What won the Cold War? The traditional narrative is that free markets and capitalism won the war for America over the Soviet Union who could not match the US buck for buck in military spending. Furthermore, the civilian economy produced so much awesome stuff that the civilian population of Russia didn't really have a choice. It had been beat by capitalism and shruggingly admitted defeat and joined the West....kinda.
This is the story we all know and love, but in reality it wasn't such a simple struggle of East vs. West or Capitalism vs Centrally Organized Communism. Confused? Let me give you and example: who built the atomic bomb? Well, the US built it, but was this the product of capitalists coming together to produce a good that was driven by the market forces of supply and demand? No, it was the product of a centrally organized top-down military project designed to help the nation win a war. It arrived too late to be of use in the Second World War, but it was produced en-mass to create a arsenal that could destroy the world and then some.
As you can see this was not a contest of the free world versus the communist world, but rather a horse race where the riders were the centrally organized states and militaries of the US and USSR riding a free market economy and a centrally organized economy. Although if it was a centrally organized state riding a centrally organized economy it was more like a rider and a horse versus a very big rider on foot. Analogies aren't always perfect....
The story becomes more complex as the US recovers from the Vietnam War, a crippling defeat for the hero of the story. During the war President Nixon makes a critical decision and removes the draft. The US has since had an entirely professional military instead of a military largely based on the draft for the vast source of its fresh bodies. When I was first parcing this out in my mind I thought this was a rather capitalist step to take by the American military. The Army, Navy, and Air Force now had to compete for labor in the markets like Microsoft, IBM, McDonald's, or any other company. However, I realized this is just like any other bureaucracy. With the draft gone the military became something that was akin to any other government bureaucracy with professional bureaucrats who had this as a career. Now, it's not to say the US didn't have these military bureaucrats before, but they made up a smaller part of the whole as in war the US would rely on draftees. The change Nixon made irrevocably changed the entire way that the US fought wars. However, from a sociological perspective the Army suddenly became much less democratic that did not send a nation to war, but rather a bureaucracy to war.
Amazingly, this new way of fighting has been an undeniable success. The Gulf War, police actions in Yugoslavia, and the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were beyond compare in the history of warfare. When you add the word professional and career to military it seems that it is a good combination. In the First Gulf War the US deployed 500,000 troops, took 300 casualties to hostile fire, and cost an estimated $80 billion while the Second Gulf War in 2003 saw the deployment of only 250,000 troops, 84 casualties to hostile fire and cost around 20 billion dollars.* Quality did have an edge over quantity....or so it seemed.
Today we have seen the dull edge of the modern sword. While fire-power was overwhelming fighters, satellites, and helicopters struggle against an insurgency where boots on the ground is the best cure. The US also faces challenges to keep the costs under control, something that Rome found difficult with its own professional military.
The Roman example is a fantastic one to look at in comparison to our current system. Like the American Military, the Roman Army was a professional force that completely destroyed everything in its wake carving an empire out of the Mediterranean Sea and surrounding regions spreading from Britain to Iraq. Paying the troops increasingly became difficult and the Legions would back different powerful individuals who could promise them pay. They became chips that allowed violence to become a bought and sold commodity. Today, mercenary forces in Iraq such as Blackwater (renamed Xe and then renamed Acedemi) have brought America toward a capitalist military as their services become a commodified good that can be publicly traded. Personally I am slightly wary of both the professional and private forms of military that our country has relied on in the past decade with a much much greater fear of the private than the professional.
The reason I don't fear the Roman case happening to the US is the military is quite well compensated for their service and does not rely on booty, treasure, and loot for payment. This means they will more that likely never put their services up to the highest bidder. There is also a culture that is prevalent in the military of strict obedience to the elected President. I don't see a military coup in America's future. What I do fear is rising military costs getting out of control to keep this professional force in the field. Both of these fears are more nagging doubts than full-blown fears, but there is still something.
As for the private forces that have been used by the US. I hope they do not signal another shift in the sociological workings of the fighting forces in the US. That would not bode well for any of us.
*"The New American Way of War" by Max Boot in Volume 82 of Foreign Policy Magazine 2003.
