According to a special issue of National Geographic, the world today is comprised of nearly 7 billion people.  An estimated 42 million of those people are refugees displaced by warfare; significant portions of those people being from Colombia, Iraq, Sudan, Syria and Indonesia (”Earthpulse,” National Geographic, Nov. 2009 ). It is difficult to imagine how to resettle these people, especially in all ready over crowded areas. Immigration laws are also becoming more restrictive and simply bending over backwards to accommodate those displaced by warfare causes additional problems.

When the population of the world was smaller, the refugees produced by warfare were rarely a huge concern. In the Middle Ages, warfare was restricted to mostly empty space as the population of Europe, for instance, was spread further apart. Those towns that were consumed by warfare produced very few (by today’s comparison) refugees. And those refugees could simply move on to the next town, or find a new place to settle with little to no problems.

Insert modern US warfare and future military technology. The popular US Airforce commercial claims that it is working every day to “unman the frontlines.” The goal being to create weapons with cameras and pin point accuracy so that a soldier can perform his duties without the typical risks associated with warfare. Given this desire for accuracy, does that mean that less people will be driven from their homes by warfare as targets are more accurately destroyed? The historic trend seems to argue against it. As the world’s population has increased, space decreased and technology improved there seems to be more people driven from homes rather than less.

Civilians it seems, is not a problem readily solved by increasing military technology. Currently, 25 million are being helped by the UN Refugee Agency (”Earthpulse,” National Geographic, Nov. 2009) and the prospect of those numbers decreasing remains grim due to the increase in urban warfare.

Despite the intense effort to “unman” the frontlines, warfare still remains populated by human tragedy. There is no way to tell if more accurate weapons will ever stop the flow of refugees. “Unmanning” the frontlines may even result in increased conflict, as refugees are left to organize themselves or by non-profit organizations with little to no military thought thrown into the equation. Some refugees may even turn to the other side, as weapons become the face of the US war effort instead of soldiers sent to win the “hearts and minds” of the people.

As the United States moves forward with “unmanning the frontlines” can we ever really consider them unmanned? Conversely, do we want them to be unmanned? Do we want to be the faceless weapon that destroys homes and displaces large numbers of people? No matter what the future of warfare might hold, the production of refugees might be something to more readily consider in military fore thought rather than as an afterthought.

mcharles General History

Today there seems to be a thousand and one published works on the individual soldier’s experience. Works like Stephen Ambrose’s Band of Brothers and its varying spin-offs such as Beyond Band of Brothers, Brothers in Arms, and Biggest Brother. Beyond this particular historic franchise are titles like Just Another Soldier, Shooter, Jarhead, Band of Sisters and A Rumor of War. Each work reveals the view point of an individual soldier or a close knit unit of soldiers, giving credence to the fact that there is a deep pool of personal combat experiences to pull from. With the wealth of experiences being collected, one wonders at the lack of comparative history being done with the information. Are the experiences different? Are they similar? And if they are similar, does that argue for a mindset of what can only be called a universal soldier? I believe that there is definitely evidence to suggest that the American combat soldier under goes a similar combat experience every time he is put on the front line and that this experience transcends time periods, politics and the technological changes of warfare.

Peter Kindsvatter in his book American Soldiers: Ground Combat in the World Wars, Korea and Vietnam tends towards this view point. He utilizes soldier memoirs and reports from war time journalists to get to the heart of the American soldiers experiences during the varying periods of warfare. His findings come very close to nailing down a universal soldier, an experience that is above and beyond what history records as being the “typical” soldier’s experience.

In addition to memoirs written by soldiers, another source that truly gets to the heart of this idea are the letters written by American combat soldiers during their time on the frontlines. In the moment by moment life of the combat soldier there is no better snap shot of feelings and view points than the hastily scribbled letter home. Longer and less hastily written letters reveal an even deeper connection between the American combat soldier in different time periods.

Take for example World War II and the Vietnam War; two wars most would compare as polar opposites. World War II was considered a booming success. The Vietnam War was considered to be an epic failure. The soldiers of each period are described very differently. World War II soldiers were the triumphant heroes returning to ticker tape parades, Vietnam War soldiers quickly changed into civilian clothes to avoid being recognized as they departed from the plane. Their words, however, are extremely similar.

“Today is our 20^th day in action, yet it seems like years. What has happened to me and my Battalion would be scoffed at, even in a 10¢ novel, as being impossible.” -Cpt. George Montgomery, June 26, 1944 in War Letters by Andrew Carroll.

“I doubt if anybody realizes what combat is really like. I thought I knew until a few days ago when I started facing harsh realities and forgetting TV and movie interpretations.” -PFC George Robinson, February 14, 1966 in Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam by Bernard Edelman.

Perhaps, in a better effort to understand the effects of combat on a soldier we need to understand the legacy of combat through the experiences of the universal soldier. In this way, we can perhaps better prepare soldiers for combat or be better prepared to deal with the fall out upon their return.

mcharles General History