Lawfare Daily: Military Education and American Manhood with Jasper Craven

[Intro]

Jasper Craven: Whenever we are engaged in serious conflict, you get a sort of increased interest in these places, and also just the, the Pentagon lurches into high gear and makes sure that these schools have the support they need.

Tyler McBrien: It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Tyler McBrien, managing editor of Lawfare, with Jasper Craven, a freelance reporter covering the military and veterans issues.

Jasper Craven: I just can't see any other force beyond the Pentagon that, that wields more power over sort of educating, historically, American boys. I just, there's, there's nothing, there's nothing out there as powerful, really.

Tyler McBrien: Today we're talking about Jasper's new book, “God Forgives, Brothers Don't: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood.”

[Main Podcast]

So Jasper, I wanted to start actually with a confession, which is that I've been to West Point and stayed in the dorms for the SCUSA conference years ago when I was an undergrad. I mean, now reading your book, having stayed with a friend who kind of pulled strings to, like, let me stay in his dorm, I was like, "It's- I'm not really sure it's worth the risk of that, that act of rebellion."

But all that is to say, this is immediately interesting to me, like, having been there. It's just fascinating. But I want to start with your interest. Anyone who's read the book or your work knows that you don't come from a veteran background or you know, having been in the service yourself. So where did the, the interest in the military as a, as a subject to cover, as a beat, come from for you?

Jasper Craven: Yeah. Well, it's interesting because I sort of experienced the inverse of what maybe a young son of a hard-boiled colonel might go through. My father was a prominent anti-war activist during Vietnam, helped organize the May Day protests in 1971 in Washington, which precipitated the largest mass arrest in American history, was mentored at Boston University by Howard Zinn.

I've said this on podcasts before, but he briefly dated Jane Fonda. That's kind of his claim to fame or at least, you know, helps illustrate, you know, the fact that he was really in this movement in a major way, and he, you know, came to define himself fundamentally by the principles that he engaged with during the anti-war movement.

I mean, by the time he was in his early 20s really, the movement had kind of fractured and was being, you know, infiltrated by the FBI and all of the rest. And so he really didn't spend that much time, you know, fighting for peace, but nonetheless, it was just, it was deeply formative to him. And so, I sort of understood that from an early age, and also, you know, was sort of reared on, you know, the work of Howard Zinn for one, and other sort of- historians offering a pretty skeptical eye of the military industrial complex.

So when it came time in my early 20s to, to pick a beat as a journalist, veterans’ issues and the military sort of seemed like a natural fit. I don't have a JD, so Department of Justice was out. I didn't feel like I could effectively, you know, ingratiate myself with spies at the, the CIA. It just sort of seemed like something that made sense. And began really covering the VA from a number of angles, and through that work came to understand more acutely, you know, what military service does to someone.

And, you know, started off, because I'm a civilian, a bit skittish to be overly critical of the Pentagon. You know, I, I felt a sort of reflexive respect for, you know, the great risks that, that service members take. But it was sort of, it was really through, like, discussions with a lot of vets, VA patients, administrators, people who'd been through really tough experiences that I sort of became confident in my ability to criticize this institution simply because I had just seen so much damage that it had wielded sort of over, you know, this, this population of millions of people.

And then, I mean, the sort of clarifying moment that led to this book was a tip I got about five years ago about a military academy just outside of Philadelphia called Valley Forge. And there was a really sort of raw, violent, hierarchical hazing culture there, a lot of corruption from administrators.

This was sort of the first time where I was able to see, like, military pedagogy and sort of the sort of training, the, the sort of core training rites and tools in action in a really sort of vivid way. And then also, like, these military schools often offer sort of perfect dynamics or sort of reflect really nicely and intimately, sort of a lot of the problems that plague the institution writ large.

Like, it, it can just feel so impossible to try and grasp how an institution like the Pentagon operates. But sort of, in these smaller environments and these sort of more contained places, I was also able to sort of understand and flesh out how the military operated as well. So it all just, like, really fascinated me, and it's what led me to write this book about military education.

Tyler McBrien: Well, first of all, as, as tempted as, as I am to get, get into the Jane Fonda stuff, I have heard you talk about it and, and this life-size poster that your father purchased of this actress who he's, I guess, a fan of now. But that is funny how it is really a, like, a peace activist bona fide right there to say that you dated one of the most prominent peace activists.

But, but again, before we get into the book, I wanted to ask one more question about your sort of identity and position coming in. I mean, it's questions of objectivity and about journalism in general. And coming from your background and your family your father, peace activism, trying to cover the military, did you get a lot of resistance throughout your career? Did people look at you askance as the son of a, a peacenik or?

Because I, I don't know, I've always thought about flipping it so there's the, the idea of the veteran mystique and the moral authority that veterans come with in writing about veteran affairs and the military and these critiques. So yeah, I guess questions of access and, and, you know, willingness and of, of military members to, to speak to you. Obviously, you don't tell your subjects your whole back history, but yeah, curious what, what kind of resistance you got.

Jasper Craven: Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, the simple answer is that I have endured a lot of criticism and pushback. I remember, you know, I wrote a book about Veterans and the VA a few years ago for Duke University Press, and I was still pretty green. And as part of that promotion, I went on a public affairs show, a call-in show, and was just like blasted with calls from vets who were upset with my conclusions and, you know, resentful that I didn't serve and felt that, you know, I just simply did not know what I was talking about, and I could never sort of ever hope to grasp the complexities of veteran life.

So yeah, there have been moments where I'm sort of like, "Is this-- Does this make sense? Is this what I should actually be doing?" Historically, DoD and VA have been covered by vets or, you know, people with, with a pretty deep military lineage. But there really were sort of a couple of key veteran writers over the years whose work I really respect that sort of like validated what I was doing and, you know, sort of made clear that it was really nice to have someone coming from the outside, because I think, you know, if you've been through this system, a lot of strangeness that, that is sort of acculturated to, to people who've been in the service, I, I sort of see for what it is, and I can sort of like flesh it out, and I think that my outsider status has, has been a benefit.

And yeah, I mean, at the end of the day too, like I am sort of confident in this position now. The reason I'm doing this is because I really care about this community. I want justice for this community. I want accountability for how the government treats these people, and many veteran writers can sort of lock into sort of like a shorthand with a vet on, you know, a call and create some like comfortability by talking about their service or sort of invoking some military jargon or, you know insider jokes.

And while I don't, I can't do that personally, I think that just sort of my, my, my focus on getting to the emotional core of, like, how they feel about this allows for vulnerability and for trust and, and I've, and you know, I've just, I've just been doing it for so long, and I'm also not pretending to, like... My, my work isn't really focused on, like, high-level Pentagon war planning tactics or, like, foreign policy or anything else. It's really trying to sort of flesh out the human stories, the hopes and dreams and damage that sort of emerges from this institution. And so I don't think you need any particular experience to, to focus on those sorts of topics.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah, and then I imagine that the, the times in which you do face resistance or this idea that only those who have experienced it can actually criticize it or truly understand why we do certain things certain ways. It's sort of like the idea of, you know, only I can, I can criticize my own family. You know, you can't do it, but I can, only strengthens, you know, some of your, the themes that you bring up in your book of the, this toxic insularity and you know, this pr- protectionism.

So let's get into s- to, to some of the book, which is an incredible read. Congratulations. It's, it's a, it's a really, really amazing project. I'm, I'm curious though about how you scoped it. So the history covers essentially the arc of U.S. history, beginning with the beginning. And I like how you sort of planted your flag and said, "This is the beginning not only of military education, but of the military industrial complex in the U.S." So I wanna talk about, you know, how you decided where to start, how you started, and, and h- also how you did this historical research especially as, as a journalist.

Jasper Craven: Yeah. It was very overwhelming and time-consuming and involved a lot of, sort of historical rabbit holes that ended in confusion and complication. It was messy. It was very messy.

Because this was really my first book, the last one about veterans was co-authored, I don't know, I sort of, you know, did the writerly thing for a while and tried to think of some brilliant, you know, complicated structure that would, like, you know, just lead to a, a climax that would have readers bowled over by its intensity and brilliance. And then at some point I was like, "Okay, well, let's just-" Let's just see if I can write this chronologically. Let's see if there's a way to map these themes onto American history, and let's see if this goes all the way back 250 years to this country's founding. And, and, you know, luckily there was. When I was, when I was sort of figuring out whether this magazine article about a single military school could be expanded into a book, the first thing really I did was go back to the Revolutionary War.

And there was a nice, I mean it, it was helpful to me and, and I sort of was able to, like, make these connections or sort of had the idea to go there because Valley Forge Military Academy is located in close proximity to the Valley Forge historical encampment, the place where George Washington and his men retreated to after losing Philadelphia for a really hard winter. The, the all-new cadets at Valley Forge are basically given, like, a challenge coin that features this mythical moment in which Washington, you know, in the wintry woods of Valley Forge sort of prays for the survival of and, and the success of the American public. And it's then sort of further mythologized from there that this, like, low point at Valley Forge injected this, this burgeoning American military with the energy and the ambition to defeat the British occupiers.

So, like, there was all this sort of history just wrapped up in the story that Valley Forge was telling, and, you know, just as it turned out, you go back to that moment, and what you start to realize is that Washington was not a particularly good general. He didn't really understand military tactics. Really, the idea for military education, for establishing these networks of schools to train elite officers and to ensure a sort of steady pipeline of young recruits, that was basically birthed at Valley Forge.

You know, Washington's top aide, Henry Knox, understood very much that, you know, Americans were losing battles because they were dealing with European foes who had established military schools centuries ago. And so the sort of, like, em- embarrassing, emasculating defeat that led to Valley Forge is what sort of helped get this system in motion. And then at the same time, Washington, despite sort of all of these loud proclamations of his modesty and his, you know, refusal to be elevated or mythologized to kingly status, did a lot to sort of- nurture these false ideas about his own strength and masculinity and fearlessness in battle.

And so then from there, okay, the Founding Fathers, that is a very, like, masculine coded term, and if we're thinking about it, in addition to sort of framing this country, these were the men that young boys looked up to, and there's evidence of that. And the man who founded or really sort of established the core principles of West Point was one of those boys who just, you know, fell in love with Washington and Bonaparte and these great men who had, you know, who were strong and who sort of typified manliness, and did so because largely of their sort of military prowess.

So it all kind of, it was just one of those things that thankfully worked out. You know? It could have all sort of, you know, the sort of thesis could have fallen apart, and because I was able to see those, those sort of early developing ideas right at the beginning of this country, I was sort of, I felt confident enough that I could find a through line.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah, and I'm glad you started where you did because it helped me at least work through the, this great contradictory question of U.S. history, which is how did a country founded on opposition to a standing army? I mean, it was, as, as you write, it was really the, the, the abuses of the, of the standing army in, in Boston that galvanized a lot of the, the revolution. How did we go from that to now a country that, that venerates the military to such a degree that it insulates it from, you know, I guess true re- true reform, and that we, we put so many resources into it at the cost of so many other social goods.

So how do you make sense of that, that shift? I mean, the, the story that you begin is, is sort of, is one of necessity, I would say, is maybe broadly, which you are obviously more than welcome to, to push back on, but, you know, there was sort of this, this idea that we have this ragtag group of militias, maybe we need to professionalize it 'cause we're getting our, our asses handed to us by the British who are, who are highly trained and experienced, to, to now what we have today.

So yeah, I guess at the risk of asking you to summarize your entire book, the history there, yeah, how did we get from, from A to B now that you've walked through this history?

Jasper Craven: Yeah. Well, there's a number, I think, of forces that, that pushed us into this present moment. And, you know, one of them is just the simple fact that America has really failed on a basic level to inject not only, like, budgetary resources and attention, but also a certain sort of, like, cultural masculine endorsement of other lines of work, other types of service.

I mean, you know, that's not to say they don't exist, but, you know, certainly like the post office and the postman doesn't really enjoy any sort of like societal recognition as a public servant. There's nothing sort of romanticized about the work of a postman, and that's fine, but there, there, there's a way to do that, you know?

So much energy has been directed at the military, and really more than anything, I think that is a result of the fact that, you know, military work is intense, brutal, violent. Something that, you know, is not inherent, I argue, to sort of human nature. And so it's just to, to sort of goose recruitment, to entice enlistment, you just have to put a lot of energy into sort of creating these big myths about what military service means. You have to sort of paper over the violence and the suffering and the isolation and all of these other things with really big ideas and promises of masculine validation, and then sort of more practical pledges and benefits like, you know, free college through the GI Bill and, you know, low interest home loans and free healthcare at the VA and all of the rest.

So, I mean, once America decided that it needed to have a strong military, all of this other sort of work in the background commenced and, and, you know, at some point it just became all-encompassing and out of control. Especially because, you know, warfare during the first half of the 20th century, due to the state of technology and the, you know, various geopolitical forces at play, it just required, like, massive manpower, insane amounts of industry and technology.

And so there was just this sort of... it was, it was a relatively brief moment, but there was just this moment where, like, the entire country is oriented essentially around military work. Like, college campuses are emptied. They reorient all of their programs for military purposes. I mean, I note in the book that, like, Harvard's, like, theater department started, I believe, or, like, costume design department started, like, stitching camouflage for the boys overseas.

Like, it really was just, like, all-encompassing. You know, the military gets its teeth into civilian universities at this point, funnels a lot of money towards research and development, and again, there's sort of like, even then there's sort of these pledges that, to the public that like, "Oh, this is fleeting. This isn't gonna, like, take over the economy or the country." Like, the Pentagon was built during World War II on the promise that after the war, it would revert to some other peacetime use. It would become a hospital or some other sort of, like, civilian government building.

And so, you know, I think there are like, there, there, there remains a sort of deep skepticism of the military. That's kind of this insane fact that doesn't square at all with sort of what's happening policy-wise. And certainly there's, like, all of this influence, you know, and money and lobbying and all the rest that sort of you know, keeps those voices out of, out of the rooms where big decisions are made. But I just think that, yeah, I mean, people, you know, the military has, has played a very canny game to establish and hold on to power.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah, I want to pick up on that because some of the most interesting parts of the history that you tell to me were these points at which, take West Point, for example, that they faced a real crisis of legitimacy, and it seemed like it could have gone the way of abolition or, or at least deep, deep reforms.

But that institution, it seemed, had this way of coming out of each crisis more s-solidified and, and so, so take the, the Oscar Booz investigation, for example, when, you know, allegations of, of abuse or, I guess, factual documented instances of abuse, hazing, you know, reaches the public and there's an outcry. And then it seems like at cer-certain points, the, the answer to, say, the criticism of elitism is to now establish ROTC programs all across the country, which actually now spreads the influence of... And, and it just was this amazing kind of seemed this, this way to just pivot and then actually come out of each crisis stronger.

Is that a fair, you know, theme throughout? And, you know, you start, I guess, the book with a school closing. So, I'm curious where you see the current state of military, these military education institutions. And I guess we can use that to kind of pivot to the, the current moment and, and whether it's in crisis or not. Yeah, how do you, how do you see the sort of the health of the state of, of these institutions today?

Jasper Craven: Yeah, I mean, another big question I had when considering whether a book made sense is like, is this a relevant, influential network, or is it sort of on the way out? I mean, 'cause I think, you know, when most people think of military school, they either think of West Point or any of the other congressionally chartered service academies like Annapolis for the Navy or the U.S. Air Force Academy. Those places will always exist. You know, they are federally funded. They don't have to worry about tuition, and they maintain a certain pedigree that attracts a lot of really smart people, and also, you know, often really smart people who can't afford traditional elite liberal arts schools and are won over by the, the free admission.

But, but sort of other military schools, like, the idea of them feels very, like, specifically confined to maybe, like, the 1950s, '60s, '70s. There was sort of this moment where in the sort of lead up to the counterculture and the anti-war movement, you know, the baby boomers were sort of deemed insufficiently disciplined and sort of troublesome and not worth some parents' time and energy. And so often if they had, you know, academic problems, behavioral issues, got caught up in the juvenile justice system, they would sort of be sent to military school as this easy way to sort of, like, reform a boy and whip him into shape. But the fact of the matter is, is that this system beyond the well-funded service academies remains very strong.

And over the course of reporting my book, it became very clear that these schools really suffer when the Pentagon's image is beleaguered, when the Pentagon's wars are unpopular. So, like, you see many schools shut down during Vietnam, for instance.

But then, you know, there sort of seems to, seem to be these inevitable spikes when a new conflict is launched. So, in the early days after 9/11, a number of schools opened their doors. Many of them are sort of in what was then a sort of novel charter mold. A lot of impoverished school districts in places like Cleveland and Chicago opened military high schools. And so my hunch is that the system sort of waxes and wanes some, but whenever we are engaged in serious conflict, you get a sort of increased interest in these places, and also just the, the Pentagon lurches into high gear and makes sure that these schools have the support they need.

I mean, Valley Forge has may- is maybe one of the most troubled military schools left, and it's a, it's like a middle school academy and junior college. They announced plans after years of declining enrollment, pending lawsuits alleging horrible abuse, financial, alleged financial mismanagement. They announced last year that the academy was shutting down, but they're also moving in all of these ways to survive and maybe reestablish the academy. The junior college remains open. They have a satellite campus in Qatar. They've been demonstrating their fealty to the Trump administration by signing the, his Compact for Higher Education to sort of, like, devise new conservative curriculum. That was followed shortly by a one million dollar grant to the academy.

So, I mean, you know, the fact of the matter is, is that most of these places are run by current or retired military brass who are very well connected, and, you know, the Pentagon has a lot of money to throw around. And so I just don't see this, this system ever becoming irrelevant.

And, you know, this is all without mentioning ROTC and JROTC, which I also- you know, remains a very strong, under-recognized presence. I mean, there's 5,200 JROTC and ROTC programs in public American high schools and colleges. So, I just can't see any other force beyond the Pentagon that, that wields more power over sort of educating, historically, American boys. I just, there's, there's nothing, there's nothing out there as powerful really.

Tyler McBrien: Speaking of the Pentagon, I wanna talk a bit about Peter Brian Hegseth, the Secretary of War. One of my favorite pieces that you've written actually was a, a profile of, of Hegseth, and I learned a lot about his past, and that was very much top of mind as I was reading your book. This sort of, this tension between these two archetypes of members of the military, and on the one hand you have the, the Pete Hegseth lethal war fighter, law of war be damned, you know, we have to just get it done for- you know, for, for flag and country, et cetera, versus what I, I will admit, you know, I had this sort of this myth of the, the West Point philosopher, warrior, you know, reluctant soldier scholar kind of type in, in a Petraeus or like, I don't- even like a Frederick the Great mold, you know, reading their Clausewitz and knowing the, the terms of engagement.

And, you know, like anything, it's, there's, it's somewhere in between these two poles. But I, I wonder what you make of these, these two archetypes and, and you know, I think it really gets at like the American public seems to be very split on like what they want their, their veterans to be like or their military members to be like. There's probably a question in there somewhere, but I'm just curious what you make of, of those two molds, whether that's even the correct like binary to think about.

Jasper Craven: Yeah. I, I mean, I think that you make a really good point about sort of the complicated sort of expectations that, that we as a society have for veterans.

It's, it's being sort of explored in a really interesting way through the campaign of Graham Platner. You know, I mean, typically like a service candidate a political, aspiring political figure with a military record, is someone who is exceptionally clean, straight-laced, really sort of embodies this old school soldier scholar archetype. Often he is an officer who can sort of draw from the great scholars, who has a patina of, of intellectualism.

And, you know, at the same time, those sorts of figures tend to be kept away from sort of the worst of war, you know. And, and this in turn leads many of them to falsify or exaggerate the intensity of their military records. You know, they, I- th- they feel some expectation, whether it's true or not, that the public does want both someone who's sort of clean and poised and polished, but also someone who's, like, seen some crazy stuff, and, like, got his hands dirty and, you know, maybe even killed a guy or two. So, you know, we see this, like, huge spike, especially today, in stolen valor. Politicians, you know, falsifying their, their military records.

Then comes along someone like Graham Platner, who wishes, frankly, that he had, you know, experienced less combat. Was just, was just so deeply damaged by his four combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, you know, that intense experience damaged him deeply, and damages a lot of people who go through similar experiences.

And so the question with his campaign is, like, will voters be willing to provide some grace to someone like him who's actually really been through heavy, heavy combat and been deeply damaged by it? Or will they sort of refuse to look the darkness of military service in the face?

And then sort of like to, to expand on that a bit in terms of this really helpful duality, I think, that you lay out. I mean, West Point, yes, West Point largely serves as a place to keep this myth alive of the soldier scholar, to derive an “art of war,” to again sort of elevate and abstract what is actually going on here. And, you know, Petraeus is a good example of that. But even so, like, I think the, the generations of officers since Vietnam have lacked something core to what a good general, a good soldier scholar has, which is humility and an ability to take accountability. You know, like the, the sort of legendary generals of yore were not perfect people, but someone like Douglas MacArthur had a certain amount of humility. Someone like Eisenhower was willing to publicly grapple with just the, the terrible bloodshed and loss that, that World War II yielded.

And then, you know, comes along someone like Hegseth who is so hardened and reflexively violent and believes that that, you know, is what is required in this day and age. I mean, his whole theory of the case, his revisionist explanation for why his wars were lost is just that there simply wasn't enough bloodshed, there wasn't enough power, there wasn't enough domination. And so he is, through his stewardship of DoD, processing his own hang-ups and issues with the war in a way that elides any personal accounta- accountability and just sort of points the finger at people of color and women who, who during the War on Terror were for the first time really able to finally sort of secure upper echelon positions in the Pentagon and also, you know, for women in particular to, to get close to battle and engage in fighting.

Tyler McBrien: Whereas Hegseth, you know, and to, to bring it back to the profile that I read that, that you wrote, would often be decorated or promoted when Hegseth was not. And, you know, drawing the ire of, of his, I guess stoking his yeah, his, his sexism which, which I think is now being borne out today.

Jasper Craven: Yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah, so I mean, Hegseth, Hegseth had a very blinkered idea of what military life would bring him. I mean, it was, as best I can tell, I mean, maybe there was some nugget of, like, service, true, genuine service that, that flecked his motivations. But he, I think, you know, wanted to be in the military because he wanted the power and prestige that was conferred by it. And he was at Princeton during 9/11, and I think, you know, despite the ghosts of Vietnam, I think he felt genuinely like, "Okay, I'm actually gonna be participating in a war that is universally popular, that will be one day compared to World War II." Like, I think he really set a high expectation for what his participation in this conflict would yield him, both reputationally in the sort of power and public life that he could establish.

But, like, it just did not happen. The war went south, the public soured, and Hegseth, due to largely, you know, his own trauma from his, his combat couldn't ever sort of, until he sort of fell into the position of defense secretary, couldn't really cobble something together from his military service. I love to mention the fact that he came back from the Middle East, tried to put together a Senate challenge to Amy Klobuchar, who, like, is by no means a political genius or the most charismatic person in the Senate, and just, like, could not muster a, a real challenge to her, a serious challenge to her.

So, like, he's just so shot through with, with resentment and anger about, like, the, the sort of broken promises, I think, as he sees it, of, of his military service, and, and is now kind of on this revenge tour. 

Tyler McBrien: I mean, yeah, just going back to the duality that we're, we're setting up here, it also maps really well onto the, the partisan divide. You've also written really well about how it's really conservatives and Republicans who have put the biggest stamp on, on the military and been able to mold it more so than Democrats, and there's, of course, a, a stereotype that Democrats are, are doves and, and Republicans are hawks, and Republicans are tougher, and then you have, like, Democrats overcorrecting to try to buck that stereotype.

But I'm curious where you see it now, because it seems like there has been a bit of an, an inversion where someone like a General Milley becomes a a Democratic hero, a capital D-Democrat, because of his apparent restraint and, and being a bulwark against Trump running roughshod over our institutions.

Do- is that a, a fair assessment to say that this, it has sort of complicated the picture as the Trump administration has come in? Or is this just a, just an affirmation of this, the thesis that is, is running through the book, that, that this, this, like, philosopher soldier type is, is a bit of a myth and, and there's always just this lethal undercurrent, this hard Spartan atmosphere in the military?

Jasper Craven: Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, I do think that there remain a lot of people in the military, including in senior positions, who have real integrity. I mean, on paper, like, the principles of the U.S. military are really important, really valuable, really necessary to produce integrity and responsibility and, and, and there are men like Milley who purely embody those beliefs.

John Kelly and Mattis also took a, a strong stand against the president. I mean, these people don't have perfect records by any means. But they were willing, again, to sort of like, I mean, you know, they, they also were willing to break from another toxic trend in, in, in the Pentagon, which is just, like, shameless careerism and, and a sort of, you know, unyielding thirst for brass. And, you know, many of the people who wind up at the Joint Chiefs level or whatever have had to really compromise their beliefs and silence their doubts and become yes-men by and large to sort of get there, and they lose a level of independence through that, that ladder climbing. But there remain men who, who don't, and, and these are good examples.

I mean, it's worth noting that Mark Milley, for one, was not inculcated in a isolated insular environment like West Point but rather was educated, like Hegseth actually, at Princeton ROTC. So obviously it's not a perfect program.

But in general, I've found that ROTC officers are far more questioning and independent-minded than service academy guys. I mean, that's kind of a stereotype that, that runs through the, the military, and that's because largely they're exposed not only to like specific military education, but also are sort of in a liberal arts environment. They can become more enlightened in sort of more holistic ways, and they're also engaging with civilians, which is really important to their development.

But yes, I think still the tendency for Democrats, partly because I think there remain these weird psychic hang-ups where they feel emasculated still by being derided as like insufficiently strong and supportive of the troops in the early years of the War on Terror, are not really willing to rock the boat. They see, you know, deep political consequences for challenging the military. They haven't even really engaged in the sort of process of becoming familiar with this culture, becoming well-schooled, and, and thereby learning how to articulate a, a, an argument that isn't offensive or sort of ignorant. And they haven't really offered any sort of systemic reforms for the system.

I mean, there was this brief moment during Biden's term right after January 6th, which was largely carried out by military veterans to like better screen the Pentagon for extremism to sort of, you know, rid the military of white supremacist ideologies, which has been festering in dark corners for a long time. But under, you know, Republican pressure, Lloyd Austin, the former defense secretary, and the Biden administration completely folded and did not properly pursue those reforms.

Now, of course, Hegseth is like running roughshod over all of the sort of Pentagon programs meant to rein in civilian casualties, or promote people of color, or address military sexual trauma. He's corrupting the place in really profound ways. He's engaging in war crimes.

And so, I mean, I've asked people like Chris Van Hollen, the, the senator from Maryland, and Jason Crow, who's a former army ranger in the House, like what, what they plan to do when and if they regain power. And there is some, there is some, like, thoughtful reflection on the fact that the Pentagon really does need to be reined in and reformed and fixed from Hegseth. I, I have yet to see, like, a comprehensive plan or sort of anything too aggressive in terms of, like, securing accountability. You know, certainly no one's raised the idea of, like, prosecuting Hegseth under the UCMJ for, for war crimes or anything like that, but maybe that will happen. I do think some, some drastic measures need to be taken.

Tyler McBrien: And to that point, I mean, I kinda wanna wind down by circling back to what we spoke about in the beginning about the peace movement and, and these... It seemed like in, in your book, the road would often fork, and there was this alternate path possible not only for the military but for our conceptions of masculinity, and it, what I also really enjoyed about the book is this, this constant reminder that there is another way. You know, this is not the inherent and exclusive nature of masculinity to be this lethal and, and you know, unbending.

Can you talk a bit about why you wanted to include peace movements at different times and, and these alternative paths? And to your last answer, is an alternative path, is reform even still possible, you know? Or did we foreclose that, that opportunity decades ago?

Jasper Craven: Yeah. Well, I think people forget that there is a noble history, a long and noble history of everyday people fighting back against efforts to militarize education, to militarize society.

You know, often these movements are really complicated or undermined when America is in active conflict. There's sort of like any, any time, you know, the country needs a pipeline of young GIs, any sort of concerns are overridden by these like, you know, national security warnings.

But yeah, there was, there was sort of a brief moment both in the sort of lead-up to the First World War and then between the First and Second World Wars, where a diverse coalition of religious leaders, educators, socialists, suffragettes, intellectuals banded together to, to sort of create, push forward a sort of alternative curriculum in public schools that would expressly advocate peace and sort of capitalize on this really beautiful, youthful, unbound imagination that schoolchildren have, you know? I mean, I feel like so many of the problems today can be nebulously tied back just to sort of like the, the sort of depressing expectations of reality that, that young children receive. You know, their dreams and aspirations are often foreclosed upon quite early.

And I think that, yeah, I think that it's possible to actually, through education and, and through sort of, you know, key shifts in how we view what is noble and evil, what is good and bad, what is manly and cowardly, we can, we can sort of manifest a, a world that is not defined by militarism. I mean, I know this sounds like, you know, very like sort of peace and love and Woodstock vibes or whatever, but I think that's possible, and there are, you know, practical ways to do that, to get to that place. 'Cause men, at the end of the day, they, they have a dearth of options. Really, if they are, like, you know, a valedictorian at their high school, inevitably they will be contacted by a West Point grad and, and lobbied to go there.

On the complete other end of that spectrum, if they're, like, profoundly disillusioned, if they have a bad family life, if they're economically unstable, they will also be given the military most likely as, as a prescription. And so, we just need to reckon with the fact that boys have not been given enough opportunities, which I know sounds crazy considering, like, the long history of patriarchy and all of the rest. But as has been pointed out many times, like, boys are slipping on sort of key metrics. They are falling into dark ideologies. I think that, like, the work of Richard Reeves to sort of prescribe, you know, nursing and teaching as sort of, like, these newly noble pursuits the more men should get into is great.

I also think that there are ways to, you know, channel some of the more, like, chaotic, reckless, aggressive energy that some boys have into more sort of positive acts of, you know, civil disobedience and, and there are like, there are pure missions, there are noble missions that can fortify the soul that also, you know, include danger potentially, and I think, I think we should be advocating for that.

I mean, the book ends with a a story of conscientious objectors and the work that they did in World War II rather than fight, including, you know, undergo really risky health experiments. Many infiltrated mental health hospitals and exposed egregious abuse there that then led to major reforms. Conscientious objectors during World War II wanted very badly to go over and deliver aid on the battlefield, but were denied from doing so. My hunch is that part of that had to do with the, you know, panicky war planners worried that if these pacifists were, were seen sort of engaging in this risky sort of heroic behavior, it would offer- it would sort of illuminate to other men that, you know, there were other ways to scratch these itches.

So I think that, I think that man is salvageable. The American man is salvageable. I think that the military educational system may not be, but ROTC, as I've said, is, is perhaps a good place to, to sort of rethink how this system might work in a, in a sort of diminished capacity

Tyler McBrien: Well, a hopeful note seems like a good one to end on. There's hope for man yet. Even though there's so much we didn't have time to talk about, I mean, the Boy Scouts, for one, was such a fascinating early chapter, The Eggnog Riot. There's just so much in the book. So listeners, please, please go buy it, go read it.

But before I let you go, I'm just curious, what's next for you? I think another thing I've been watching from afar and enjoying is, is how you've rolled out the book in a way. As you've sort of, like, been having fun with it. You procured a West Point uniform, I saw at some point. So yeah, what's, what's next for you?

Jasper Craven: Yeah, well, I am trying, I think, I'm gonna spend a few more weeks kind of like pumping out some social media content and other stuff that, that tries to sort of puncture the sort of self-serious military culture. I just think that, like, it, it, it would be helpful to sort of point out some of the ridiculousness and humor and irony that, that pervades these places.

I'm really, I'm trying to put together a story about male anger, because, I mean, that was a huge sort of theme throughout writing this book, and I think it's a defining sort of issue among American boys and men today.

There's a really interesting pioneering program that exists in Vermont, where I'm from, in which men who have been convicted of domestic violence are basically put into these really intense inpatient mental health and sort of like work therapy group programs with each other. It's a pretty small program in Vermont, but it's been highly effective and, like, I've been speaking to a lot of the men who've been through it, who have become just like incredibly remorseful, but also like vulnerable, and have been able to sort of like trace the roots of their anger in really profound ways.

And it's, it's all been very moving talking to these men. And, you know, I mean, again, sort of going back to Graham Platner, I think there's a really, there's really interesting questions with him and with, with many men, like around the possibilities of redemption, the limits of redemption, what that looks like, how you can change. I'm hoping to sort of explore those ideas in various ways.

Tyler McBrien: Well, I'll definitely keep an eye out. The book is called “God Forgives, Brothers Don't: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood.” Jasper Craven, thanks so much for joining me.

Jasper Craven: Thanks a lot, Tyler.

[Outro]

Tyler McBrien: The Lawfare Podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. If you want to support the show and listen ad-free, you can become a Lawfare material supporter at lawfaremedia.org/support. Supporters also get access to special events and other bonus content we don't share anywhere else. If you enjoy the podcast, please rate and review us wherever you listen. It really does help.

And be sure to check out our other shows, including Rational Security, Allies, The Aftermath, and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. You can also find all of our written work at lawfaremedia.org. The podcast is edited by Jen Patja, with audio engineering by Hazel Hoffman of Goat Rodeo. Our theme music is from Alibi Music. As always, thanks for listening.