September 7, 2024 • 46 mins
In this episode of Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose, we examine how veterans of the War on Terror are continuing to impact U.S. defense policy, even after leaving the battlefield. As a record number of these veterans enter Congress, they are influencing key areas like national security, veterans' healthcare, and foreign policy.
Host Andrew Jose speaks with Jeffrey Lantis, author of Staying in the Fight: How War on Terror Veterans in Congress Are Shaping US Defense Policy. Lantis, a professor of political science at The College of Wooster, explores the shared experiences and socialization of these veterans, which drive policy convergence despite political differences.
Listen in as they discuss the motivations behind Lantis’ latest book, the model he creates to explain veterans' influence on defense policy, and the idea that shared experiences like military service could help bridge political polarization
.Listen in on your favorite podcast platform: bit.ly/strategicwisdom.
The views expressed by the podcast guests are their own and do not necessarily represent the official positions of Andrew Jose, Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose, and Andrew Jose Media.
Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose is an initiative of Andrew Jose Media.
Host Andrew Jose speaks with Jeffrey Lantis, author of Staying in the Fight: How War on Terror Veterans in Congress Are Shaping US Defense Policy. Lantis, a professor of political science at The College of Wooster, explores the shared experiences and socialization of these veterans, which drive policy convergence despite political differences.
Listen in as they discuss the motivations behind Lantis’ latest book, the model he creates to explain veterans' influence on defense policy, and the idea that shared experiences like military service could help bridge political polarization
.Listen in on your favorite podcast platform: bit.ly/strategicwisdom.
The views expressed by the podcast guests are their own and do not necessarily represent the official positions of Andrew Jose, Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose, and Andrew Jose Media.
Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose is an initiative of Andrew Jose Media.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Strategic Wisdom with the Andrew Jose.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Strategic Wisdom is a foreign affairs and politics podcast brought
to you by me Andrew Jose, a Washington, DC based
security policy analyst and news reporter, bringing you timely analysis
and commentary on issues in the international relations, war and
security policy. The War on Terror was one of the
most transformative events in American history, transforming how Americans viewed
(00:27):
and discussed privacy, national security, and grand strategy. Indeed, many
of the institutional reforms now conspicuous, such as the Department
of Homeland Security, came to be in the period following
the September eleventh, two thousand and one terrorist attacks. The
influence of the War on Terror does not extend to
(00:48):
the administrative state. A record number of veterans from the
global War on Terror are entering Congress, and they are
influencing policy, working hand in hand with each other and
other partners in solving issues related to veterans, healthcare, and
foreign policy. Joining me today is Jeffrey Lantis, author of
(01:08):
the book Staying in the Fight. How War on Terror
Veterans in Congress are shaping US defense policy, published earlier
this August by the University Press of Kentucky. I and
Lantis are going to discuss how war and terror veterans,
as the title suggests, are staying in the fight and
influencing US defense policy. Without further ado, let's head to
(01:30):
the interview. Jeffrey Lantis is Professor of political science and
(02:59):
the chair of the International Relations Program at the College
of Wooster in Ohio. He has extensive international study and
travel experience, having recently served as a J. William Fulbright
Senior Scholar at the Australian National University. He's the author
of the books The Life and Death of International Treatise
Publishing twenty two thousand and eight, and co editor of
(03:22):
Foreign Policy and Comparative Perspective. He's also the author of
the new International Studies classroom Active Teaching, Active Learning. Furthermore,
LATICS has also published numerous articles and book chapters on
strategic culture, translatic relations, and foreign policy analysis. His most
recent work and the subject of the interview, is Staying
(03:44):
in the Fight. How War on terror of veterans in
Congress are shaping US defense policy. Jeffrey Lantis, Welcome to
the show.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
Thanks so much. I'm really happy to be here with you.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
So, Jeffrey, what were some of the motivations that led
you to write this book. Why is it that we
need to have the conversation you are bringing to the
table in your work now at this moment and time.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Well, thanks so much for the question, Andrew, and I'm
happy to have an opportunity to talk more about my
research and about this new book, which is focused on
War on Terror veterans and their activism on foreign and
defense policy. I mean, an easy way to answer the
question is to say, this is incredibly timely and important
because we are seeing in American politics and society the
direct impact of War on Terror veterans who are now
(04:33):
involved in the policy process in shaping some decisions associated
with the military and defense policy, etc. I mean, one
of my original motivations, of course, is to honor and
recognize the contributions of veterans in all aspects of our
society and directly kind of in the policy process. And
I've been so interested in this in general over the
(04:53):
years and wanted to understand these dynamics, in particular the
activism of this new generation of on Capitol Hill, and
I found their stories to be really interesting and compelling.
I mean, you asked about direct motivations, I would say,
you know, in very direct terms. I got interested in
and focused on this research Back in the twenty teenths,
(05:16):
I was doing research for another book, a previous book.
In twenty seventeen in Washington, d C. I was up
on Capitol Hill. I was talking to all kinds of
interesting individuals, members of Congress, staffers, and some experts around
Washington about foreign policy, entrepreneurship, and advocacy. And that previous
project was focused on how younger or newer members of
(05:39):
Congress were arriving in Washington and making a difference in
some key foreign policy areas. Their activism and engagement was significant.
And you know, in those conversations again back in twenty seventeen,
with a lot of people around Washington, d C. I
was hearing time and time again as some of the
most interesting and influential newer members of Congress were veterans
(06:02):
of the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, or service after
nine to eleven, and I got kind of intrigued to
get kind of curious about that. A quick example would
be Senator Tammy Duckworth. She's from Illinois. She was elected
to Congress back in twenty twelve. But Tammy Duckworth, as
some of our listeners will probably know, was inactive duty service.
(06:23):
She was flying a helicopter back in two thousand and
four in Iraq when she was grievously wounded. She then
took years to recover, but in this process got more
and more interested in trying to influence and shape defense policy.
So back in the twenty teens, I'm doing that research,
and I'm really interested in what this new generation could
be about, and just to extend it a little bit further.
(06:46):
So that led me to try to learn as much
as I could about this new generation of veterans who
were coming to Capitol Hill with some really unique experiences.
And so I set out to try to learn what
I could gathering formation and make some orderly sense of
it for this new book, Staying in the Fight. And
you know, I found some really interesting things along the way.
(07:07):
I mean, theoretically, I was interested in and curious about
debates in the scholarship been particular in civil military relations literature,
debates about whether prior military experience really mattered to influence
foreign and defense policy, whether or not those factors were
significant in shaping their motivation and engagement. So historically and theoretically,
(07:31):
I was beginning to connect these themes together and develop
out a plan for further investigation. Historically, for example, veterans
and who are involved in the policy process have always
been around in American history. Historically we see examples of this,
of course, right after the Revolutionary War, when dozens of
the newly elected first members of Congress in the United
(07:54):
States were veterans. And then throughout the nine seventeen hundreds,
eighteen hundreds, and nineteen hundreds, we see active involvement of
veterans in politics and in their influence in trying to
shape the policy process. The high water mark in recent
or contemporary times was in the Vietnam War era. Long
about nineteen seventy two or seventy three, we see the
(08:17):
highest concentration veterans involved on Capitol Hill in Congress, something
like seventy three or seventy four percent of all members
of Congress had some sort of prior military experience. And that,
of course all builds up and leads me to want
to understand this generation in a direct way and the
(08:37):
characteristics of the generation, their activism and their involvement. And
let me just share just a few tidbits about what
I've picked up on by focusing on this generation. Many
of our listeners may know that there are a large
number of War on terror veterans veterans of military service
after nine to eleven broadly defined, there are something like
four million veterans that fit into this cat. And then
(09:01):
some of them have become actively involved in the policy
process and pursue their activism along the way. With those
veterans from those wars, for example of Rock in Afghanistan
also have some pretty profound experiences that they've begun to
try to process and shape and make sense of. There
are significant percentages that influence the way that they might
(09:24):
see the world. For example, seventy seven percent of all
War on terror veterans were deployed at least once in
the post nine to eleven era, so they've got deployments,
and some units of courts deployed more frequently in significant ways,
shaping their experience. Further forty nine, almost fifty percent half
(09:44):
of all war on terror veterans report that they've had
some sort of combat experience, either in direct connection or
close proximity. Too. There are also some really tough statistics
that helped to define this War on Terror generation. More
than fifteen percent or softeen sixteen percent of all Iraq
(10:04):
and Afghanistan war veterans have screened positive for post traumatic stress.
About half a million veterans suffered from traumatic brain injuries
and other characteristics, and all of those characteristics, then put together,
help us to think about how those background experiences might
influence policy activism and concerns of Members Congress elected thereafter.
(10:31):
The last thing I'll share in response to your question
is timely and important. Right Among the first War on
Terror veterans elected to Congress in two thousand and six
was a guy named Tim Waaltz. Tim Walls, the current
vice presidential candidate and the Democratic Party as we speak
Andrew this week during the Democratic National Convention, we see
(10:51):
him prominently featured. He is a War on Terror veteran
who drew on that experience. Today we see the largest
concentration of veterans with similar military experiences. The War on
Terror generation on Capitol Hill, numbering fifty one elected to
the one hundred and seventeenth Congress and now fifty six
(11:12):
members of Congress in the last couple of years are
War on Terror veterans. Oh, and the last thing I'll
mention is that one of those veterans recently elected to
Congress is another person very much in the news. His
name is J. D.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Van.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
So I'll stop there Andrew, what policy area is today
that you'd say these veterans have had an aptive role
in shaping. So the kinds of foreign policy and defense
policy issue areas that War on Tear veterans have been
directly interested in, connected to, and engaged in tend to
(11:48):
be associated with military, military deployments and concerns of veterans
and currently serving soldiers all around the world. The issue
areas that.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I focused on for my book are foreign and defense
policy issues of engagement or commitments and military force in
several cases, and then veterans, healthcare and veterans affairs as
additional categories. Week examples, I'll just mentioned a couple in
passing right that the War in Ukraine. The War in
Ukraine Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February of twenty twenty
(12:22):
two lurched, launched motivated so many were on Terear veterans
who were in Congress on Capitol Hill to become engaged
and involved on these issues. An interesting example of that
to me was the fact that in the months leading
up to the Ukraine invasion, when the war drums were rumbling,
when it looked like there might be trouble in that area,
(12:45):
some members of Congress conducted delegation visits to Ukraine to
reassert US American support for the Ukrainians in the base
of that threat. One kodell, as they call it, congressional
delegation visit in the winter right before the invasion consisted
of a couple of war on tear veterans across political isles.
(13:07):
Of the political isle where when Gago Democrat Arizona went
on the codel with Seth Moulton from Massachusetts along with
Mike Waltz from Florida, these Republicans and Democrats shared a
common commitment to and concern about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
(13:27):
Since then, it continued to be involved in active support
for encouraging strong US military backing of Ukraine. Oh but
one more thing. They also share a common view on
a critical question or dimension of the crisis at hand,
and that is they all agree in a bipartisan way
that there should be no US boots on the ground
(13:50):
in Ukraine, so looking for commonalities and foreign and defense
policy challenges like the Ukraine War. It's a really good example.
The evacuation of Afghanistan in twenty twenty one is an
issue that mobilized that pit, really activated bipartisan War on
Terror veteran engagement concerns and support for the best possible
(14:13):
response to a tragic and chaotic situation. And then veterans
affairs in healthcare a common concern across the board for
so many War on Terror veterans and of course other
generations of veterans who serve on Capitol Hill. A commitment
to try to provide the best care possible for returning
veterans like those percentage of veterans I mentioned a minute
(14:34):
ago with post traumatic stress disorder, like other veterans suffering
from health effects from exposure to toxic burn pits during
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Was it the PACTAC Indeed,
the Pact Act is that gre is a great example
of a bipartisan commitment to come together to provide a response,
(14:55):
in this case to the toxic burn pit issue, right,
which has been a really beleaguered the military for ten
or twenty years. What a tragic situation. If I could
just say a little more about that, Andrew, this is
a real tough right. It has been a practice of
the military up to just recently, in fact, that for
things like waste management, their goal was to leave nothing
(15:16):
behind in military deployments. So in deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan,
what you'd see outside of the outside of large US
military installations were open land bill like burn pits, in
which all kinds of things were being destroyed right removed,
and in the process carcinogens were being launched into the
(15:37):
air pollutants, and these pollutant crowds and clouds, in some
cases toxic plumes, as they're described by advocates who are
concerned about it, could affect soldiers in the area. The
obvious connection here, tragically, is to Bo Biden, the son
of the current President of the United States, Joe Biden,
(15:59):
who died in twenty fifteen from a rare form of
brain cancer that many experts have suggested can be linked
back to exposure to toxic burn pits, including when Bo
Biden was in theater in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Yeah, So before we discuss your model that you develop
in this book, most if not all, social science models
tend to have outliers. So when you were conducting your research,
what were some notable outliers you noticed that didn't really
stick to the general model and that you had to
(16:37):
exclude in order to build a model.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
So when we think about a kind of political science
or social science approach to any really interesting issue or question,
we're trying to arrange variables in a nice orderly way
that makes clear connections between, say, the causal factors and
their effects in a policy process, were their effects on
an international Is she like cooperation or conflict? So we
(17:02):
line up these variables, so we think about the intervariate relationships,
and in my case, I can describe the model in
just a few minutes. But I recognize that what we're
looking for assumes certain things, right. It assumes that there
are socialization experiences that should be significant for war on
tear veterans. So that made me think hard about what
(17:23):
I would define as and rule in versus rule out
in terms of military service and experience. An easy question,
for example, that I did not fully develop in this study,
but became whether or not we would include both those
soldiers who had served active duty deployments in war zones,
and those soldiers who are simply activated were involved in
(17:46):
national guard or reserve operations, maybe even just deployed in
the United States of America in incredibly important support roles,
but different, if you will, from intense combat experiences in
the mountains of Afghanistan. Questions about what to rule in
or rule out help shape my development of the model
for sure. There's another question too that I found fascinating,
(18:08):
and that is whether or not we should focus primarily
on a foreign and defense policy versus domestic policy issues.
And I'll come back around so that, I think when
we talk a little bit more about my ongoing research
in a little bit. But I was intrigued by the
question of whether or not there was a difference, if
you will, beyond the water's edge as to what should
(18:30):
be included or not. And finally, another issue that came
up in my variable development was what kind of instruments
I would look at as relevant for those activated and
concerned were on terror veterans to use or employ in
their effort to try to shape policy. What do I
rule in or out of the model? So thanks to
(18:51):
your question, I really like thinking about that out loud.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
In Staying in the Fight, you describe these War on
Terror veterans who, despite having disagreements vastly on other issues,
as having policy areas they converge on, and you also
attribute in service socialization as a cause for this convergence.
(19:16):
How does socialization and the military, from your research necessarily
influence and bring about this convergence.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
Yeah, that question helps to kind of link us into
some really interesting debates in the civil military relations literature.
And these debates have been going on, in fact for decades,
and so I appreciate the question. It is ultimately this
issue of whether or not socialization has a direct and
significant effect on policy, activism, and engagement versus other factors, considerations,
(19:50):
or experiences. So in the civil military relations literature, in
articles you might see published in journals like Armed Forces
and Society, scholars tend to refer to this as the
socialization versus self selection debate. It's a really interesting question
as to whether or not it's military socialization that matters
most that brings people together to find areas of common concern,
(20:14):
or it's some original and base motivation a persons all
or political ideology an individual has that maybe for example,
makes them more likely to want to join the military
in the first place. So that socialization question really permeates
a lot of what I was interested in and trying
to understand better. And boy, that's very significant in kind
(20:36):
of today's era, right of extreme partisanship, at polarization in
Washington and beyond. So the socialization literature would argue that, indeed,
these experiences are significant in influencing common perspectives, a sense
of commonality about certain issues or concerns. When it comes
to foreign policy and defense policy, the argument goes that
(21:01):
things like military training are formative, that they helped promote
an idea of shared experience, of collective consideration or concern
and help guide individuals who come through that process towards
certain things. We'll build on that and say this, the
military experiences that individuals have often then serve as formative influences,
(21:25):
maybe you know, heuristics to help them kind of process,
creating lenses through which they see subsequent questions or experiences.
And so when I was set about doing my research,
I was conducting interviews. I was asking questions about to
what extent there were commonalities and generational effects. I heard
an interesting range of perspectives on this question. But I
(21:47):
do want to emphasize this part. When I talk to
veterans themselves about this question of whether or not they
believe the experience was socializing and powerful for them. Universally,
the answer was yes. Members of Congress, staffers, experts, and
other veterans around Washington and beyond all tend to believe
(22:09):
that those experiences were particularly formative. I've got some fun
quotes in the book that capture the spirit of that,
right where we have veterans on Capitol Hill saying, you know,
we intuitively get each other. We see one another when
we run run into others on Capitol Hill. We know
that they've had common experiences, and we believe that that
(22:31):
creates certain perspectives or skill sets, especially right when it
comes to actual cases of born in defense policy decisions
like deployments of soldiers abroad or creating situations where soldiers
might face risk or danger limitations, then that grow arguably
out of those socialization experience.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
If you were to put your model in one cent
or two or three sentences describing let's say the dependent
variables and the dependent variables, how would you put it?
Speaker 3 (23:10):
Yeah, this is a model that focuses on whether military
socialization experiences for individuals who are elected to Congress after
service in the War on Terror employ certain strategies to
try to influence foreign defense policy outcomes. Those strategies include
(23:30):
a couple of key elements that I developed in my model.
That is linking personal and policy narratives together right drawing
connections between their experience and the issue at hand. That
includes formal legislation and bipartisanship. And it also includes a
really creative strategy for enterprising foreign policy entrepreneurs, and that
(23:54):
is creating advocacy coalitions lining up with other groups with
similar concerns inside and outside of the political process to
try to push for influence. That advocacy coalition building or
grassroots development is a fascinating additional dimension of their activism.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
So your model explains the relationship between a Congress member
being a veteran and the influence they exert on US
defense policy. How generalizable you say this model would be?
Would do you think this model, if some modifications are made,
could help determine how past practitionery experience in other fields
(24:43):
like healthcare, for example, will influence a policymaker's mark in
other policy areas once they come to the legislature.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
So indeed, that's one of the original motivations that drove
me into the project. I like thinking with you out
loud here about kind of the so scientific route or
avenue for investigation coming out of my prior book back
in twenty seventeen, the research that I did for that
book on foreign policy advocacy by young and entrepreneurial members
of Congress, I got interested in this question of whether
(25:14):
groups of all kinds with distinctive experiences might then be
able to bring those to bear in active policy influence.
So I would argue that it is indeed generalizable if
you make certain adjustments and modifications in the model like
you hinted at. For example, we could imagine connections between
(25:35):
past experiences for groups of individuals that fall into certain
demographic categories, gender categories, or service or professional experience categories.
I was intrigued by the way in some of my
research by past experiences that influenced other advocates for foreign
policy changes. A great example there would be Senator Chris Kuons.
(25:58):
Senator Chris Kuhns from Dellaware, arguably Joe Biden's best friend
was an active member of Congress back in the twenty
teens who came to Congress with past religious service experience.
He had mission service experience, including spending time in Africa,
(26:18):
that he brought to bear directly on Capitol Hill when
they needed expertise about how the United States should deal
with a public health crisis, that is, the tragic outbreak
of the Ebola virus in West Africa. Chris Coons drew
on his missionary and religious service experience in shaping Obama
(26:40):
policy responses to that tragedy. So yes, we could play
out these ideas in interesting ways and make connections between
socialization experiences and policy activism, arguably in all kinds of
potential categories.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
In Staying in the Fights introduction U paraphrase research by
Daniel Lupton, where Lupton argues that lower representation of veterans
among members of Congress correlates with a decreased legislative willingness
to rein in on the White House on foreign policy matters,
particularly on issues relating to restraint. Now, many pro restraint
(27:20):
scholars and activists have proposed, some seriously, some in jest,
that it may be a good thing for this country's
foreign policy to require congress members to have military experience
prior to contesting in elections, lest Congress be filled with
what is known in political speak as quote chickenhawks. What
(27:41):
are your thoughts on this argument that Lupton makes, but
also what many pro restrained activists and scholars say in jest.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
Yeah, that's great, really an interesting lineup argument. Right. We
could play this out in a couple of different ways. First,
let me, though, you give credit where credit is to
Daniel Upton is a terrific scholar and a friend of
my work has been really supportive and helpful for me
in thinking about it. And Daniel Lupton works up at
Colgate University, and she and other colleagues, people like Lindsay
(28:14):
Kohne and Jessica Blankshane, Heidi Urban at Georgetown, Jeremy Tigan,
and others were so helpful in shaping the ideas that
I had formulated to try to make the connections that
I could. So I do want to give credit where
credit is. Do a little acknowledgment out there, But let
me get to your question. Because Lupton's research is more focused, rich,
(28:34):
and nuanced than some of the civil military relations arguments
that are out there. She was also interested in this question, right,
does military ex servance a service experience to socialization influence
policy activism? And while she addressed a wide variety of
arguments and connections that people have made, she drilled down
(28:56):
on a particular question, do veterans pursue active engagement in
trying to restrain or restrict residents in their war powers
and decisions on use of military force? And what she
bound was that there are significant veteran constraints imposed on
presidential decisions regarding military power. So, if you will, she
(29:19):
found argument for support for the idea that checks and
balances do matter, and that they especially do matter in
cases associated with executive excess. Right. But let me speak
to the question in a different way too, because it
raises an interesting question about whether military experiences for all
should be good, helpful, could be a constructive way to
(29:44):
build a heuristic and a sense of experience for veterans
for members of Congress. A different way to put that
would be do we need more veterans in Congress? The
answer to this question is really fascinating because it depends
on what groups you talk to about that. Some veterans'
advocacy groups say clearly the answer is Yes, they say
(30:08):
that veterans bring those skills that we're talking about. We've
been discussing two policy decisions. They're conditioned by experiences. They
know how to overcome challenges and obstacles. They're great problem solvers.
They've experienced a wide variety of challenges and they've come
together with people who are different than them to try
to solve them. So in this way, service and sacrifice. Yes, right,
(30:33):
let's support that idea. How about that we're addressing problems
arguments about veterans being more bipartisan in their approach. It
also relates to this broader question. Maybe, just maybe if
veterans have those experiences, if everybody has those experiences, we'd
be more inclined to engage in cooperation and be more
(30:54):
bipartisan in our approach. But now let me throw in
the complications of the and the chaos of today's polarized
and partisan system. Right, and then so if we start
to worry, or you start to raise questions associated with this,
you quickly slide into territory in the debates and civil
military relations, about politicization of the military, or let's turn
(31:20):
that around, militarization of the polity. Critics have raised all
kinds of questions and concerns about whether or not there
could be too much influence of the military in daily affairs,
civilian concerns in a place like the United States and
foreign and defense policy. Just to put a fine point
(31:43):
on that question, it is possible that members up the military,
that veterans who come to Washington, some of whom continue
to be working officers and soldiers in the Garden Reserve,
might be biased in their policy positions toward or in
favor of certain things that they believe in. So this
(32:03):
question of militarization or politicization is real and remains a
hot point of Bay.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
An interesting point you mentioned in the book is that
these War on Terror veterans have a common language that
they just get each other. Perhaps this hints at socialization
as the solution needed to bridge the polarized differences in
American politics. Political scientists have long discussed this, associating polarization
(32:34):
and political sectarianism as stemming from the lack of shared
spaces and activities in our communities, be it like the
church and so on. In many ways, I'd argue the
lack of shared spaces has resulted in two or more
kinds of Americas, each speaking a different political and ideological
language because of fractured experiences and a deterioration of shared space, says,
(33:00):
either due to technology or for some other reasons. What
are your thoughts on this idea?
Speaker 3 (33:08):
Well, this idea is so important and such an interesting
question because it gets at broader concerns about where our
society is at and where we're headed, about the lack
or the limited number of common experiences and common spaces
in which we can enjoy civil political discourse. And so
when we think about veterans experiences, processing their common experiences,
(33:34):
and influencing their policy positions, there is a sense of
kind of unity, of understanding commonality, you know, like you said,
it's really a quote in my book, right veterans saying,
we just get each other. We understand where each other
is coming from, even across the political aisle, and they
cooperate in some significant ways. And the book describes all
kinds of interesting case studies of that level of collaboration.
(33:58):
In the chaos of the back cuation from Afghanistan in
the summer of twenty twenty one, we saw war on
Terror veterans who were serving up on Capitol Hill mobilized
together to try to create networks for response to help
rescue Americans and Afghans who would help the American cost
from the cauldron, the crucible of the challenge that was
(34:21):
the chaos of the Afghan withdrawal, bipartisanship and cooperation on
veterans healthcare issues and concerns. So, if we play out
this idea that common experiences can create a sense of socialization,
that there are strong effects that promote kind of a
sense of unity, we could imagine common experiences being significant
(34:43):
or formative in lots of ways. Well, By the way,
this makes me think about internationally, right comparatively around the world,
countries where there is compulsory military service, Surely that creates
a commonality of experience, a sense of shared understandings of
priority and socialization experiences. You know, here we're talking about
countries like Israel, South Korea, Denmark, Reece, Turkey. You see
(35:08):
a lot of arguments about that. Then in the civil
military relations that push us through. But I want to
take a twist or a turn in this discussion theme
and say this, it may be that we see some
commonality and perspectives on critical foreign and defense policy questions
more so than domestic policy issues. And here I'll just
(35:31):
mention that I've got a new article coming out in
Armed Forces and Society in the near Future which focuses
on the differences between foreign and defense policy and domestic
policy issues. And for that research, I extended this same
rate right, and I wondered whether or not veterans so
the War on Terror would have common positions on questions
(35:52):
like how the military should be used to respond to
protests in the United States or to border security challenges,
and there across the board, I found that artisan ship
and personal political ideology over rides a sense of commonality
and perspective among War on Terror veterans. I'll put it
(36:15):
a different way. We see significant differences in how Republican
War on Terror veterans and democratic War on Terror veterans
approach those questions of domestic security, things like reforming the
Insurrection Act or changing restrictions and statutory limits on what
the president can do with soldiers and forces inside the country.
(36:39):
So there are wrinkles and dimensions to this, for sure,
by the way, worthy of further investigation.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
I don't know if you consider this, doctor Lantis, but
the issue of socialization. People have hinted at it in
Russia in formal terms, not as a formal theory, about
how Vladimer Putin and many key individuals from the Russian
(37:09):
establishment have shared experiences in the KGB and also in
the Russian Armed Forces. Did you consider that when you
are thinking about your research on socialization in the United
States and also your thoughts on socialization abroad?
Speaker 3 (37:29):
Really interesting? Whereas to think about the effects of socialization
on individuals in a variety of circumstances, both in the
United States and around the world. Just to play out
the socialization literature a little further, This of course connects
to areas of investigation like social psychology. A lot of
political scientists have been curious about this as well, and
(37:50):
then just psychology studies on socialization experiences, and amongst the
dimensions that they develop out in their research are things
like what are the form of experiences socialization is most acute,
or older adults in their years of experience between the
ages of eighteen to twenty four, for example, researchers behind
(38:12):
and so during those years when we could imagine that
some countries would have all the males or even all
of their young people involved in compulsory military service. It
uses forces, suggests that commonality of experience that socializes individuals
into further thinking. So, to keep consistent with what I've
(38:32):
been discussing here in imagining ways to extend or pull
or or expand this argument about socialization experiences, I could
easily imagine a connection between a jump from military experience
is right over to things like training in intelligence or
counterintelligence training for bureaucrats in Washington, d C. Or around
(38:54):
the world. Yes, it's an interesting set of expansion possibilities
to these arguments.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
When it comes to socialization and having shared experiences in
the military. One of the things proposed by British Prime
Minister Rishie Sunnek prior to the election where he lost
was the creation of a national service more like a
draft or a volunteer service. I still have to find
(39:25):
I don't know the exact details. For young males and
females who graduate from school are in their late teens,
do you think implementing a similar program, maybe a short
military training program for every citizen once they crossed the
(39:46):
age of eighteen, where they get a chance to have
the shared experience, maybe in military or training or community service.
As an alternative help build this common social identity that
is lacking these days as America becomes fractured due to
political sectarianism.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
That's a great question, boy, that taps into some really
deep and long standing debates right about whether these kind
of experiences are important and gosh, should even be required
for consideration. Let me mention just a few historical connections
that are pretty easy to make. Europe in the Cold
War era. Many West European countries during the Cold War
(40:33):
had compulsory military service requirements for young males in their
society hitting around age eighteen with an alternative choice, and
in many cases it was civil service, right driving an
ambulance or working in blood drives for a year or
two years eighteen months. In some cases, these experiences were
(40:55):
important shaping experiences for this generation of young people. In
countries like Western Europe, we see the same requirements set
in South Korea for young males and in Israel and
Turkey for both males and females. More historical, though, our
deeper debates about whether or not these kind of experiences
are incredibly valuable for personal development. I'm reminded of a
(41:19):
scholar named William James who centuries, well now a century
ago made an argument for compulsory civil or military service
for all young people as a way to promote development, maturation,
build important skills for the future, etc. Let me make
one more point about this, and that is that I
teach on these topics in my classes. I teach classes
(41:43):
like international security and a war on Film class at
the College of Worcester. And in those classes, no surprise,
I bring up the scholarship and these debates, and I
ask my students about whether or not they would be
keen to consider these kinds of opportunities. HI will tell
you the universal answer is no, and I'll leave it there.
Speaker 2 (42:11):
Coming to our last question, what are some areas that
you think related to your model need more research? Now,
if there's a PhD student or another scholar listening to
this show today and would be interested in building on
your model and maybe expanding a particular area that, due
(42:34):
to time constraints or any other reason, you couldn't look
at in much depth, what areas to look at and
what areas to expand you'd suggest to this potential scholar
who may be listening to the show.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
Oh, that's great and embraces all kinds of exciting possibilities
thinking about expanding or developing research in this area. And
I'll start kind of back to the foundations of our
discussion to suggest that the civil military relations has a rich,
ongoing and lively debate running on this question about military
experiences and their influence on current foreign and defense policy positions.
(43:12):
So there's plenty of opportunity, I think, for contribution to
the CMR as we call it, literature on debates related
to these questions that could include both actual research and
focused on particular connections to be made, such as a
larger end study than the work that I did in
my book Staying in the Fight. I could expand on
(43:33):
this to the scores of contemporary war and tear veterans
and their influence the policy process, to related explorations in
the CMR literature on societal views on these questions, for example,
or some historic illustrations that could be good over in
the political science realm. There are all kinds of opportunities
(43:55):
for further development of this. The easy one, again is
the large and approach to studying the relationships that I've suggested.
One could also expand the policy or issue areas pretty dramatically.
I have a few illustrations case studies in my book
focused on veterans affairs and public health, but there are
so many other interesting aspects to that question that could
(44:19):
be developed, both in contemporary and historic sense, for further
research and expansion. And finally, i'd suggest this, I'd suggest
that there is a rich and fertile area for further
and deeper investigation out there through in depth interviews and
systematic engagement with veterans of all sorts in politics and
(44:42):
outside of politics regarding their interest in concerns about domestic
and foreign policy issues. My effort talking to forty or
fifty experts, members of Congress and staffers around Capitol Hill,
I hope is only the beginning of what could be
a larger research agenda to continue to expand these themes.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Ladies and gentlemen, you just listen to doctor Jeffrey Lantis,
author of the book Staying in the Fight, How War
on Terror veterans in Congress are shaping US defense policy.
Jeffrey Lantis, thank you for your time.
Speaker 3 (45:21):
Thanks so much, it was a pleasure to talk with you.
Speaker 4 (45:24):
Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose is an initiative of Andrew
Jose Media. The views expressed by guests on this show
do not necessarily represent the official positions and opinions of
Andrew Jose, Andrew Jose Media, and Strategic Wisdom. Thank you
for listening to Strategic Wisdom. Be sure to follow and
(45:45):
subscribe to us on whatever podcast platform you are using
to listen to this show in order to not miss
out any future interviews and conversations that Andrew Jose will
bring to you on this podcast. We're streaming on YouTube, Spotify,
Apple Podcasts, Yandex, geosovin, us On Music, and many other
podcast streaming services. Also, be sure to subscribe to Strategic
(46:06):
Wisdom on substack at Strategicwisdom dot substack dot com, and
to follow Strategic Wisdom on Twitter and Instagram at stratwisdom.
Do support our work by buying from our merch store.
For more details, visit Strategicwisdom dot substack dot com
You're listening to Strategic Wisdom with the Andrew Jose.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Strategic Wisdom is a foreign affairs and politics podcast brought
to you by me Andrew Jose, a Washington, DC based
security policy analyst and news reporter, bringing you timely analysis
and commentary on issues in the international relations, war and
security policy. The War on Terror was one of the
most transformative events in American history, transforming how Americans viewed
(00:27):
and discussed privacy, national security, and grand strategy. Indeed, many
of the institutional reforms now conspicuous, such as the Department
of Homeland Security, came to be in the period following
the September eleventh, two thousand and one terrorist attacks. The
influence of the War on Terror does not extend to
(00:48):
the administrative state. A record number of veterans from the
global War on Terror are entering Congress, and they are
influencing policy, working hand in hand with each other and
other partners in solving issues related to veterans, healthcare, and
foreign policy. Joining me today is Jeffrey Lantis, author of
(01:08):
the book Staying in the Fight. How War on Terror
Veterans in Congress are shaping US defense policy, published earlier
this August by the University Press of Kentucky. I and
Lantis are going to discuss how war and terror veterans,
as the title suggests, are staying in the fight and
influencing US defense policy. Without further ado, let's head to
(01:30):
the interview. Jeffrey Lantis is Professor of political science and
(02:59):
the chair of the International Relations Program at the College
of Wooster in Ohio. He has extensive international study and
travel experience, having recently served as a J. William Fulbright
Senior Scholar at the Australian National University. He's the author
of the books The Life and Death of International Treatise
Publishing twenty two thousand and eight, and co editor of
(03:22):
Foreign Policy and Comparative Perspective. He's also the author of
the new International Studies classroom Active Teaching, Active Learning. Furthermore,
LATICS has also published numerous articles and book chapters on
strategic culture, translatic relations, and foreign policy analysis. His most
recent work and the subject of the interview, is Staying
(03:44):
in the Fight. How War on terror of veterans in
Congress are shaping US defense policy. Jeffrey Lantis, Welcome to
the show.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
Thanks so much. I'm really happy to be here with you.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
So, Jeffrey, what were some of the motivations that led
you to write this book. Why is it that we
need to have the conversation you are bringing to the
table in your work now at this moment and time.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Well, thanks so much for the question, Andrew, and I'm
happy to have an opportunity to talk more about my
research and about this new book, which is focused on
War on Terror veterans and their activism on foreign and
defense policy. I mean, an easy way to answer the
question is to say, this is incredibly timely and important
because we are seeing in American politics and society the
direct impact of War on Terror veterans who are now
(04:33):
involved in the policy process in shaping some decisions associated
with the military and defense policy, etc. I mean, one
of my original motivations, of course, is to honor and
recognize the contributions of veterans in all aspects of our
society and directly kind of in the policy process. And
I've been so interested in this in general over the
(04:53):
years and wanted to understand these dynamics, in particular the
activism of this new generation of on Capitol Hill, and
I found their stories to be really interesting and compelling.
I mean, you asked about direct motivations, I would say,
you know, in very direct terms. I got interested in
and focused on this research Back in the twenty teenths,
(05:16):
I was doing research for another book, a previous book.
In twenty seventeen in Washington, d C. I was up
on Capitol Hill. I was talking to all kinds of
interesting individuals, members of Congress, staffers, and some experts around
Washington about foreign policy, entrepreneurship, and advocacy. And that previous
project was focused on how younger or newer members of
(05:39):
Congress were arriving in Washington and making a difference in
some key foreign policy areas. Their activism and engagement was significant.
And you know, in those conversations again back in twenty seventeen,
with a lot of people around Washington, d C. I
was hearing time and time again as some of the
most interesting and influential newer members of Congress were veterans
(06:02):
of the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, or service after
nine to eleven, and I got kind of intrigued to
get kind of curious about that. A quick example would
be Senator Tammy Duckworth. She's from Illinois. She was elected
to Congress back in twenty twelve. But Tammy Duckworth, as
some of our listeners will probably know, was inactive duty service.
(06:23):
She was flying a helicopter back in two thousand and
four in Iraq when she was grievously wounded. She then
took years to recover, but in this process got more
and more interested in trying to influence and shape defense policy.
So back in the twenty teens, I'm doing that research,
and I'm really interested in what this new generation could
be about, and just to extend it a little bit further.
(06:46):
So that led me to try to learn as much
as I could about this new generation of veterans who
were coming to Capitol Hill with some really unique experiences.
And so I set out to try to learn what
I could gathering formation and make some orderly sense of
it for this new book, Staying in the Fight. And
you know, I found some really interesting things along the way.
(07:07):
I mean, theoretically, I was interested in and curious about
debates in the scholarship been particular in civil military relations literature,
debates about whether prior military experience really mattered to influence
foreign and defense policy, whether or not those factors were
significant in shaping their motivation and engagement. So historically and theoretically,
(07:31):
I was beginning to connect these themes together and develop
out a plan for further investigation. Historically, for example, veterans
and who are involved in the policy process have always
been around in American history. Historically we see examples of this,
of course, right after the Revolutionary War, when dozens of
the newly elected first members of Congress in the United
(07:54):
States were veterans. And then throughout the nine seventeen hundreds,
eighteen hundreds, and nineteen hundreds, we see active involvement of
veterans in politics and in their influence in trying to
shape the policy process. The high water mark in recent
or contemporary times was in the Vietnam War era. Long
about nineteen seventy two or seventy three, we see the
(08:17):
highest concentration veterans involved on Capitol Hill in Congress, something
like seventy three or seventy four percent of all members
of Congress had some sort of prior military experience. And that,
of course all builds up and leads me to want
to understand this generation in a direct way and the
(08:37):
characteristics of the generation, their activism and their involvement. And
let me just share just a few tidbits about what
I've picked up on by focusing on this generation. Many
of our listeners may know that there are a large
number of War on terror veterans veterans of military service
after nine to eleven broadly defined, there are something like
four million veterans that fit into this cat. And then
(09:01):
some of them have become actively involved in the policy
process and pursue their activism along the way. With those
veterans from those wars, for example of Rock in Afghanistan
also have some pretty profound experiences that they've begun to
try to process and shape and make sense of. There
are significant percentages that influence the way that they might
(09:24):
see the world. For example, seventy seven percent of all
War on terror veterans were deployed at least once in
the post nine to eleven era, so they've got deployments,
and some units of courts deployed more frequently in significant ways,
shaping their experience. Further forty nine, almost fifty percent half
(09:44):
of all war on terror veterans report that they've had
some sort of combat experience, either in direct connection or
close proximity. Too. There are also some really tough statistics
that helped to define this War on Terror generation. More
than fifteen percent or softeen sixteen percent of all Iraq
(10:04):
and Afghanistan war veterans have screened positive for post traumatic stress.
About half a million veterans suffered from traumatic brain injuries
and other characteristics, and all of those characteristics, then put together,
help us to think about how those background experiences might
influence policy activism and concerns of Members Congress elected thereafter.
(10:31):
The last thing I'll share in response to your question
is timely and important. Right Among the first War on
Terror veterans elected to Congress in two thousand and six
was a guy named Tim Waaltz. Tim Walls, the current
vice presidential candidate and the Democratic Party as we speak
Andrew this week during the Democratic National Convention, we see
(10:51):
him prominently featured. He is a War on Terror veteran
who drew on that experience. Today we see the largest
concentration of veterans with similar military experiences. The War on
Terror generation on Capitol Hill, numbering fifty one elected to
the one hundred and seventeenth Congress and now fifty six
(11:12):
members of Congress in the last couple of years are
War on Terror veterans. Oh, and the last thing I'll
mention is that one of those veterans recently elected to
Congress is another person very much in the news. His
name is J. D.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Van.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
So I'll stop there Andrew, what policy area is today
that you'd say these veterans have had an aptive role
in shaping. So the kinds of foreign policy and defense
policy issue areas that War on Tear veterans have been
directly interested in, connected to, and engaged in tend to
(11:48):
be associated with military, military deployments and concerns of veterans
and currently serving soldiers all around the world. The issue
areas that.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I focused on for my book are foreign and defense
policy issues of engagement or commitments and military force in
several cases, and then veterans, healthcare and veterans affairs as
additional categories. Week examples, I'll just mentioned a couple in
passing right that the War in Ukraine. The War in
Ukraine Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February of twenty twenty
(12:22):
two lurched, launched motivated so many were on Terear veterans
who were in Congress on Capitol Hill to become engaged
and involved on these issues. An interesting example of that
to me was the fact that in the months leading
up to the Ukraine invasion, when the war drums were rumbling,
when it looked like there might be trouble in that area,
(12:45):
some members of Congress conducted delegation visits to Ukraine to
reassert US American support for the Ukrainians in the base
of that threat. One kodell, as they call it, congressional
delegation visit in the winter right before the invasion consisted
of a couple of war on tear veterans across political isles.
(13:07):
Of the political isle where when Gago Democrat Arizona went
on the codel with Seth Moulton from Massachusetts along with
Mike Waltz from Florida, these Republicans and Democrats shared a
common commitment to and concern about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
(13:27):
Since then, it continued to be involved in active support
for encouraging strong US military backing of Ukraine. Oh but
one more thing. They also share a common view on
a critical question or dimension of the crisis at hand,
and that is they all agree in a bipartisan way
that there should be no US boots on the ground
(13:50):
in Ukraine, so looking for commonalities and foreign and defense
policy challenges like the Ukraine War. It's a really good example.
The evacuation of Afghanistan in twenty twenty one is an
issue that mobilized that pit, really activated bipartisan War on
Terror veteran engagement concerns and support for the best possible
(14:13):
response to a tragic and chaotic situation. And then veterans
affairs in healthcare a common concern across the board for
so many War on Terror veterans and of course other
generations of veterans who serve on Capitol Hill. A commitment
to try to provide the best care possible for returning
veterans like those percentage of veterans I mentioned a minute
(14:34):
ago with post traumatic stress disorder, like other veterans suffering
from health effects from exposure to toxic burn pits during
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Was it the PACTAC Indeed,
the Pact Act is that gre is a great example
of a bipartisan commitment to come together to provide a response,
(14:55):
in this case to the toxic burn pit issue, right,
which has been a really beleaguered the military for ten
or twenty years. What a tragic situation. If I could
just say a little more about that, Andrew, this is
a real tough right. It has been a practice of
the military up to just recently, in fact, that for
things like waste management, their goal was to leave nothing
(15:16):
behind in military deployments. So in deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan,
what you'd see outside of the outside of large US
military installations were open land bill like burn pits, in
which all kinds of things were being destroyed right removed,
and in the process carcinogens were being launched into the
(15:37):
air pollutants, and these pollutant crowds and clouds, in some
cases toxic plumes, as they're described by advocates who are
concerned about it, could affect soldiers in the area. The
obvious connection here, tragically, is to Bo Biden, the son
of the current President of the United States, Joe Biden,
(15:59):
who died in twenty fifteen from a rare form of
brain cancer that many experts have suggested can be linked
back to exposure to toxic burn pits, including when Bo
Biden was in theater in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Yeah, So before we discuss your model that you develop
in this book, most if not all, social science models
tend to have outliers. So when you were conducting your research,
what were some notable outliers you noticed that didn't really
stick to the general model and that you had to
(16:37):
exclude in order to build a model.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
So when we think about a kind of political science
or social science approach to any really interesting issue or question,
we're trying to arrange variables in a nice orderly way
that makes clear connections between, say, the causal factors and
their effects in a policy process, were their effects on
an international Is she like cooperation or conflict? So we
(17:02):
line up these variables, so we think about the intervariate relationships,
and in my case, I can describe the model in
just a few minutes. But I recognize that what we're
looking for assumes certain things, right. It assumes that there
are socialization experiences that should be significant for war on
tear veterans. So that made me think hard about what
(17:23):
I would define as and rule in versus rule out
in terms of military service and experience. An easy question,
for example, that I did not fully develop in this study,
but became whether or not we would include both those
soldiers who had served active duty deployments in war zones,
and those soldiers who are simply activated were involved in
(17:46):
national guard or reserve operations, maybe even just deployed in
the United States of America in incredibly important support roles,
but different, if you will, from intense combat experiences in
the mountains of Afghanistan. Questions about what to rule in
or rule out help shape my development of the model
for sure. There's another question too that I found fascinating,
(18:08):
and that is whether or not we should focus primarily
on a foreign and defense policy versus domestic policy issues.
And I'll come back around so that, I think when
we talk a little bit more about my ongoing research
in a little bit. But I was intrigued by the
question of whether or not there was a difference, if
you will, beyond the water's edge as to what should
(18:30):
be included or not. And finally, another issue that came
up in my variable development was what kind of instruments
I would look at as relevant for those activated and
concerned were on terror veterans to use or employ in
their effort to try to shape policy. What do I
rule in or out of the model? So thanks to
(18:51):
your question, I really like thinking about that out loud.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
In Staying in the Fight, you describe these War on
Terror veterans who, despite having disagreements vastly on other issues,
as having policy areas they converge on, and you also
attribute in service socialization as a cause for this convergence.
(19:16):
How does socialization and the military, from your research necessarily
influence and bring about this convergence.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
Yeah, that question helps to kind of link us into
some really interesting debates in the civil military relations literature.
And these debates have been going on, in fact for decades,
and so I appreciate the question. It is ultimately this
issue of whether or not socialization has a direct and
significant effect on policy, activism, and engagement versus other factors, considerations,
(19:50):
or experiences. So in the civil military relations literature, in
articles you might see published in journals like Armed Forces
and Society, scholars tend to refer to this as the
socialization versus self selection debate. It's a really interesting question
as to whether or not it's military socialization that matters
most that brings people together to find areas of common concern,
(20:14):
or it's some original and base motivation a persons all
or political ideology an individual has that maybe for example,
makes them more likely to want to join the military
in the first place. So that socialization question really permeates
a lot of what I was interested in and trying
to understand better. And boy, that's very significant in kind
(20:36):
of today's era, right of extreme partisanship, at polarization in
Washington and beyond. So the socialization literature would argue that, indeed,
these experiences are significant in influencing common perspectives, a sense
of commonality about certain issues or concerns. When it comes
to foreign policy and defense policy, the argument goes that
(21:01):
things like military training are formative, that they helped promote
an idea of shared experience, of collective consideration or concern
and help guide individuals who come through that process towards
certain things. We'll build on that and say this, the
military experiences that individuals have often then serve as formative influences,
(21:25):
maybe you know, heuristics to help them kind of process,
creating lenses through which they see subsequent questions or experiences.
And so when I was set about doing my research,
I was conducting interviews. I was asking questions about to
what extent there were commonalities and generational effects. I heard
an interesting range of perspectives on this question. But I
(21:47):
do want to emphasize this part. When I talk to
veterans themselves about this question of whether or not they
believe the experience was socializing and powerful for them. Universally,
the answer was yes. Members of Congress, staffers, experts, and
other veterans around Washington and beyond all tend to believe
(22:09):
that those experiences were particularly formative. I've got some fun
quotes in the book that capture the spirit of that,
right where we have veterans on Capitol Hill saying, you know,
we intuitively get each other. We see one another when
we run run into others on Capitol Hill. We know
that they've had common experiences, and we believe that that
(22:31):
creates certain perspectives or skill sets, especially right when it
comes to actual cases of born in defense policy decisions
like deployments of soldiers abroad or creating situations where soldiers
might face risk or danger limitations, then that grow arguably
out of those socialization experience.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
If you were to put your model in one cent
or two or three sentences describing let's say the dependent
variables and the dependent variables, how would you put it?
Speaker 3 (23:10):
Yeah, this is a model that focuses on whether military
socialization experiences for individuals who are elected to Congress after
service in the War on Terror employ certain strategies to
try to influence foreign defense policy outcomes. Those strategies include
(23:30):
a couple of key elements that I developed in my model.
That is linking personal and policy narratives together right drawing
connections between their experience and the issue at hand. That
includes formal legislation and bipartisanship. And it also includes a
really creative strategy for enterprising foreign policy entrepreneurs, and that
(23:54):
is creating advocacy coalitions lining up with other groups with
similar concerns inside and outside of the political process to
try to push for influence. That advocacy coalition building or
grassroots development is a fascinating additional dimension of their activism.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
So your model explains the relationship between a Congress member
being a veteran and the influence they exert on US
defense policy. How generalizable you say this model would be?
Would do you think this model, if some modifications are made,
could help determine how past practitionery experience in other fields
(24:43):
like healthcare, for example, will influence a policymaker's mark in
other policy areas once they come to the legislature.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
So indeed, that's one of the original motivations that drove
me into the project. I like thinking with you out
loud here about kind of the so scientific route or
avenue for investigation coming out of my prior book back
in twenty seventeen, the research that I did for that
book on foreign policy advocacy by young and entrepreneurial members
of Congress, I got interested in this question of whether
(25:14):
groups of all kinds with distinctive experiences might then be
able to bring those to bear in active policy influence.
So I would argue that it is indeed generalizable if
you make certain adjustments and modifications in the model like
you hinted at. For example, we could imagine connections between
(25:35):
past experiences for groups of individuals that fall into certain
demographic categories, gender categories, or service or professional experience categories.
I was intrigued by the way in some of my
research by past experiences that influenced other advocates for foreign
policy changes. A great example there would be Senator Chris Kuons.
(25:58):
Senator Chris Kuhns from Dellaware, arguably Joe Biden's best friend
was an active member of Congress back in the twenty
teens who came to Congress with past religious service experience.
He had mission service experience, including spending time in Africa,
(26:18):
that he brought to bear directly on Capitol Hill when
they needed expertise about how the United States should deal
with a public health crisis, that is, the tragic outbreak
of the Ebola virus in West Africa. Chris Coons drew
on his missionary and religious service experience in shaping Obama
(26:40):
policy responses to that tragedy. So yes, we could play
out these ideas in interesting ways and make connections between
socialization experiences and policy activism, arguably in all kinds of
potential categories.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
In Staying in the Fights introduction U paraphrase research by
Daniel Lupton, where Lupton argues that lower representation of veterans
among members of Congress correlates with a decreased legislative willingness
to rein in on the White House on foreign policy matters,
particularly on issues relating to restraint. Now, many pro restraint
(27:20):
scholars and activists have proposed, some seriously, some in jest,
that it may be a good thing for this country's
foreign policy to require congress members to have military experience
prior to contesting in elections, lest Congress be filled with
what is known in political speak as quote chickenhawks. What
(27:41):
are your thoughts on this argument that Lupton makes, but
also what many pro restrained activists and scholars say in jest.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
Yeah, that's great, really an interesting lineup argument. Right. We
could play this out in a couple of different ways. First,
let me, though, you give credit where credit is to
Daniel Upton is a terrific scholar and a friend of
my work has been really supportive and helpful for me
in thinking about it. And Daniel Lupton works up at
Colgate University, and she and other colleagues, people like Lindsay
(28:14):
Kohne and Jessica Blankshane, Heidi Urban at Georgetown, Jeremy Tigan,
and others were so helpful in shaping the ideas that
I had formulated to try to make the connections that
I could. So I do want to give credit where
credit is. Do a little acknowledgment out there, But let
me get to your question. Because Lupton's research is more focused, rich,
(28:34):
and nuanced than some of the civil military relations arguments
that are out there. She was also interested in this question, right,
does military ex servance a service experience to socialization influence
policy activism? And while she addressed a wide variety of
arguments and connections that people have made, she drilled down
(28:56):
on a particular question, do veterans pursue active engagement in
trying to restrain or restrict residents in their war powers
and decisions on use of military force? And what she
bound was that there are significant veteran constraints imposed on
presidential decisions regarding military power. So, if you will, she
(29:19):
found argument for support for the idea that checks and
balances do matter, and that they especially do matter in
cases associated with executive excess. Right. But let me speak
to the question in a different way too, because it
raises an interesting question about whether military experiences for all
should be good, helpful, could be a constructive way to
(29:44):
build a heuristic and a sense of experience for veterans
for members of Congress. A different way to put that
would be do we need more veterans in Congress? The
answer to this question is really fascinating because it depends
on what groups you talk to about that. Some veterans'
advocacy groups say clearly the answer is Yes, they say
(30:08):
that veterans bring those skills that we're talking about. We've
been discussing two policy decisions. They're conditioned by experiences. They
know how to overcome challenges and obstacles. They're great problem solvers.
They've experienced a wide variety of challenges and they've come
together with people who are different than them to try
to solve them. So in this way, service and sacrifice. Yes, right,
(30:33):
let's support that idea. How about that we're addressing problems
arguments about veterans being more bipartisan in their approach. It
also relates to this broader question. Maybe, just maybe if
veterans have those experiences, if everybody has those experiences, we'd
be more inclined to engage in cooperation and be more
(30:54):
bipartisan in our approach. But now let me throw in
the complications of the and the chaos of today's polarized
and partisan system. Right, and then so if we start
to worry, or you start to raise questions associated with this,
you quickly slide into territory in the debates and civil
military relations, about politicization of the military, or let's turn
(31:20):
that around, militarization of the polity. Critics have raised all
kinds of questions and concerns about whether or not there
could be too much influence of the military in daily affairs,
civilian concerns in a place like the United States and
foreign and defense policy. Just to put a fine point
(31:43):
on that question, it is possible that members up the military,
that veterans who come to Washington, some of whom continue
to be working officers and soldiers in the Garden Reserve,
might be biased in their policy positions toward or in
favor of certain things that they believe in. So this
(32:03):
question of militarization or politicization is real and remains a
hot point of Bay.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
An interesting point you mentioned in the book is that
these War on Terror veterans have a common language that
they just get each other. Perhaps this hints at socialization
as the solution needed to bridge the polarized differences in
American politics. Political scientists have long discussed this, associating polarization
(32:34):
and political sectarianism as stemming from the lack of shared
spaces and activities in our communities, be it like the
church and so on. In many ways, I'd argue the
lack of shared spaces has resulted in two or more
kinds of Americas, each speaking a different political and ideological
language because of fractured experiences and a deterioration of shared space, says,
(33:00):
either due to technology or for some other reasons. What
are your thoughts on this idea?
Speaker 3 (33:08):
Well, this idea is so important and such an interesting
question because it gets at broader concerns about where our
society is at and where we're headed, about the lack
or the limited number of common experiences and common spaces
in which we can enjoy civil political discourse. And so
when we think about veterans experiences, processing their common experiences,
(33:34):
and influencing their policy positions, there is a sense of
kind of unity, of understanding commonality, you know, like you said,
it's really a quote in my book, right veterans saying,
we just get each other. We understand where each other
is coming from, even across the political aisle, and they
cooperate in some significant ways. And the book describes all
kinds of interesting case studies of that level of collaboration.
(33:58):
In the chaos of the back cuation from Afghanistan in
the summer of twenty twenty one, we saw war on
Terror veterans who were serving up on Capitol Hill mobilized
together to try to create networks for response to help
rescue Americans and Afghans who would help the American cost
from the cauldron, the crucible of the challenge that was
(34:21):
the chaos of the Afghan withdrawal, bipartisanship and cooperation on
veterans healthcare issues and concerns. So, if we play out
this idea that common experiences can create a sense of socialization,
that there are strong effects that promote kind of a
sense of unity, we could imagine common experiences being significant
(34:43):
or formative in lots of ways. Well, By the way,
this makes me think about internationally, right comparatively around the world,
countries where there is compulsory military service, Surely that creates
a commonality of experience, a sense of shared understandings of
priority and socialization experiences. You know, here we're talking about
countries like Israel, South Korea, Denmark, Reece, Turkey. You see
(35:08):
a lot of arguments about that. Then in the civil
military relations that push us through. But I want to
take a twist or a turn in this discussion theme
and say this, it may be that we see some
commonality and perspectives on critical foreign and defense policy questions
more so than domestic policy issues. And here I'll just
(35:31):
mention that I've got a new article coming out in
Armed Forces and Society in the near Future which focuses
on the differences between foreign and defense policy and domestic
policy issues. And for that research, I extended this same
rate right, and I wondered whether or not veterans so
the War on Terror would have common positions on questions
(35:52):
like how the military should be used to respond to
protests in the United States or to border security challenges,
and there across the board, I found that artisan ship
and personal political ideology over rides a sense of commonality
and perspective among War on Terror veterans. I'll put it
(36:15):
a different way. We see significant differences in how Republican
War on Terror veterans and democratic War on Terror veterans
approach those questions of domestic security, things like reforming the
Insurrection Act or changing restrictions and statutory limits on what
the president can do with soldiers and forces inside the country.
(36:39):
So there are wrinkles and dimensions to this, for sure,
by the way, worthy of further investigation.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
I don't know if you consider this, doctor Lantis, but
the issue of socialization. People have hinted at it in
Russia in formal terms, not as a formal theory, about
how Vladimer Putin and many key individuals from the Russian
(37:09):
establishment have shared experiences in the KGB and also in
the Russian Armed Forces. Did you consider that when you
are thinking about your research on socialization in the United
States and also your thoughts on socialization abroad?
Speaker 3 (37:29):
Really interesting? Whereas to think about the effects of socialization
on individuals in a variety of circumstances, both in the
United States and around the world. Just to play out
the socialization literature a little further, This of course connects
to areas of investigation like social psychology. A lot of
political scientists have been curious about this as well, and
(37:50):
then just psychology studies on socialization experiences, and amongst the
dimensions that they develop out in their research are things
like what are the form of experiences socialization is most acute,
or older adults in their years of experience between the
ages of eighteen to twenty four, for example, researchers behind
(38:12):
and so during those years when we could imagine that
some countries would have all the males or even all
of their young people involved in compulsory military service. It
uses forces, suggests that commonality of experience that socializes individuals
into further thinking. So, to keep consistent with what I've
(38:32):
been discussing here in imagining ways to extend or pull
or or expand this argument about socialization experiences, I could
easily imagine a connection between a jump from military experience
is right over to things like training in intelligence or
counterintelligence training for bureaucrats in Washington, d C. Or around
(38:54):
the world. Yes, it's an interesting set of expansion possibilities
to these arguments.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
When it comes to socialization and having shared experiences in
the military. One of the things proposed by British Prime
Minister Rishie Sunnek prior to the election where he lost
was the creation of a national service more like a
draft or a volunteer service. I still have to find
(39:25):
I don't know the exact details. For young males and
females who graduate from school are in their late teens,
do you think implementing a similar program, maybe a short
military training program for every citizen once they crossed the
(39:46):
age of eighteen, where they get a chance to have
the shared experience, maybe in military or training or community service.
As an alternative help build this common social identity that
is lacking these days as America becomes fractured due to
political sectarianism.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
That's a great question, boy, that taps into some really
deep and long standing debates right about whether these kind
of experiences are important and gosh, should even be required
for consideration. Let me mention just a few historical connections
that are pretty easy to make. Europe in the Cold
War era. Many West European countries during the Cold War
(40:33):
had compulsory military service requirements for young males in their
society hitting around age eighteen with an alternative choice, and
in many cases it was civil service, right driving an
ambulance or working in blood drives for a year or
two years eighteen months. In some cases, these experiences were
(40:55):
important shaping experiences for this generation of young people. In
countries like Western Europe, we see the same requirements set
in South Korea for young males and in Israel and
Turkey for both males and females. More historical, though, our
deeper debates about whether or not these kind of experiences
are incredibly valuable for personal development. I'm reminded of a
(41:19):
scholar named William James who centuries, well now a century
ago made an argument for compulsory civil or military service
for all young people as a way to promote development, maturation,
build important skills for the future, etc. Let me make
one more point about this, and that is that I
teach on these topics in my classes. I teach classes
(41:43):
like international security and a war on Film class at
the College of Worcester. And in those classes, no surprise,
I bring up the scholarship and these debates, and I
ask my students about whether or not they would be
keen to consider these kinds of opportunities. HI will tell
you the universal answer is no, and I'll leave it there.
Speaker 2 (42:11):
Coming to our last question, what are some areas that
you think related to your model need more research? Now,
if there's a PhD student or another scholar listening to
this show today and would be interested in building on
your model and maybe expanding a particular area that, due
(42:34):
to time constraints or any other reason, you couldn't look
at in much depth, what areas to look at and
what areas to expand you'd suggest to this potential scholar
who may be listening to the show.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
Oh, that's great and embraces all kinds of exciting possibilities
thinking about expanding or developing research in this area. And
I'll start kind of back to the foundations of our
discussion to suggest that the civil military relations has a rich,
ongoing and lively debate running on this question about military
experiences and their influence on current foreign and defense policy positions.
(43:12):
So there's plenty of opportunity, I think, for contribution to
the CMR as we call it, literature on debates related
to these questions that could include both actual research and
focused on particular connections to be made, such as a
larger end study than the work that I did in
my book Staying in the Fight. I could expand on
(43:33):
this to the scores of contemporary war and tear veterans
and their influence the policy process, to related explorations in
the CMR literature on societal views on these questions, for example,
or some historic illustrations that could be good over in
the political science realm. There are all kinds of opportunities
(43:55):
for further development of this. The easy one, again is
the large and approach to studying the relationships that I've suggested.
One could also expand the policy or issue areas pretty dramatically.
I have a few illustrations case studies in my book
focused on veterans affairs and public health, but there are
so many other interesting aspects to that question that could
(44:19):
be developed, both in contemporary and historic sense, for further
research and expansion. And finally, i'd suggest this, I'd suggest
that there is a rich and fertile area for further
and deeper investigation out there through in depth interviews and
systematic engagement with veterans of all sorts in politics and
(44:42):
outside of politics regarding their interest in concerns about domestic
and foreign policy issues. My effort talking to forty or
fifty experts, members of Congress and staffers around Capitol Hill,
I hope is only the beginning of what could be
a larger research agenda to continue to expand these themes.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Ladies and gentlemen, you just listen to doctor Jeffrey Lantis,
author of the book Staying in the Fight, How War
on Terror veterans in Congress are shaping US defense policy.
Jeffrey Lantis, thank you for your time.
Speaker 3 (45:21):
Thanks so much, it was a pleasure to talk with you.
Speaker 4 (45:24):
Strategic Wisdom with Andrew Jose is an initiative of Andrew
Jose Media. The views expressed by guests on this show
do not necessarily represent the official positions and opinions of
Andrew Jose, Andrew Jose Media, and Strategic Wisdom. Thank you
for listening to Strategic Wisdom. Be sure to follow and
(45:45):
subscribe to us on whatever podcast platform you are using
to listen to this show in order to not miss
out any future interviews and conversations that Andrew Jose will
bring to you on this podcast. We're streaming on YouTube, Spotify,
Apple Podcasts, Yandex, geosovin, us On Music, and many other
podcast streaming services. Also, be sure to subscribe to Strategic
(46:06):
Wisdom on substack at Strategicwisdom dot substack dot com, and
to follow Strategic Wisdom on Twitter and Instagram at stratwisdom.
Do support our work by buying from our merch store.
For more details, visit Strategicwisdom dot substack dot com
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.