I am not sure if your reporter Mr. Hass was at the same lecture that I attended on Monday, but in my opinion he missed the point, both journalistically and ideologically (“Speaker questions U.S. war readiness” March 27).
First of all, Mr. Hass should have checked his sources more thoroughly, for if he had, he would have known that Ms. Kiesling teaches at West Point, not the University of Alabama.
Second, although Dr. Maitre may or may not have mentioned Ms. Kiesling’s specialty, Ms. Kiesling herself said she was an expert in French military history. That begs the question, “Why was she lecturing on American military history?” as Mr. Hass stated in the article, but that is another issue.
Mr. Hass quoted Ms. Kiesling as saying, “Americans never fight on a level playing field.” While this may be true, from the point of view of a future officer in the Navy, this meant that Americans in battle have consistently sought and achieved the upper hand, whether or not it was by means of achieving technical superiority.
With regard to “America’s policy of simplicity over mass production,” as Mr. Hass quoted, he either took the statement entirely out of context, or he could not read his own notes. That was simply not the case. The heart of that point was that America has consistently sought simple, easily mass-produced weapons, rather than technologically superior ones with the goal to maintain arms that are easily interchangeable.
The last journalistic blunder Mr. Hass made was his contention that the United State’s military inventions during and following World War II were “non-lethal.” While this is mildly true concerning DDT, his previous mention of the atomic bomb, which “brought America up to speed with the world,” can hardly be considered a “non-lethal” development.
In conclusion, I do not know if I am more confused by Ms. Kiesling’s bold assertions, which in many cases do not apply to today’s military, or by Mr. Hass’ botched summary of the lecture. However, I do know that indeed, the “American way of war is more ideological than technological,” but that has always been the idea behind a “noble war,” which stands to defend people’s physical and spiritual notions of universal truths and fundamental rights. Whether or not they are actually and truly protected is, once again, another issue.
Christopher Byrnes CGS ’03
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
