Improving the diversity and inclusion of a military can enhance cohesion & resiliency, thereby improving battlefield performance. @jaylyall_red5 wrote a whole book on the topic.
This seems like an area where the US could gain "soft power" advantage to complement & enhance the "hard power" provided by the US military. wilsoncenter.org/publication/so…
4) Understanding the Cold War's End.
Building on #3, during the Cold War, the US EVENTUALLY sided itself with movements seeking racial equality at home & abroad. @marydudziak's book shows how and why. amazon.com/dp/B006QNPIAC/…
Building up legitimacy (i.e. soft power) was a key reason the US was able to "win" the Cold War without direct major military confrontation with the USSR.
In his 1968 "Beyond Vietnam" speech, Martin Luther King Jr explained how maintaining domestic support for the military's mission required improving race relations at home.
Understanding the reasons for the demographic makeup of the US military seems critical to improving recruitment, as discussed in this @CNASdc report cnas.org/publications/c…
7) Improve Mobilization.
The US highway system came about in large part over concerns about domestic transportation & evacuation. There is a reason it is now officially called the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and DEFENSE Highways"
But US highways are not always constructed in the manner optimal for achieving those aims. Too frequently, racially motivated policies led to the suboptimal design of the highways, especially in and around major cities. See @ClaytonNall's book.
During much of the 19th century, the US military was largely used for "imperial policing" against Native American nations. To see how racism both fed into this policy, see @richardmaass book.
Military "hard" power is a (the) key instrument of international politics. If you are in the military, you should have an understanding of international politics.
Well, guess what is a central feature of international politics? Race. An outstanding summation was offered last year in @ForeignPolicy by @kelly_zvobgo & @meredithloken
In sum, there are actual war fighting, national security, and good citizenship reasons that US military officers should learn about the role of race in the history and policies of the United States.
[END]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The House passed a defense supplement for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
Ukraine aid was the most controversial portion of the supplement and might cost Speaker Johnson his leadership position.
Why did he do it?
[THREAD]
As is being reported, Johnson stated “To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys. My son is going to begin in the Naval Academy this fall....This is not a game, this is not a joke.” cnn.com/2024/04/21/pol…
While it's partly personal for Johnson, his remarks emphasize a larger point, one that I raised in a recent @WPReview column: cutting off US aid won't end the war. Instead, it would embolden Russia. worldpoliticsreview.com/us-ukraine-aid…
To mark the event, here are 7 (and a half) historical facts about NATO.
[THREAD]
These facts draw from the #NATO7for70 series of 🧵 I wrote during NATO's 70th anniversary (along with *half* a new one). So this is essentially a 🧵 of🧵s.
Fact 1: NATO almost didn't happen. The negotiations were contentious, with France (yep, France) almost scuttling the whole deal. Lot's of contention over the treaty covering Algeria (then part of France) and including Italy.