The Marines, Counterinsurgency, and Strategic Culture

42 Chapter 2
to win over indigenous populations by defaulting to material gifts: dispensing
goods and building up infrastructure. In this, anthropologists Edward
and Mildred Hall claim that American generosity is “matched by no other
country we know.” 30 As a result, America’s typically well- meaning citizens
become confused and disillusioned when these efforts do not produce the
strategic friendship sought and become deeply resentful if the “beneficiary”
population seems ungrateful. 31 Americans have a pronounced desire to be
liked and react strongly when they perceive they are “not wanted.” 32 When
indigenous populations demonstrate resentment toward American military
presence and actively call for troops to be drawn home, US citizens and service
members alike tend to sour on the worth of counterinsurgency efforts.
These sentiments are easily exploited by political opponents in America’s
home sphere, who tend to push for reduced troop levels, restrained financial
investment, and an early termination to the occupation. 33
American ahistoricism may be derived, in part, from the nation’s penchant
for valuing novelty over tradition and its dedication to forward thinking.
34 Visitors to the United States are often presented with “change” in local
environments as markers of positive progress. 35 Forward- leaning views that
celebrate change are undergirded by a belief in the steady march of progress,
that the natural state of things is advancement toward a better life for
an expanding percentage of people. 36 Observers of American culture across
the nation’s history have repeatedly noted the American zeal in problemsolving.
Humans, in the American mind, are meant to be active and enthusiastic
agents of change. Some years ago a Russian student in one of my
university classrooms stood to give a comparative presentation on Russian
and American culture. She started by saying, “Americans are not human
beings.” This captured immediate attention. “Americans,” she went on, “are
human do- ings. They don’t know how to be.” Chroniclers of American culture
across time agree. Americans are incessantly on the move. 37 “Doing is
the dominant form of activity for Americans,” and this American “bias for
action,” to borrow Marine parlance, means trial and error is acceptable as
a learning method, overreaction is more easily forgiven than inaction, and
heroes resemble the action- oriented, “rugged individualist” of the frontier
past. 38 Patience, restraint, and caution in the employment of kinetic effects
do not come naturally to Americans. Not only is deliberate action the preferred
state of activity—it is also the basis for identity. For Americans “one
is what one does.” 39 Because status is dispensed in American society on an
individual basis and according to an achievement- oriented measuring stick,
Americans are prone to make mistakes abroad when their achievement orientation
underrates the influence of nonproductive individuals who wield
significant influence in ascriptive, relationship- based societies. 40
The American penchant to do is harnessed to a nearly unsinkable optimism
that it can be done. Brogan tracks American optimism back to the