Topic: War Economies
1914
World War 1 had just begun. Germany was facing war against both Russia to the East and France and Britain to the West. Any failure on either front meant Germany was doomed. Knowing this, Germany had to change its economy into an entirely war-dedicated economy, calling on the people to give whatever resources they could to the war effort. The other Allies, eventually finding that the Great War would last much longer than the few months they originally envisioned, began a series of social changes to mobilize the entire nation for war, transforming civilian factories into military factories and instituting the draft to fight the war effort.
In many nations, we can see that this war mobilization actually helped to boost morale initially.
Example: In Britain, certain people were banned from joining the military because they were seen as being a better aid to the war movement at home than abroad, such as people with specialized skills in factories. These people were regularly attacked by the civilian population because, since there was initially no distinction, many were thought to be just sitting at home when their country needed them to fight a war, and were ostracized (this was later fixed with the issuing of special armbands that designated such workers).
Originally, the regions all saw a huge level of support in their respective countries. Depending on the resources taken, however, the initial patriotism turned into a sour disapproval for the war, especially in Central Powers countries such as Austria where food was the rationed resource. This demonstrates that nations in total wars tend to experience a shift in public support in which, given both a proper justification of the war and when playing a part in the war, the people will initially feel a sense of nationalism, fueling the war effort, but will eventually show that nationalism transform into disdain for the government when the people feel that too much is being put into a war and the possible benefits of victory and the moral imperative of fighting are outweighed by the possible benefits of settling peace with the enemy and getting back to a pre-war lifestyle. We have sort of a bell curve of public support in this sense.
There are a few examples of the war economy's initial patriotism benefit, including US war mobilization during both World Wars. Little things, such as recycling scrap metal and saving rubber tires, were highly necessary for the war movement. But in addition, they also brought an otherwise foreign war closer to home by telling the civilian population that they were helping win the war through their help.
Without this initial war mobilization, wars are seen as distant and not having a potential existential threat to the individual. Without some reason why you are individually a part of a war, your attachment and awareness of the war is faded, and the call for continued support on a policy level is met with deaf ears.
Now fast forward. 9/11/01. The beginning of a new war. The drafting of a new plan for war.
What did the United States need? We didn't need massive manpower, as the massive tank vs. tank wars of WW2 wouldn't happen this time around. We wouldn't need a massive amount of tanks or aircraft built, since the US already had what it needed. Natural resources were mostly available.
So what did we need, then? Two things:
1: A flourishing economy in order to pay for wars in Afghanistan and later Iraq.
2: Support, in the form of local counter-terrorism intelligence and patriotic support.
Following 9/11, Bush tried to make this argument, telling people that they needed to live out their everyday lives. But the problem is that there is no revolution at that point. When you are told to go buy lots of Christmas presents for your kids as a contribution to the war effort, there's no sacrifice, which prevents any patriotic mobilization.
Granted, there was a bell curve of patriotism in the War on Terror. However, consider that the bell curve managed to come to a crash after only a couple years of the war, with absolutely no resources taken out of the economy. In contrast, World War 2 saw a strong support for the war in the US for 4 years without a problem, despite huge amounts of failures in the war initially (Allies pushed back to Midway in the Pacific, Russia seems to be failing, and Britain's outlook seems bleak).
In contrast, I would argue that the post-9/11 response should have included some form of war economy incorporation of the war effort to the civilian population. For example, a small tax increase could have been established, called a "Freedom Tax" or something of that sort. Granted, it wouldn't be that much of a war economy interaction, since its severance from the status quo is small. But it's something.
Alternatively, the US could have used energy conservation as a warfighting measure. The claim has always been made that oil dependence makes the US dependent on unstable regimes like Venezuela and other oil nations (which is probably bullshit, considering the country we get the most oil from is Canada). But the argument has at least some merit in terms of prices (a reduction in US use of oil would reduce the demand for oil, driving down the price). Thus, as a war economy measure, the US could have called people to conserve energy at home. That would have practical applications for the war effort, and might help out the economy at home through added energy efficiency. And, by consequence, we have at least a possibility of accessing the war economy-level patriotism for the War on Terror that is critical to the success of wars in democracies.
Thoughts?
The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...
