This is Democracy — Episode 303: U.S. Military

This is Democracy,

a podcast about the people of the United States, a podcast about citizenship,

about engaging with politics and the world around you.

A podcast about educating yourself on today’s important issues and how to have a voice in what happens next.

[00:00:20] Jeremi: Welcome to our new episode of This Is Democracy.

This week we are going to discuss the changes over the last 20 years in the US military and the way the changes in the US military of various kinds, uh, affect the position and future of the US military and US foreign policy, and the relationship between the United States and other parts of the world.

We are very fortunate to be joined by, uh, an old friend in many ways. An old student, uh, Nathaniel Lauterbach. Uh, Nathaniel is an active duty US Marine Corps officer, and he goes by Nate. So we’re gonna call him Nate here. Uh, though we probably should call him Colonel Lauterbach. Uh, he recently commanded a squadron in California.

Uh, before that he was an operational planner and strategist in the second marine aircraft Ring wing, responsible for war plans and long range planning for all, uh, US combat marine aviation on the East Coast. That’s a huge job. Uh, Nate served as a lead planner for NATO as as well. Uh, and he’s been involved deeply involved with efforts to integrate military robotics and artificial intelligence into the Marine Corps.

Uh, in some ways this all started, uh, when, uh, Nate grew up in Wisconsin and I had the great fortune of being his professor, uh, uh, in the early two thousands at the University of Wisconsin Madison. And as always, it’s, uh, it’s a great source of pride to see, um, my students doing such important work, uh, especially through public service to serve our country and to serve democracy.

So, uh, Nate, thank you for your service and thank you for being with us today.

[00:02:00] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Thank you so much, uh, for the kind introduction and, uh, and it’s, and honestly, it’s a pleasure to serve and it’s a calling. So, uh, so I take it anytime anyone can say thank you for your service, uh, it means a great deal. Thank you so much.

[00:02:14] Jeremi: Well, uh, it, we, we mean it sincerely

[00:02:16] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: and I should say, um, is that, uh, all the opinions that I’m going to say today are strictly my own and don’t represent those of depart, the Department of Defense, the Marine Corps, or any other organization with which I’m associated. Thank you.

[00:02:29] Jeremi: Zachary is with us as well.

How are you today, Zachary? I’m doing well. How are you? Very well, um, in lieu of Zachary’s poem today, we have, uh, some words from George Kenon, uh, and those who have, um, worked with me or talked with me about foreign policy. Know how important George Kenon is to me, and I know he’s important to, uh, Nate and others who served today.

George Kenon was one of the leading American diplomats, uh, of the World War II and post World War II period. Also, one of the leading writers and thinkers. About American diplomacy, about the use of military force and the democratic purposes of the United States in the world. And in 1950, George Kennon gave a very important series of lectures that were later published under the title American Diplomacy.

It’s a little tiny book that I assign year in and year out. It’s still in print. Um, it’s probably one of the most read. Little books on American diplomacy, and I just wanted to read a few lines from it, uh, from the end of one of his lectures that I think are relevant for where we wanna go in our discussion with Nate today.

So I’ll read these lines and then we’ll go right into our discussion. George Kennedy, in 1950 said, there is no more dangerous delusion, none that has done us a greater disservice in the past, or that threatens to do us a greater disservice in the future. Then the concept of total victory instead, our own national interest, not total victory, is all that we are capable of knowing and understanding to many that might smack of cynicism and reaction, even low expectations.

I cannot share these doubts. Our national interest is all. We are really capable of knowing and understanding. Nate, as, as someone who’s been in the at, at the center of defending the national interest, does that resonate with you? It

[00:04:33] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: does, uh, it really does. Uh, I think the reason why is, uh, I’d even probably take it a step further, that sometimes I think that the most, sure among us, we, we might, we might think that we do actually know what the national interest is.

But upon reflection, I think it’s actually even more difficult than what he actually, uh, doing the way he expresses it. Uh, sometimes the national interest, um, in the wake of, of an attack or some sort of tragedy that befalls your nation, it can appear to be very clear. And then, uh, with time and reflection is less so.

So yeah, it’s, uh, it’s pointed. I appreciate that.

[00:05:11] Jeremi: Well, and just building on your really thoughtful comments, Nate, how have you over the. 22 years that, that you’ve been in uniform. How have you seen the role of the military and the way the military, um, defends the US national injuries? How have you seen that change?

Sure.

[00:05:29] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Uh, I think that the way that that has changed a lot is sort of the, the nature of, of, uh, the nature of service when we began. Over the 22 years, what had happened is, is sep, you know, SEP, the September 11th attacks and the immediate, uh, push in Afghanistan. I was not a part of that. And then the immediate invasion into Iraq, and I was not a part of that either.

But the subsequent occupations of both and the counterinsurgency operations, um, that we, we undertook for, for decades really across, across both those countries. Um. The way it initially was expressed was sort of a, a, it was an all volunteer force, and, uh, it was on the backs of, uh, a quite small number of people who would continually deploy.

Um, I myself had five combat deployments when to Iraq and Ford, Afghanistan, myself. Wow. Um, and there was, uh, it was, you know, you, you deploy, you train, uh. You do the thing and then you come on home and then there’s a very good chance that if you’re sticking around, you’re gonna end up doing it again and again.

Um, and over time I think that that has sort of changed a little bit with, with the withdrawal from those countries. And then with the changes of that are going on in war, uh, overseas right now. Whether it’s operations that the Israelis are undertaking in Gaza or. Or in Ukraine like that, all volunteer forces kind of, uh, you probably cannot rely on something like that.

It’s probably gonna take something a little bit bigger for the, the way that the war is changing and the technology is affecting it and, uh, and the nature of our adversaries, uh, is changing as well. So, um, over time I’d say that, that the. In terms of continuities, like there are, there’s a, there’s a group of professionals, military professionals who undertake these things.

Um, but in terms of the change, like I think the, the level of commitment and the whatever is coming next in terms of combat, it’s probably gonna demand a little bit more than, uh. Then those professionals, uh, are able to muster and it’s probably gonna take something a little bit more from the American people, and that has a lot of ramifications for civil military relations in the country.

Um, the relationship between the United States military and the people and the government, um, and the relationship between our, uh, elected leaders and, and the military itself as well.

[00:07:53] Jeremi: Sure. Sure. And, and we have been an all volunteer force since the early 1970s. And, and most, uh, experts would say that’s worked pretty well.

But, but you think that’s, that’s reached the end of its shelf life?

[00:08:07] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Uh, I think it, I think it’s fraying, yes. Um, the, the amount of casualties that I think that might be expected in the future battlefields, uh, will certainly be, will be affecting that. And, uh. Advanced technology is the change in technology.

Um, and, and even just the change in the, in the way countries are mobilized new information operations and, and, uh, social media, uh, all playing a role in mobilizing, uh, our adversaries and also having to, uh, potentially play a role in mobilizing ourselves in order to fight. Uh, it could be a, a bit of a different kind of a future in terms of how the military relates to that and, and with.

Uh, how you mobilize a population to fight and how you, uh, encourage that, uh, population to fight and also encourage people to those who do not wanna fight, uh, how do we put them, uh, to productive use, uh, with, uh, when your nation is also at war? Yes. I believe that, that it is, uh, the all volunteer forces, uh, fraying in places and, uh, and there may be a different kind of a future involved with that.

Wow. Wow.

[00:09:18] Zachary: Zachary. Help us understand, please, how it affects morale and how it affects, uh, the way that the military sees itself and the way that members of the military see themselves. Uh, if, if we are reliant on, uh, in all volunteer force as opposed to a, a more. Conscription based model?

[00:09:40] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: That, that’s a really interesting question.

Um, I think that there’s a lot to, a lot of value that comes with no volunteer force. You’re able to really professionalize the type of folks who are, uh, involved in it, especially those who go back, uh, and continually deploy and are involved in operations and at the same time are able to invest in their continuing education.

I have, uh, I picked up, uh, multiple master’s degrees in the course of working with the Marines. Uh, as one of their officers. Um, and that has been a positive thing and that’s led to, uh, uh, a more professionalized force. Um, however, I would also say that, uh, the military with an all volunteer force tends to be a family business.

And I think the statistics sort of bear this out. We tend to have our most lucrative recruiting grounds, uh, in the Southern United States and in the Midwest. And, uh, we’re able to grab certain types of demographics. Uh, relatively, uh, relatively well. And at the same time, uh, we’re also, uh, we’re less able to recruit folks from, uh, other, uh, other demographics and other parts of the country.

So, uh, that has effects on the nature of the, the force that you’re recruiting and the, and the way that you fight. And if we’re going to go ahead and take advantage of all of the, uh, changes in technology and the, and the best and the brightest of all that our nation has to offer in terms of its, of its people.

A more broad base of support might be necessary in future wars.

[00:11:07] Jeremi: I think Nathaniel will be super helpful to get from you a sense of what are the skills that you think are most needed now to be an effective soldier, uh, or to be an effective marine. Maybe to be more specific, I think people have a, a sense, a sort of image of a, of a Doughboy from from World War ii, and I think it’s very different today.

[00:11:26] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Right? I think it is, uh, technology changes that, uh, the, there’s a certain amount of, I think, self-sufficiency that is required more nowadays of, of the individual soldier or marine or airmen. Uh, because the effects of the munitions that we’re having to deal with on the battlefield forces dispersion of people.

So it requires different types of leadership, uh, more personal leadership and, and tighter groups of people that are fighting. Um, at the same time, uh, you know, services, anyone can serve. Like there, there may be issues with the way we recruit and levels of motivation involved, uh, in, uh, the populations that might serve.

Um, however, um, the way recruiting can happen, for example, for, you know, for example in World War ii, uh, virtually any kind of human being could go ahead and serve their country, particularly back then if you’re, if you’re a male. But if you’re a, uh. Nowadays, like it’s with all volunteer force and the combat exclusion lifted for women, like virtually the entire population could potentially serve.

And I think that it may not be a bad idea for, uh, for the American population to consider what that would look like.

[00:12:38] Jeremi: Hmm. And, and how has your experience as a soldier changed, uh, over your 22 years? Uh, how have you seen these differences, uh, mean, mean things for your life?

[00:12:52] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: On a personal level, um, it, how does it mean for my life?

I’ll say this. Uh, the way adaptation happens, uh, I’ll put it this way, uh, you can strike all this. The war in combat is a, is a, is. Is requires mutual adaptation by all the combatants. Uh, every, everything that happens on the battlefield is gonna have a counteract or a counteraction and a counter reaction from all the sides, and everyone’s going to try to, uh, counter the moves of the adversary.

And that’s going to have effects on the way, uh, on the way you fight, and virtually every type of thing that relates to combat itself, whether it’s your logistics, whether it’s, you know, even things like, uh, during the Iraq and Afghanistan war, they spoke about the golden hour. The golden hour being the ability from, you know, to move, uh, casualty on the battlefield to a certain level of medical care within, within that one hour.

And that allowed for, uh, greatly impact or, uh, greatly improved, um, chances of survival. And while that continued to persist in the future, uh, probably not, uh, the, the, the nature of the adversaries we’re fighting and all the technology we’re having to deal with. It’s gonna be a little, it’s, it’s likely gonna put strains against that.

So, uh, that requires adaptation of their forces. Um, you know, both at, at the military unit level and then also at the, at the individual level. You have to come to grips with, um, the nature of the threat. You have to take the training seriously, um, and you have to also have to be sort of nimble on your feet, that the adversary is going to try everything they possibly can to win.

[00:14:34] Jeremi: Hmm. And that’s

[00:14:34] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: going to, uh, and, and they’re going to attempt to do everything they can to, uh, take advantage of any kind of predictability that you have, um, and, uh, take advantage of everything that you know is, is, is combatant and it’s going to, uh, and they’re going to exploit virtually every weakness that you have.

So, um, that presents lots of psychological. Um, forces against the individual as well as, you know, moral forces at the team, the platoon, the company, and the squadron, battalion levels and all, all the way on up.

[00:15:09] Jeremi: Wow. Wow. That’s the, you’ve given us a very vivid, uh, sense of that. Zachary. How do

[00:15:15] Zachary: you think the politics of the military plays into this?

Um, I’m thinking you mentioned the changes in technology and, and one thing that’s been discussed a lot is how. The sort of pork belly nature of a military defense contracting prevents, uh, investment in the most critical new technologies as opposed to older technologies like shipyards, building big ships, et cetera.

Um, but also, of course, the politics of conscription or sort of more widespread military service as well. Um, how, how, how can we think on the one hand about, um, these serious strategic issues and about. The politics of all of it, which obviously complicates the story.

[00:15:54] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Yep. Uh, that’s a, that’s a very interesting question.

Um, it’s not unusually solved. Uh, there’s not, not a simple answer to that. Uh, in the democracy in particular. Uh, we have to remember that, you know, there, there’s multiple forces at play. Uh, you have the government and the government’s policy. You have the military itself, and then you got the people. And each one of those agents, uh, brings different things to, uh.

To the fight when your, when your country is going to war. And one thing I will say too is that it’s the country, it’s the nation, it’s the state that goes to war. It is not the military. The military conducts combat. And so, uh, when, when the American people are at war, it is quite literally the American people, uh, through American government policy that, that, uh, that drives that.

And uh, that also informs how the military is created. It informs how, um. And it informs how it fights. So, uh, perhaps if, you know, looking back into history, you know, we did not have standing armies, and I don’t really think we have a standing army today. Uh, we have, we do have a professional army, but it is relatively small and it doesn’t really, uh, it doesn’t really conduct, uh, occupation duties, uh, at home.

Um, so understanding that, um, and it, and that, and that’s essentially the army that you go to war with. Um. Previously we would raise armies for specific conflicts. Uh, so you’d essentially build a purpose-built army for whatever war you’re going into. Um, the Cold War invalidated that assumption because we found that we needed to be able to go to war much quicker.

Um, so all, all those types of political considerations and nature of technology, the interconnectedness of the world, our relationships with our allies, and even simple things like basic geography, which for the most part doesn’t change. Uh, all those things have great impacts on how. The forces, uh, organized how it fights and the relationship between the people, the government, and that military that, that it forms in order to conduct those, those operations on behalf of the American people.

[00:18:02] Jeremi: Uh, just building on Zachary’s question, Nate, and your, your excellent answer. Uh, George Marshall, uh, of course the great, uh, general during World War ii and then the Secretary of Defense, uh, secretary of State. Uh, he famously when he was in uniform at least, uh, never voted. I’m not advocating that, but he never voted because he said he believed the military should be completely nonpartisan.

Um, do you think the military is nonpartisan? And if so, how would you describe that in a world today where, you know, everything seems to be partisan, unfortunately.

[00:18:37] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Yes. That, that’s a wonderful question. Um. And it bears discussing. Uh, the military is political. It’s a political instrument. Um, and just its employment causes political effects.

And if the military is blind to those political effects, um, then, then quite frankly, it’s probably not doing its job very well. It is very much an instrument of politics and an instrument of policy. However, it is also absolutely essential, especially in a democracy like ours that the military. Its officers and its enlisted men and women who make up the force, uh, remain non-partisan.

And we, we, we have, uh, there’s laws that, that relate to that. There is policy, there is orders, um, that all, uh, all support that ethic of non-partisanship. Occasionally it is, uh, honored in the breach. Occasionally, you know, mistakes are made. Um, but. In general, the, I think that the ethic holds, uh, quite well that the, uh, that the military is a nonpartisan institution and people may vote.

How would they vote? You know, they’re, the military is gonna probably, uh. Uh, you know, if you were to ask it to vote, uh, it’s gonna vote in a certain way. I personally, uh, I am a, a strong believer in democracy, but I also hold to the general Marshall ethic of, uh, of not voting myself. Um, believing that nonpartisanship is, is very, very important.

And, uh, and that’s just my own personal choice. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I choose to exercise it that way. Sure. Um, certainly that is not the case across the entire military, but, um. Uh, Marines and soldiers and airmen and guardians and sailors are encouraged to vote. We have voting programs for them, um, but we do strongly limit their political activity.

And fundamentally, when I talk to my marines and sailors about that, I say that when you wear, when you, uh, wearing, when you have the honor and the burden of wearing the nation’s cloth, uh, you represent all Americans. Um, and what that means is, uh, we, we. We have freedom of speech rights, we have, uh, similar rights to those of other Americans, but they’re a bit attenuated at times.

Uh, and that is, and that is appropriate given our non-partisan, but po but still political, uh, uh, nature is a sort of a political instrument.

[00:21:01] Jeremi: Yeah, it’s very well said. And, and I’m sure I, I, I’m sure we’re going to agree on this. Um. And the military serves the Constitution, right. Your oath is to the Constitution, not to any particular individual or any particular party, correct?

[00:21:15] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Absolutely. And, uh, uh, yes, the, the oath is precisely to the Constitution, uh, and loyalty is owed both to the President, uh, up the, you know, up the chain of command to the President as well as to, um, as well as to congress. For various things. So, uh, it is very much an actor inside of this democracy. And, um, and yes, like, but fundamentally loyalty is to the, uh, is to the Constitution itself,

[00:21:48] Jeremi: right?

So you, you would not, uh, and, and I’m sure you spend lots of time, uh, training on this, um, there’s a long tradition of not following an illegal order, which is to say not following an unconstitutional order.

[00:22:02] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: That is correct. Yeah. Uh, we will follow orders, you know, uh, our duty is to follow lawful orders.

That is, and it is to not follow, uh, unlawful ones. It’s, it’s a very simple thing. Uh, determining what that is is complicated, but there are processes and procedures for doing that. Right.

[00:22:19] Zachary: Zachary, do you think this, uh, this sort of constitutional obligation, the sort of central role of the constitutional obligation is something that, um, sort of young.

Members of the military that, that you work with, um, understand, embody, is this something that motivates people to join or, um, is this something that has to sort of be taught or, or instilled in in them?

[00:22:44] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: I think the answer is yes. Uh, we have, we do speak about it. Um, and I, I keep a constitution with me. Uh, you know, I, not that I refer to it all the time, but more as a reminder of, of.

Of what I’m serving and what my obligations are. Um, and we do emphasize, uh, that, and even when political seasons come around for elections and, uh, things are becoming more politically charged in the media, we will, uh, unit leaders will emphasize, Hey, here’s your role. It may be, uh, you know, you may have opinions on this, but you know what?

You can talk about that, you can talk about with your teammates, uh, what have you. But if you’re in the workplace, uh, we’re not talking about it, that you can keep that to yourself. Uh, our job here is we follow orders and we execute orders, and we, and, uh, we plan to follow orders and, uh, things of that nature.

And by orders, I mean lawful ones. So yes, it is something that, uh, it should motivate people to serve. I will say that motivations to serve are, are as wide, you know, is as diverse as the entire force. Uh, people can join for any number of reasons. Um, I personally, I just love serving my country. I love serving something greater than myself and I love my country and I love serving.

It’s, it’s that simple. So, um. It’s kept me in for 22 years now at this point. So they’re, they’re doing something right?

[00:24:04] Jeremi: Yes. Well, we’re fortunate. Fortunate to have you, um, sort of looking forward, because I know you’ve done so much work in the planning space, uh, around technology, but also around, uh, for structure and things of that sort.

Um, how do you plan for future threats in a world? Uh, Nate, where there are so many threats, where there are great power threats, there are counterinsurgency threats, there are terrorist threats. How, how do you do that? Uh, and how do you think about the future of the military in that context?

[00:24:37] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: It’s, uh, the future is murky.

It’s always hard, right? Uh, it’s a very challenging thing to do. Uh, there’s a number of methodologies for doing it. Uh, we can, uh. You know, the way that the, the military sort of, uh, looks at things right now is we take a look at the, uh, national Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, those strategic documents, uh, taking a look at, uh, principally China, Russia, and North Korea and Iran, um, as, as our primary state-based threats.

And there’s also the violent extremist organizations as well. Um, and then. We sort of, we look at the geography, we evaluate the adversary, you know, sort of what their objectives may be. Um, and even that is complicated because we’re seeing increased cooperation between each of those four countries and even the violent extremists as well.

So, uh, trying to view each one of them on their own terms as an immensely complicated thing. Uh, it’s also wise to take a look at how technology is changing and, uh, sort of what the, uh, policy motivations of each of those countries and, and those violent extremists might be. And, uh, based off of that, we can evaluate them based off their most likely and most dangerous, uh, courses of action and attempt to resource against those.

Hmm. Um, there’s numerous other techniques. Techniques we use, we’ll do, uh, war gaming, uh, where we’ll have, uh, we’ll have experts play the role of the adversary, uh, when you go into combat. Um, and. You can do moves and counter moves and just see how that goes. It doesn’t determine, uh, exactly how a conflict is gonna go.

It never does. But you can learn a great deal from sort of the dynamic play that goes with it. Um, there’s a great deal that happens with area studies and the role of think tanks and informing policy, um, and, uh, just staying abreast of. All the changes. And then fundamentally too, war is very unpredictable, right?

Um, combat is very unpredictable. So those who think you can make a straight line projection, uh, into, uh, into the future and how combat is gonna be, they’re almost certainly going to be wrong.

[00:26:40] Jeremi: Yeah.

[00:26:40] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Uh, one of the great, you know, uh, several great leaders have said that America’s. A record of predicting where the next war is gonna be, we’re a hundred percent incorrect.

[00:26:51] Jeremi: I think that’s true. Yep. And,

[00:26:53] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: and I’ll also say too, that everyone was projecting, uh, that when Russia re made its, uh, re invasion of Ukraine in 2022, uh, that would be a quick victory on their part. And that has proven to be incorrect as well. Um, so, uh, there’s, you know, that that combat is still underway, uh, with various patient initiatives going on around it.

So. It is very complicated to try to forecast these things and therefore it sort of enforces a sort of natural, uh, conservatism on the part of the military mind and trying to predict these things because they’re almost always, uh, are going to be conservative with, with their estimates ’cause they don’t want to lose and they’re, it’s their lives that are for the most part gonna be on the line.

Right.

[00:27:34] Jeremi: Why has it been so hard for us, Nathaniel in recent wars to, um. Turn victory into the political outcomes we want. Right? So we certainly defeated the Iraqi military, um, but we had a hard time, uh, making Iraq over in the way we wanted it. Right? A similar thing could be said about Afghanistan. Um, and, and we could go on, you know, we, our, our military seems to be successful at winning, uh, conflict operations, but then post-conflict operations seem to be very, very difficult for us.

Why is that?

[00:28:10] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: I think it has to do with, uh, it sort of goes back to the initial, uh, kenon, uh, passage that you read earlier in the, in, uh, earlier in our talk today. Um, in knowing what your national interest is. Fundamentally, that national interest, that national policy, just by joining combat with the enemy will change and it becomes very, becomes a very dynamic thing and it becomes very complicated.

Um, furthermore, uh. Because war is so unpredictable. Uh, the war that you enter into is almost never gonna be the war that you end, uh, because, because of the changes that undergo with it. So, um, trying to bring it to that type of conclusion is always gonna be a Chancey business.

[00:28:52] Jeremi: Hmm.

[00:28:52] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Um, a ch uh, a complicated one at best.

Uh, there is an argument to be made that, uh, the 2 0 0 3, we say the the 2 0 3 invasion of Iraq. Uh, that was its own separate war. Uh, that may, that may be true. That may be true. It may not be true. It might have been a continuation of, uh, of an air war that we had undergoing with Iraq that was going on, uh, prior to that with Operation Northern and Southern Watch, and prior to that, to the Gulf War.

Mm. And in fact, uh, there was not a single month from 19, uh, February of 1990 through August of, or pardon me, November of 2011, where the United States was not dropping bombs on a rock. Every single month during that entire timeframe the United States was under, was in a sort of combat. Now, it wasn’t a ground combat the entire time, but it was combat.

And that should even signify to us how difficult it is to bring a war to a successful com uh, conclusion. We tend to look back at the operation Desert. Its storm back in 1991 is a successful war termination as a and, and a, uh, successful war. But I don’t think anyone envisioned having to conduct continuous occupation of Iraqi uh, airspace.

For over a decade following that and then having to conduct a ground invasion. So this goes back to, uh, you know, again, the passage from Kenya. Understanding what our national interest is, is immensely complicated. And doing it in the midst of combat, uh, is even harder.

[00:30:20] Jeremi: Are, are there just things that even the best military in the world can’t do?

[00:30:24] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Yes. Yes. Every military is going to have its limits. Um, there is gonna be, you know. The, the greatest generals of, of all history, almost all of them have, uh, have had their limits. Napoleon, he had to mark March back from Russia. Um, and one other thing too is hubris almost always sets in. When you are at your most confident, uh, you believe you’ve completed operations, that is also when, uh, you know, the forces of hubris, um, and the forces of tragedy can enter in very easily because.

Overconfidence is a thing. It’s a very human emotion. Yes. Yes. And, uh, and the enemy, when they’re at their weakest, becomes very easy to discount at that point. Yes. So, uh, there are absolute limits to what the military can do. And I’ll, you know, that’s, that’s sort of on the psychological level, but I’ll even say this too.

Um, even today we have limits. We have limitations on our defense industrial base.

[00:31:21] Jeremi: Mm-hmm.

[00:31:22] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: Uh, we predicted a war. Uh, many people in the past predicted war would be, uh, a very high tech affair, uh, with a great number of precision, munitions, and long range sensing and long range, uh, firepower, uh, being engaged.

But it’s still, at the end of the day, many times it’s infantrymen, uh, with rifles and bayonets, uh, conducting war and using, uh, things like unguided 155 millimeter artillery rounds, which seem to be in very short supply these days. So, um, even forecasting those types of things, uh, is gonna be a major challenge.

Yep.

[00:31:58] Jeremi: Yep. No, it it like anything else, the more sophisticated you become, the more the basics matter,

[00:32:02] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: right? Nate? Absolutely know the basics matter. It’s, uh, uh, you know, brilliance and the basics. Focus on the fundamentals. That’s ultimately what allows, uh, small units to succeed. And, uh, and adaptation and innovation are gonna be the types of things that allow us to outcompete against a thinking enemy.

[00:32:20] Jeremi: So, so Zachary, I wanted to turn to you now. Um, I think one of the really positive developments I think of the last few years is, uh, even though as Nate said, we still have, um, a pretty big divide between, um, the civilian life and the mil military service in our society. Um, certainly at universities like your own, like Yale.

Um, ROTC has come back. Uh, it, it had left those campuses during the Vietnam era. It’s now back. There seems to be more integration of those, uh, choosing military service and those not choosing military service in a university environment. Do, do you see a positive development there?

[00:32:59] Zachary: I definitely think so. I think at least at places like Yale, um, it is not only, uh, normal, but um, in some, in some communities, in some groups on campus, the norm.

To be an ROTC or to consider military service or take it seriously? Um, I think in particular for a lot of young men, but for all sorts of, um, young people, the military offers a kind of, um, uh, sense of purpose that I think is missing for a lot of people. And I think that’s something that even those who don’t follow that calling have a lot of respect for in my generation.

Hmm.

[00:33:33] Jeremi: And so you’ve experienced this as the ROTC as being a, um. An area that draws respect and builds connections on campus.

[00:33:43] Zachary: Certainly. And I think at the very least they have a large footprint and a large presence, and that most of the students involved are integrated with the rest of campus.

[00:33:51] Jeremi: Nate, as a kind of closing question, do you see a positive trend in that, that we’re moving maybe toward, in some ways some better civil military relations where, uh, environments, particularly some universities that for a while were hostile to.

Um, military service are now becoming more open and, and maybe I, I’ve seen certainly with military fellows, more openness also to the academic experience when they come back to campus. Often as, you know, postgraduate fellows. Do, do you see progress being made in that area? I

[00:34:22] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: do, yes. Absolutely. Um, and I think that, you know, there, there’s always gonna be problems with it, uh, with civil military relations, particularly with a such a small force.

And, uh, with the military also sort of being more and more a family affair is what it’s been in recent decades. You know, uh, sons and daughters, uh, would be serving oftentimes for military families. Um, and that sort of continues so. So there is that, but I think at the same time, the more exposure we can get to, uh, of civil society, of our institutions, educational institutions, government institutions, even the interagency, the state Department, uh, the intelligence community, um, you know, the, even, you know, things like the tech sector.

Uh, with, uh, you know, with a variety of, of new, uh, defense industrial startups, uh, coming online, all these things are positive developments that I think could lead to, um, potentially, uh, greater success for the United States, uh, on the military, uh, on the battlefield, and hopefully wiser decisions and, uh, solid support, uh, from the American people when, uh, when and if we are having to, uh, use force in their name.

Yes. Yes.

[00:35:37] Jeremi: And, and just to put some numbers on what we’ve been talking about here, there were approximately 2 million Americans who serve in the military, and that’s less than 1%. It’s actually closer to half of 1% of the, uh, of the population. So, uh, it seems like a lot, but as, as Nate has said, so, so, well, it’s, it’s actually a very small military, especially in comparison to other smaller societies that have larger militaries.

Uh, it’s an expensive military at a a trillion dollars in the new budget, but it is small in terms of personnel. Um, I, I think what’s so central to the history of our democracy is just what Nate was talking about, the essential struggle. Between the military necessities that George Kennon was talking about, defending the national interest, uh, going, uh, being ready to fight those who would damage our society to make the world safe for democracy when necessary, uh, but also protecting democratic values and ensuring that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a particular ideology or a particular person.

Uh, of any kind. And, and Nate, I think you embody this in your answers and your discussion today. Uh, you embody that commitment to democracy. When you say you serve your country, you’re, you’re serving. Our Democratic principles and, uh, we’re, we, we’re fortunate to have a military filled with people like you.

And, and I hope this discussion has encouraged others to learn more and get, get more involved either through the military or, or not, maybe in non-military roles, in, in helping to maintain this important balance between our military and civilian purposes in our society. Uh, Nate, thank you so much for joining us today.

[00:37:18] Col Nathaniel Lauterbach: It’s absolutely my pleasure, um, to join both of you. And, and I should say, um, is that, uh, all the opinions that I’m going to say to are strictly my own. I don’t represent those of depart, the Department of Defense, the Marine Corps, or any other organization with which I’m associated. Thank you.

[00:37:34] Jeremi: I have learned so much from you, Nate, and, and I look forward to continuing to learn and to continuing to be proud of you serving our country.

Zachary, thank you, uh, for your thoughtful insights and questions as as always. And thank you most of all to our loyal listeners and loyal subscribers to our substack for joining us for this episode. This is Democracy.

This podcast is produced by the Liberal Arts ITS Development Studio

and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin.

The music in this episode was written and recorded by Scott Holmes. Stay tuned for a new episode every week. You can find This is Democracy on Apple Podcast, Spotify and YouTube.

See you next time.