, would come to see the “conservatives” (both in our own country and indeed throughout the world) as our “natural enemies” today, this may best be explained by the “capitalism (much like communism) demands ‘revolutionary change’ ” dynamic described below:
“Capitalism is the most successful wealth-creating economic system that the world has ever known; no other system, as the distinguished economist Joseph Schumpeter pointed out, has benefited ‘the common people’ as much. Capitalism, he observed, creates wealth through advancing continuously to every higher levels of productivity and technological sophistication; this process requires that the ‘old’ be destroyed before the ‘new’ can take over. … This process of ‘creative destruction,’ to use Schumpeter’s term, produces many winners but also many losers, at least in the short term, and poses a serious threat to traditional social values, beliefs, and institutions. … (These) threatened individuals, groups or nations (in turn) constitute an ever-present force that could overthrow or at least significantly disrupt the capitalist system.” (Items in parenthesis above are mine.)
(See the book “The Challenge of the Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century,” by Robert Gilpin; therein, see the very first page of the very first chapter — the Introduction chapter.)
Bottom Line Thought — Based on the Above:
During the Old Cold War of yesterday — the U.S./the West had to put aside its traditional conflict (see Gilpin above) with “traditional social values, beliefs and institution” and, indeed, had to “weaponize” same in it’s conflict with “revolutionary change” communism.
In the New/Reverse Cold War of today, however, the age-old (since at least the dawn of modern capitalism in the eighteenth century) conflict between (a) the “change” demands of capitalism and (b) the no-change demands of “traditional social values, beliefs and institutions,” these have returned to the fore:
“All in all, the 1980s and 1990s (the 2000s and the 2010s also; Muller’s book was written in 2002) were a Hayekian moment, when his once untimely liberalism came to be seen as timely. The intensification of market competition, internally and within each nation, created a more innovative and dynamic brand of capitalism. That in turn gave rise to a new chorus of laments that, as we have seen, have recurred since the eighteenth century: Community was breaking down; traditional ways of life were being destroyed; identities were thrown into question; solidarity was being undermined; egoism unleashed; wealth made conspicuous amid new inequality; philistinism was triumphant.”
(From the book “The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought” by Jerry Z. Muller; therein, see the chapter on Friedrich Hayek.)
Accordingly, would not our U.S. Army War College national security seminars benefit from a discussion of these such matters; this, given that so many things (the current revolt against DEI in our own country and abroad; the “weaponizing” of “conservative values” by Russia, China and the Islamists, etc.) might best be viewed in within the New/Reverse Cold War context that I provide above?
What if the U.S. Army War College decided to begin its national security seminars with the following quote:
“Proponents of this vision of a globalized economy characterize the United States as ‘a giant corporation locked in a fierce competitive struggle with other nations for economic survival,’ so that ‘the central task of the federal government’ is to ‘increase the internal competitiveness of the American economy.’ ”
(See Page 643 of the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law paper “Moral Communities or a Market State: The Supreme Court’s Vision of the Police Power in the Age of Globalization,” by Antonio F. Perez and Robert J. Delahunty. See the last part of the only full paragraph on this page.)
If the seminarians were then tasked to look at such things as “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) — specifically from this such “the central task of the federal government is to increase the internal competitiveness of the American economy” perspective — then might these such seminarians come to a conclusion –re: DEI — which might look something like this:
The suggested basis for embracing — and indeed for striving to be the very best at such things as “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) — this has to do with “surviving” — and with “winning” — in every sense of the word — and with, accordingly, determining who will “lead, dominate and direct” the modern world today and going forward.
This, given that organizations and countries today — who create and embrace strong diversity, equity and inclusion strategies and programs — these such organizations and countries will (a) be able to attract and keep the world’s top talent and, thus, will (b) be able to drive necessary innovation today and going forward; this, (c) causing those countries who fail to embrace such things as DEI to (1) be left far behind in this highly competitive environment and, thus, to (2) become much more vulnerable to easy takeover and defeat — by organizations and/or countries who were wise enough to embrace DEI.
Bottom Line Thought — Based on the Above:
From this such perspective, of course, certain “traditional social values, beliefs and institutions” (for example, those associated with such things as racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.?) — these are “luxuries” that NO organization or country — in the current “world of economic competition” age — can continue to afford?
Error:
In my first quoted item above — from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law paper “Moral Communities or a Market State … ” — please change the words “‘increase the INTERNAL competitiveness of the American economy” to “increase the INTERNATIONAL competitiveness of the American economy.”
Apologies.
So let me attempt address the “re: Ukraine, is America the hero?” question/thought — which is addressed at about the 28:00 point in this podcast. To do this, I will try to make a comparison:
1. In the Old Cold War of yesterday, when to the Soviets/the communists sought to achieve “revolutionary” political, economic, social and/or value “change” — both in their own home countries and also abroad (in their case, in the name of communism) — the U.S., in response to this such threat, adopted “containment” and “roll back” strategies. Thus, when the Soviets/the communists sought to implant communist governments in the U.S.’s backyard (think in Latin America), the U.S. — as per our such “containment” and “roll back” strategies — sent U.S. military forces there (in our case, our special forces), to thwart the Soviets/the communists such “expansionist” plans.
2. In the New/Reverse Cold War of today, however, when it is now the U.S./the West who has sought to achieve “revolutionary” political, economic, social and/or value “change” — both in our own home countries and also abroad (in our case, in the name of such things as market-democracy) — in response to this such threat, nations such as Russia have adopted “containment” and “roll back” strategies of their own. Thus, when the U.S./the West sought to implant market-democracy governments in Russia’s backyard (think Ukraine), Russia — as per their such “containment” and “roll back” strategies — sent Russian military forces there (in their case, their conventional forces), to try to thwart the U.S./the West’s such “expansionist” plans.
Bottom Line Thought — Based on the Above:
In the Old Cold War of yesterday, and as per the U.S./the West’s “containment” and “roll back” (of communism) strategies back then, the U.S./the West could be thought of as the (conservative?) “heroes” — this, in circles where people desired to maintain the status quo — or desired to achieve a status quo ante (this latter, if too much unwanted communist “change” was thought to have already taken place).
In the New/Reverse Cold War of today, however, and as per the U.S./the West’s “expansion of market-democracies” strategies now, those (here in the U.S./the West and/or elsewhere) who wish to maintain the status quo — or to achieve a status quo ante — these folks are looking elsewhere for (conservative) “heroes:”
“Liberal democratic societies have, in the past few decades, undergone a series of revolutionary changes in their social and political life, which are not to the taste of all their citizens. For many of those, who might be called social conservatives, Russia has become a more agreeable society, at least in principle, than those they live in. Communist Westerners used to speak of the Soviet Union as the pioneer society of a brighter future for all. Now, the rightwing nationalists of Europe and North America admire Russia and its leader for cleaving to the past.”
(See “The American Interest” article “The Reality of Russian Soft Power” by John Lloyd and Daria Litinova.)
“Compounding it all, Russia’s dictator has achieved all of this while creating sympathy in elements of the Right that mirrors the sympathy the Soviet Union achieved in elements of the Left. In other words, Putin is expanding Russian power and influence while mounting a cultural critique that resonates with some American audiences, casting himself as a defender of Christian civilization against Islam and the godless, decadent West.”
(See the “National Review” item entitled: “How Russia Wins” by David French.)
THIS, I suggest, is the “recruiting environment”/the “recruiting problem” that we must be most concerned with today?
So let me attempt address the “re: Ukraine, is America the hero?” question/thought — which is addressed at about the 28:00 point in this podcast. To do this, I will try to make a comparison:
1. In the Old Cold War of yesterday, when to the Soviets/the communists sought to achieve “revolutionary” political, economic, social and/or value “change” — both in their own home countries and also abroad (in their case, in the name of communism) — the U.S., in response to this such threat, adopted “containment” and “roll back” strategies. Thus, when the Soviets/the communists sought to implant communist governments in the U.S.’s backyard (think in Latin America), the U.S. — as per our such “containment” and “roll back” strategies — sent U.S. military forces there (in our case, our special forces), to thwart the Soviets/the communists such “expansionist” plans.
2. In the New/Reverse Cold War of today, however, when it is now the U.S./the West who has sought to achieve “revolutionary” political, economic, social and/or value “change” — both in our own home countries and also abroad (in our case, in the name of such things as market-democracy) — in response to this such threat, nations such as Russia have adopted “containment” and “roll back” strategies of their own. Thus, when the U.S./the West sought to implant market-democracy governments in Russia’s backyard (think Ukraine), Russia — as per their such “containment” and “roll back” strategies — sent Russian military forces there (in their case, their conventional forces), to try to thwart the U.S./the West’s such “expansionist” plans.
Bottom Line Thought — Based on the Above:
In the Old Cold War of yesterday, and as per the U.S./the West’s “containment” and “roll back” (of communism) strategies back then, the U.S./the West could be thought of as the (conservative?) “heroes” — this, in circles where people desired to maintain the status quo — or desired to achieve a status quo ante (this latter, if too much unwanted communist “change” was thought to have already taken place).
In the New/Reverse Cold War of today, however, and as per the U.S./the West’s “expansion of market-democracies” strategies now, those (here in the U.S./the West and/or elsewhere) who wish to maintain the status quo — or to achieve a status quo ante — these folks are looking elsewhere for (conservative) “heroes:”
“Liberal democratic societies have, in the past few decades, undergone a series of revolutionary changes in their social and political life, which are not to the taste of all their citizens. For many of those, who might be called social conservatives, Russia has become a more agreeable society, at least in principle, than those they live in. Communist Westerners used to speak of the Soviet Union as the pioneer society of a brighter future for all. Now, the rightwing nationalists of Europe and North America admire Russia and its leader for cleaving to the past.”
(See “The American Interest” article “The Reality of Russian Soft Power” by John Lloyd and Daria Litinova.)
“Compounding it all, Russia’s dictator has achieved all of this while creating sympathy in elements of the Right that mirrors the sympathy the Soviet Union achieved in elements of the Left. In other words, Putin is expanding Russian power and influence while mounting a cultural critique that resonates with some American audiences, casting himself as a defender of Christian civilization against Islam and the godless, decadent West.”
(See the “National Review” item entitled: “How Russia Wins” by David French.)
THIS, I suggest, is the “recruiting environment”/the “recruiting problem” that we must be most concerned with today?