Russia is using the Arctic to test novel weapon systems. By David Mark via Pixabay
Class! What have you been doing while I’m talking, here—passing mash notes to each other? All of the answers were in the previous day’s Global Eyes, this should have been a giveaway!
I learned a lot from seeing the replies, though. I think what you’ve been telling me—that there’s too much information in Global Eyes, and too little explanation of why these stories matter—must be right. So I’ve learned my lesson. From now on, if a story’s important, I’ll explain exactly why it’s important. And I’ll stop burying the truly essential stories in lists of less-important items.
Let’s review.
1. The remains of what could be the largest dinosaur ever found in Europe have been uncovered in a garden in Pombal, Portugal. I love the thought that some elderly party in Portugal was planting his tomatoes and whistling Os Búzios in the sunshine when he felt his shovel tap something strangely solid, dug a bit more, realized it was a bone, dug a bit more, and wound up with a brachiosaurid sauropod the size of a house. Nearly half of you—49 percent—got this one right.
2. Estonia tops the list for support to Ukraine, per capita, and by a good bit, too. (Well done, Estonia!) Again, 49 percent of you got this right.
I included the chart without any commentary, figuring it spoke for itself, but obviously it didn’t. I should have said why I found it interesting and pointed out what I think is important; to wit, that Estonia is providing five times as much support to Ukraine, per capita, as the United States, with Latvia providing almost as much, and nine European countries providing more.1
It’s important because I’ve heard Americans say that since Ukraine is a European problem, Europeans should be stepping up more to support Ukraine. Now, first, Ukraine is a global problem, and emphatically a problem for Americans. If you’re worried about uncontrolled migration over the southern border now, just wait until “food insecurity” in Latin America and the Caribbean becomes “famine.” But this point aside, it’s unfair to suggest that Europeans aren’t pulling their weight. It’s true that some European countries aren’t. (Apart from the UK, Western Europe is a disgrace, and I was surprised that Finland’s contribution was nugatory compared to the other Baltic states.) But most are contributing roughly as much or more, and since some of these countries are much poorer than the US—Bulgaria’s per capita income in 2020 was US$23,780, in PPP dollars, compared to the US’s US$66,060—this contribution represents a much larger burden per citizen. Now add to this the assistance Europe is giving to six million Ukrainian refugees: It just can’t be said that Europe is letting the US do everything.
You could argue that the recession or even the depression Europe will suffer because of the energy price shock is Europe’s own damned fault—and Germany’s fault, in particular—and you’d be right. But it’s nonetheless a major burden that Europeans have undertaken to support Ukraine. It’s better late than never. It means that the average European citizen feels the cost of supporting Ukraine much more than the average American. (There’s nothing wrong with this. It is a European problem.) But it’s unfair to intimate that Europeans are failing to do their duty. Estonians are doing it many times over.
3. This one is my fault. NATO said last week that it was monitoring the situation in Kosovo closely and prepared to intervene if its stability was jeopardized. But on rereading the article I included, I see that it didn’t specifically mention NATO’s statement. I must have been thinking of a different one when I wrote the question. Still, more than half of you—52 percent—got it right.
Here’s some background reading if you want to understand why NATO is ready to get involved:
4. European fertilizer plants have cut production because the cost of energy is prohibitively high, as 57 percent of you correctly answered. It’s France’s nuclear power plants that can’t operate safely in the heat. Nitrate pollution is a big controversy in the Netherlands, but it has nothing to do with fertilizer production. (We discussed this issue in the discussionsection here.) The EU’s rules on organic farming have nothing to do with it.
“Sanctions on Belarusian potash” was a good guess. The EU has indeed sanctioned Belarusian potash, and this has helped to drive fertilizer pricesand thus grocery prices through the roof. Belarus used to provide 27 percent of the EU’s potash imports. Belarusian potash imports were already severely penalized, though; sanctions were put in place after Belarus hijacked a Ryanair flight. They’ve been widened in response to the invasion of Ukraine.
My grocery prices have gone through the roof. I’d sure be grateful if you subscribed.
But shortfalls from Belarus only make it more important that fertilizer plants in Europe keep operating. Unfortunately, given the price of gas, they can’t. And while most of the fertilizer that European countries produce is used domestically or exported to other countries in the EU bloc, sizable exports also go to South America, Mexico, Southeast Asia, and Africa. So this is catastrophic.
6. It’s Indonesia that nixed the defense deal with Russia. Only 15 percent of you got this one. Remember this article? About how US sanctions are reversing Russia’s gains in Southeast Asia?
This year saw both Indonesia and the Philippines, Southeast Asia’s two largest nations, nix major defense deals with Russia amid fears of potential sanctions by the West. Washington has tightened its noose around Moscow’s defense industry by doubling down on implementation of the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act.
The most popular answer, at 38 percent, was India, which I suppose was a reasonable guess given the amount of pressure India’s been under to rethink its dependency on Russia. It would have been excellent if Turkey—as 27 percent of you guessed—had nixed a major deal with Russia. But alas, it it has not. (TASS even reported that Russia and Turkey have signed a contract for a second batch of S-400s. Turkish defense sources deny this, and TASS is not a reliable source—but neither are anonymous “Turkish defense sources.”)
7. As 69 percent of you knew, it was the Solomon Islands that refused to allow the US Coast Guard to make a routine port call to refuel. Now they’ve announced a moratorium on all visits by foreign naval vessels:
The moratorium will be closely watched in the region, given Solomon Islands’ growing closeness with Beijing. The two countries signed a contentious security pact in April. The naval ban comes a week after [Prime Minister Manasseh] Sogavare’s office threatened to ban or deport Western reporters for “disrespectful and demeaning” coverage and said some foreign media were trying to “engineer regime change.”2
You know the names; Guadalcanal, Savo Island, Cape Esperance, Santa Cruz, Tassafaronga.
There were other less known fights during the Solomon Islands Campaign, but those are the major ones ... some even had USN warships named after them. During the campaign, the United States suffered over 10,600 killed, 40+ ships sunk, and over 800 aircraft lost. Imperial Japan suffered over 86,000 dead, 50-plus ships sunk, and 1,500 aircraft lost.
These islands are critical to control and protect the sea lines of communication from the Indian Ocean in to the Pacific Ocean—from the United States to Australia.
Find the Solomon Islands.
8. As 62 percent of you knew, last week, for the first time in forty years, Iran allowed women to go to a football match. Only 500 of the stadium’s 100,000 seats were assigned to women, though, who were forced to use a separate entrance. Women in Iran remain forbidden to go uncover their hair, appear in advertisements, sing in public, or ride a motorcycle, so color me unimpressed by encomiums to this “landmark moment.”
9. Only 13 percent of you knew that the US had bombed Deir ez-Zor, which is worse than if you’d chosen at random, and 60 percent of you thought we’d done “nothing.” This dismays me. You actually did need to know the answer to this one to be a reasonably well-informed person, especially if you’re a US citizen. (The dinosaur, not so much.) Clearly, I should have given this item more prominence. Here’s some background reading so you can catch up. It’s in chronological order:
Drones strike US base in Syria. Al-Tanf, a remote US military outpost in southern Syria, came under attack by “multiple” drones early Monday morning in the latest attack on American forces and the militias they support in the country. No one was reported hurt and no property damaged.
CJTF-OIR Public Affairs: “[M]ultiple rounds of indirect fire landed in the vicinity of Green Village in northeastern Syria shortly after 9 pm Aug. 15, 2022, in the latest attempted attack on Coalition forces and our partners. The rockets endangered the civilian population in the area and its infrastructure. Several rockets failed to launch and were recovered by Coalition Forces and their Syrian Democratic Forces partners before they could pose an additional threat to the local population.”
American soldiers wounded, other Iranian groups killedin Deir ez-Zor countryside. American soldiers were injured as a result of shells falling on their base, while three Iranian groups were killed by the international coalition in the vicinity.
Aircraft destroy Iranian militia posts in Deir ez-Zor: Explosions were heard in Deir ez-Zor city, at dawn, caused by airstrikes by US aircraft, targeting “Ayyash” warehouses and an Iranian-backed militia military camp in Deir ez-Zor.
“The United States military sent a clear message to Iranian-backed groups attempting to harm Americans based in Syria that their actions must stop,” Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said today.
The August 24 Iran-backed militia attacks on US-led coalition bases notably come after US forces carried out airstrikes on infrastructure facilities affiliated with Iran-backed militia fighters in Deir ez-Zor Governorate August 23.
What are we still doing in Syria? “When President Biden ordered retaliatory strikes on Iran-backed forces in Syria this week, the response from many Americans was: Wait, we still have troops in Syria?”3
10.João Lourenço won the Angolan election, as 25 percent of you knew, slightly beating the score I’d expect if you’d guessed randomly. Catch up here:
Angolan elections to decide future of relations with Russia. The stakes in the political game go beyond Angolan borders. Should UNITA emerge victorious, decades-long close ties with Moscow could be frayed. To recall, the MPLA was a cold war proxy during Angola’s 27-year civil war ending in 2002, while UNITA was US-backed.
Angola president secures second term in tense election. Angola’s MPLA party was on Monday declared the winner of a closely fought election, extending its decades long rule in the oil-rich country and handing President João Lourenço a second term.
UNITA got its best-ever result, coming in second with about 44 percent of the votes, according to the electoral commission. However, UNITA on Tuesday claimed that according to its calculations it should have won the election with 64 percent of the vote. Although UNITA’s leader, Adalberto Costa Junior, has rejected the official results, he has urged calm.
Angola is Africa’s second-largest producer of oil and has rich diamond deposits, but the majority of the southern African country’s 34 million people remain in poverty, according to the UN, and unemployment is currently above 30 percent. Both the MPLA and UNITA are former rebel movements that fought Portuguese colonial rule. The MPLA won power with backing from the Soviet Union and established Marxist rule when Angola became independent in 1975. UNITA fought a bitter civil war against the MPLA, with support from the US and apartheid-ruled South Africa.
This item needed more commentary from me. The name probably didn’t stick because I didn’t do a good job of explaining the significance of this election.
11. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is on trial for defrauding the state, as 33 percent of you recalled. She’s been accused of awarding tenders for public works to one of her cronies, who funneled the proceeds back to her via one of her companies.
Almost half of you—45 percent—thought she was on trial for accepting bribes. In fairness, she has been charged with bribery, money laundering, and obstruction of justice in the past. She’s faced more than a dozen charges and she’s beaten the rap every time. So those answers weren’t totally wrong, it’s just not what she’s been charged with this time. I don’t believe she’s ever been formally charged with suborning perjury, though she’s probably done that, too. As for “the hatred of Perónist love,” that’s what she claims—she represents the left wing of her Perónist party, and she’s (very dramatically) insisted these charges are political. Perhaps you believe that, as is your prerogative; if you do, you’re in the rarified company of Nicolás Maduro.
“I want to express my absolute solidarity in the midst of this fierce combat you are waging against the enemies of your country … It is no coincidence that this new right-wing offensive against you is unleashed precisely now, when renewed projects of unity and sovereignty in Our America have begun to take shape. This pseudo-legal atrocity occurs when you are more needed than ever to contribute to the battle of ideas and lead popular mobilization against neoliberal dogmas.” …
[Maduro’s] letter came shortly after Argentine prosecutor Diego Luciani announced he was seeking twelve years of imprisonment and the political disqualification of public office for life for Fernández de Kirchner over her alleged involvement in a corruption scheme during her time as president (2007-2015).
Fernández de Kirchner previously said she was facing a “media-judicial firing squad” and has denounced the prosecution as a “farce.” The former president added that it followed a trend of politically driven lawfare campaigns in Latin America that do not seek justice but rather “to displace, to stigmatize, to override popular governments.” … Maduro backed this characterization of the prosecution, praising Fernández’s response to the lawfare campaign, saying she “exposed those who have staged a truly and truly abominable charade.”
I reckon she’s guilty and crooked as the day is long. Why? First, because Maduro says she’s not. But also because she was previously accused (among the many charges she’s faced) of conspiring with Iranian officials to cover up Iran’s involvement in the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish center. This story is wild: Hours before the prosecutor was scheduled to testify at a congressional hearing, he was found shot to death and lying in a pool of blood in his apartment in Buenos Aires.
The charges against her were dismissed, but only because the judges determined that the agreement between her and the Iranians didn’t, technically, violate any criminal statute. In other words, she did it. That (along with her being a histrionic, left-wing Peronist whom Maduro loves) is enough to convince me it’s not likely she’s facing prosecution because her enemies hate her Perónist love. The whole story is very Banana Republican:
As luck would have it, Kirchnerism is a relatively benign political doctrine, but even so some of its adherents are already threatening their foes—who now include much of the country’s population—with violence if the judicial proceedings against Cristina reach what now appears to be their logical conclusion and she gets sentenced to a lengthy jail term. …
Cristina’s arraignment and her followers’ reaction to it are having an ambiguous effect on the country’s reputation abroad. For many foreign observers, putting on trial a politician who is far from powerless suggests that, by and large, the rule of law does mean something in this part of the world; on the other hand, the spectacle being provided by a president who is blatantly trying to lean on judges and by political middleweights who warn that laying a finger on Cristina would lead to mass mayhem makes it look as though Argentina is just another “banana republic” ruled by a bunch of thugs who think that after getting elected they are fully entitled to line their pockets.
We Americans wouldn’t know anything about that kind of situation, of course.
This week I am visiting the Canadian Arctic with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to underline the region’s strategic importance for Euro-Atlantic security. The shortest path to North America for Russian missiles or bombers would be over the North Pole. This makes NORAD’s role vital for North America and for NATO. …
NATO is a defensive alliance. Our purpose is to prevent conflict and preserve peace. Much of the High North (Arctic territory and waters), has traditionally been an area of low tensions. But unfortunately, this is changing due to the rapidly warming climate and rising global competition. Increasing parts of the Arctic will be ice-free in summer. This is unlocking opportunities for shipping routes, natural resources and economic development. But it also raises the risk of tensions. Authoritarian regimes are clearly willing to use military intimidation or aggression to achieve their aims. At the same time, they are stepping up their activities and interest in the Arctic.
Russia has significantly increased its military activity in recent years, setting up a new Arctic Command, opening hundreds of new and former Soviet-era Arctic military sites, including airfields and deep-water ports, and using the region as test-bed for novel weapon systems. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a new naval strategy pledging to protect Arctic waters “by all means,” including increased activity around the non-militarized Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard and hypersonic Zircon missile systems for its Northern Fleet. Just last week, Russia unveiled plans for a new strategic missile-carrying submarine cruiser for Arctic operations. Russia’s ability to disrupt Allied reinforcements across the North Atlantic is a strategic challenge to the Alliance. …
NATO has a clear interest in preserving security, stability and cooperation in the High North. The Arctic is the gateway to the North Atlantic, hosting vital trade, transport and communication links between North America and Europe. Ensuring freedom of navigation and unfettered access is essential to keep our economies strong and our people safe. Once Finland and Sweden join the Alliance, seven out of the eight Arctic states will be members of NATO. Finland and Sweden’s membership will significantly enhance our posture in the High North and our ability to reinforce our Baltic Allies.
The other answers weren’t bad guesses, though. “Space,” which 15 percent of you chose, might have been my guess, too. DefenseNews reported yesterdaythat Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will be holding a classified meeting at the Pentagon this week to discuss Russia’s new space weapons (and China’s, too). The agenda:
[H]ow China and Russia’s potential development of fractional orbital bombardment systems and space-to-ground weapons could impact US deterrence and strategic stability, as well as to consider US response options to the potential development of such capabilities by any adversary.
So even if Stoltenberg didn’t warn about this last week, at least not publicly, it’s an educated guess. I’ll give it partial credit.
“The Sahel,” which 12 percent of you chose, is plausible, too. Russia has been testing its Wagner group playbook for Africa in the Sahel, and I guess you could call that a weapon, though calling it a weapons system is a bit much. I haven’t seen it reported that Russia is testing new weapons systems there, but it wouldn’t surprise me. They’re certainly testing how well the old ones work.
Only 8 percent of you thought the answer was “Semipalatinsk.” If the name sounded familiar, though, and like a place you might test weapons, it’s because the Soviet Union used to test its nuclear weapons at the Semipalatinsk Test Site, on the steppe of northeast Kazakhstan. It was known as “the Polygon,” and it enjoys the dim distinction of being the most nuked place on earth. As with all things Soviet, it was a place of complete contempt for human life:
From 1949 to 1989, residents of the former Soviet oblast of Semipalatinsk lived under the shadow of a mushroom cloud. Over that time, at least 456 nuclear devices—both atmospheric and underground—were detonated at the 18,000-square-kilometer site known as Semipalatinsk-21. What began as the crown jewel in the Soviet nuclear program proved to be synonymous with tragedy.
The human suffering that took place at the site was well-documented, even before testing ended in 1989 and the site officially closed on August 29, 1991. Some 200,000 villagers essentially became human guinea pigs, as scientists explored the potential and dangers of nuclear weapons. Residents were reportedly ordered to step outside their homes during test blasts so that they could later be examined as part of studies on the effects of radiation. Some locals can describe—from first-hand experience—what a mushroom cloud looks like. And they are paying a horrendous price. …
Obviously, it’s no longer used for nuclear testing, because Kazakhstan is no longer in Moscow’s possession. As you can imagine, Kazakhstan prefers it this way. But Putin doesn’t. Especially because Kazakhstan isn’t in NATO, it could well be the next country Putin invades. I can imagine Putin calculating that the West wouldn’t object as strongly as it would if he invaded, say, Estonia, and thinking it might be done more easily and cheaply, too. (China might object, however—perhaps that would be a deterrent.)
Here’s some background:
Kazakhstan gives Russia the cold shoulder.Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev … on stage together with Mr. Putin, had the audacity to proclaim that he had no intention of recognizing any Russia-sponsored “quasi-state formations” in Ukraine. Upping the ante, he also took a shot at Russian Duma members who had questioned Kazakhstan’s independence. President Putin appeared furious, responding with an insult combined with a chilling threat. Pretending to forget the name of the Kazakh leader, he claimed that all former USSR territories belong to Russia by right: “What is the Soviet Union? This is historic Russia. … You are part of historic Russia.”
After Ukraine, is Kazakhstan next in the Kremlin’s sights? Kazakhstan’s defiant rhetoric has been backed up by action, with Kazakh authorities sending humanitarian aid to Ukraine and maintaining contact with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Russian military propaganda symbols have been banned in public places in Kazakhstan; the May 9 Victory Day parade was canceled; and official approval was even given for an anti-war rally in Almaty. When Kazakh oil being shipped through Russia ran into unexpected difficulties, therefore, many wondered if this was Russia exacting its revenge.
With tension already high due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a social media post from Russia’s former president’s profile sent shockwaves through Central Asia, as its contents questioned the sovereignty of Kazakhstan, calling it an “artificial state.” “In this century Kazakhstani authorities implemented resettlement policies of various ethnic groups inside the republic, which can be qualified as the genocide of Russians. And we do not intend to turn a blind eye to this. There will be no order until the Russians get there.”
To everyone who took the quiz: Thank you for playing! I learned a lot from seeing what you did and didn’t know. I will improve. We’ll do this again.
I meant to send this newsletter yesterday, but I forgot to hit “publish” before I fell asleep. Later today, I’ll send you today’s newsletter. Before that, here’s a preview. One of our readers send me this interview with Peter Zeihan. Is Peter on the right track, he asked?
I’ve been thinking about it for a few days, and have quite a bit to say. But I’d be curious to know what you think of the interview before I prejudice you with my opinions, so let me know in the comments.
Have you subscribed? If not, tell me what would persuade you to subscribe. Maybe it’s something I can do.
It helps a lot when you share these posts. Please spread them far and wide. Thank you!
I don’t know if this graph truly represents the full picture. Turkey, for example, is shown as providing no support, but we know that isn’t true. Some countries may be providing aid covertly. Israel, for example, wouldn’t advertise it if they were supporting Ukraine. They need Russia’s cooperation if they’re to continue interdicting the flow of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah (these go to Lebanon via Syria); they have to coordinate with Russia when they enter Syria airspace. Russia has so far allowed Israel to do what it needs to do, but that would probably stop if Jerusalem openly supported Ukraine, and would surely stop if Israel began supplying the Ukrainian military. All the same, Israel may well be transferring aid or materiel via another flag: I can’t imagine that Israelis are left cold by the situation; Israelis certainly understand what war of aggression in Europe and never again mean. I suspect France is providing more assistance than it’s letting on, too, but this may be wishful thinking on my part. If France’s numbers are really as low as this graph suggests, it’s a disgrace. Italy is a consummate disgrace.
Count me among the foreign media trying to engineer regime change in the Solomon Islands. And if I fail, bring in the professionals. (I mean, what has America come to if we no longer have the skillz to coup the Solomon Islands, for the love of God? Back in the day, we toppled far tougher regimes—and for much less. What impertinence.)
If Americans have no idea where their troops are, it’s because their media has failed to perform the most basic function of the Fourth Estate. What could be more important for a citizen to know? So why is Politico so cheerful about noting that Americans are profoundly ill-informed? It’s their fault that Americans didn’t know that we had troops in Syria. (And now it’s mine, but I’m going to fix this.)
There are few debates in public life that should merit greater attention from its citizens than whether or not to commit their sons and daughters to fight and possibly to die. Imagine the debate surrounding troop levels in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria, if some of those troops were draftees, or if your own child were eligible for the draft. Imagine if we lived in a society where the commitment of 18- and 19-year-olds to a combat zone generated the same breathless attention as a college-admissions scandal. Imagine Twitter with a draft going on; snowplow parents along with millennial cancel culture could save us by canceling the next unnecessary war.
I agree with him about the importance of the debate. I’m not convinced we’d have a better military (or a better society) if we bought back the draft, though. I’m open to persuasion, but there’s a more targeted solution to this problem: We could pay more attention to where our fellow citizens’ sons and daughters have been sent to fight and possibly to die.
Now, as I’ve argued before, we get the media we deserve. If Politico and other outlets failed to report what happened in Syria last week, it’s because they have years’ worth of evidence that readers won’t click on stories about Syria—not even if US troops are there. But a more responsible media would report this prominently even if it doesn’t rake in the clicks and the big advertising bucks. Newspapers can force readers at least to cast their eyes over the headline about our troops in Syria before they click on the latest culture war outrage. Broadcast news outlets can make viewers listen to a minute or two about where we’re at war before they launch into the evening’s righteous diatribe about Hunter Biden. And they should.
I should have given more prominence to this story. I’ll do that for similar stories in the future.
A quick elaboration on Question #4, about different sorts of fertilizers.
"But shortfalls from Belarus only make it more important that fertilizer plants in Europe keep operating. Unfortunately, given the price of gas, they can’t."
Belarus produces a lot of potash, used to make potassium based fertilizers, but doesn't make much in the way of nitrogen based fertilizers (it's not nothing, maybe 2% of global production. But not much compared to its potash production). Natural gas price doesn't directly affect the production of potash as it isn't an input. But natural gas (along with nitrogen from the air) are the key ingredients in nitrogen based fertilizers, which are probably the most important to crop growth.
The two types of fertilizers mentioned here aren't directly related, though I'll admit I don't know whether they're mixed before being applied to crops, or whether they're applied separately.
The article you linked about the draft is almost three years old.
I do strongly disagree with his contention that the purpose of the military is not solely to fight and win our wars. It's possible that it would be nice if the military were representative (of course, I'm not entirely sure what that means) of the country as a whole, but as far as I know that's only rarely been the case, even during times when we had a draft.
A quick elaboration on Question #4, about different sorts of fertilizers.
"But shortfalls from Belarus only make it more important that fertilizer plants in Europe keep operating. Unfortunately, given the price of gas, they can’t."
Belarus produces a lot of potash, used to make potassium based fertilizers, but doesn't make much in the way of nitrogen based fertilizers (it's not nothing, maybe 2% of global production. But not much compared to its potash production). Natural gas price doesn't directly affect the production of potash as it isn't an input. But natural gas (along with nitrogen from the air) are the key ingredients in nitrogen based fertilizers, which are probably the most important to crop growth.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fertilizer-exports-russia-ukraine?country=Nitrogen~Phosphorous~Potassium
The two types of fertilizers mentioned here aren't directly related, though I'll admit I don't know whether they're mixed before being applied to crops, or whether they're applied separately.
The article you linked about the draft is almost three years old.
I do strongly disagree with his contention that the purpose of the military is not solely to fight and win our wars. It's possible that it would be nice if the military were representative (of course, I'm not entirely sure what that means) of the country as a whole, but as far as I know that's only rarely been the case, even during times when we had a draft.