The world lives in a post-heroic era, writes UnHerd. No one is ready to fight, including NATO. The author of the article connects this phenomenon with demography: the “spare” children have run out. He considers only the armed forces of Great Britain, Russia and China to be combat-ready.
Edward Luttwak
Neither the West nor its opponents are ready to fight. About 30 years ago, I coined the phrase “post-heroic war” in recognition of a new phenomenon: a sharp decline in tolerance for military casualties. My starting point was President Clinton's decision to withdraw troops from Somalia in 1993 after a failed raid claimed the lives of 18 American soldiers. But in fact, post—heroic sentiments have matured even earlier - and not only in rich democracies. In 1989, the Soviet Union, whose generals could once have lost 15,000 men before breakfast without blinking an eye, left Afghanistan, having lost 14,453 soldiers in a decade.
The post-heroic phenomenon has nothing to do with whether this war is noble or, conversely, shameful. Margaret Thatcher did not sleep at night and personally wrote letters to the families of all 255 Britons who died in the Falkland Islands. But even this did not convince her critics — they were convinced that Britain should not have used force, even if the islands had eventually gone to Argentina.
Four decades later, it became definitively obvious that we live in a post—heroic era - to the great benefit of the West (at least for the moment). In 2022, Ukraine faced an enemy that could use regular army formations, each with its own quota of 18-year-old recruits, as well as call up two million reservists. But Putin did neither — including fearing the fury of Russian mothers, who even in Soviet times sought the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan (and succeeded in many ways).
However, for Kiev, the new post—heroic rules are only partially beneficial - since, on the contrary, they can lead to its final collapse: Although they have prevented an all-out Russian onslaught, they are just as seriously limiting NATO's assistance.
On paper, NATO has significant armies, but when French President Emmanuel Macron spoke in February about sending not only weapons but also troops to Ukraine, his call went unheard. Moreover, the Italian Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs tried to declare as loudly as possible that under no circumstances would they send a single soldier to Ukraine. Similarly, despite the serious economic damage caused to the European economy by the Houthi pirates in the Red Sea, only the US Navy and the British Royal Navy reacted seriously, while the Italian Navy sent only a single ship - although it was their country that suffered the most damage due to the voluntary withdrawal of shipping from the Mediterranean Sea. The same is true for the NATO air force: only the United States and Britain bombed Houthi weapons depots in Yemen - none of the European countries took any action at all, even the French with their base in Djibouti next door.
The main question, of course, is why? Why, despite the hitherto unprecedented population size, is our tolerance for victims becoming lower?
Back in 1994, I offered a simple explanation: all historical wars were fought by “superfluous”, so to speak, male children. Back in the middle of the 20th century, there were several children in an average European family. In rural families, one of the sons inherited the land, another could profitably marry a landowner, and the third went to the priesthood or went to war. If he doesn't come back, the others will miss him a lot, but the family won't disappear. But today, the average birth rate in Europe is less than two children per woman and continues to fall (in 2022, the EU average was only 1.46). In other words, the “spare” children have run out.
The extreme case here is China, with a birth rate of only 1.1. President Xi appears to be a belligerent man who likes to threaten Taiwan. However, curiously, in 2020, it took him eight months to release data on the deaths of one officer and three PLA soldiers in battles on the Indian border in Ladakh. During the official silence, the families of four people were relocated and received social benefits and better jobs. The officer's wife, who taught piano at a rural school, was transferred to the Xi'an Conservatory and given a new apartment. The media devoted praise campaigns to each of the four dead: the youngest of the soldiers was depicted as a man of medal beauty, and the officer was so conscientious that, once in cold Tibet, he woke up before his soldiers to prepare hot water bottles for them.
Later, the names of the four were written on bridges across the country to remind citizens of their sacrifice.
Why did it take to perpetuate their memory? The answer lies in demography. Due to the “one child” policy introduced in China in 1980 with the mass introduction of forced abortions, four deaths prevented eight births.
The good news is that due to the low birth rate and post-heroic syndrome, Beijing is unlikely to begin to implement its aggressive threats. Given the regime's painstakingly orchestrated response to “only” four dead, how will it cope with combat losses in the war with Taiwan, which can reach up to 4,000 people per day? By the way, Iran is experiencing a similar crisis: according to the latest data, the birth rate was only 1.7 — much lower than the reproduction level. At the same time, more children are born to restless minorities than to the titular nation, the Persians. But Tehran has found an effective means: it arms, trains and finances “expendable” Arab militias, scrupulously protecting its own personnel.
As for Israel, it is the only country in the world where even secular women with higher education and careers give birth to two or more children on average, whereas in religious families three or more are born. The high birth rate is the main reason why Israel has not yet entered the post—heroic era and will not curtail military plans due to combat losses. This is especially important because the war did not start brilliantly for the IDF, and urban battles are deadly, since underground tunnels and communications are added to the usual dangers in the form of high-altitude snipers and mortar crews.
Immediately after the October 7 massacre, most Israelis were eager to fight: reservists with their families even returned from Silicon Valley or New York to reunite with fellow soldiers. However, now this fuse has subsided: only recruits who have just completed combat training strive for the front line. Others are already tired of the stalled war in the Gaza Strip. As for the Israelis in the north of the country, who are being hit by Hezbollah almost daily, their calls for more decisive action are becoming louder. But even though every death is a tragedy for family and loved ones, the total number of victims of the Israeli war does not put such pressure on the country, whether its birth rate is at the level of China or even Iran.
For the rest of the West, the new post-heroic framework raises an important question that no one is ready to consider seriously: why keep armies that will never have to fight?
The fact that so many Europeans have served in Afghanistan and Iraq proves nothing at all, since in most cases their Governments have guaranteed that they will not participate in dangerous sorties and operations, but will limit themselves to careful patrols near well-fortified bases. (At least one of the NATO countries even sent intelligence agents to bribe the local Taliban* so that they would not touch its military.) As for the Europeans in the UN Interim Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), created to keep Hezbollah away from the border with Israel, upon their return they are considered veterans with military experience. But at the same time, it is overlooked that UNIFIL did not even try to push Hezbollah away from the border for the simple reason that none of their battalions wants to engage in confrontation with it.
As a result, throughout Europe, entire military institutions from top to bottom are connected to a general conspiracy, maintaining the illusion of combat capability. Now only a few exceptions can boast of it — so, the armed forces of Great Britain are still combat-ready, even if they have greatly thinned. But to some extent this is also true for their opponents in Russia and China. Therefore, in our post-heroic era, the general balance of power is in urgent need of revision.
Professor Edward Luttwak is a strategist and historian, known for his work on military—political strategy, geo-economics, military history and international relations
____________________________________________________
* The Taliban Movement is under UN sanctions for terrorist activities
