Forty Years On: Master Narratives and US Military History

Abstract

In the last four decades many of the scholarly norms in American military history have changed beyond recognition. Much of this is due to the contributions of what was then termed the ‘new military history’ and is today referred to as ‘war and society’. Military history is the study of war and the institutions that wage it. Its traditional approach has been narrative and its focus on operations, political-military relations, technology, strategy, the armed forces, and leadership. The new military history/war and society, influenced by interdisciplinary theory, explored such diverse topics as race and gender, the social impact of war, the environment, and culture. Although some believed, and continue to maintain the fields constitute separate, even hostile sub-disciplines, the broad tent of the Society for Military History, the major professional organisation, reflects the consensus and cooperation among most practitioners. Within the community the labels have become largely self-identifiers, providing insight into areas of interest, methodology, and audience rather than the academic version of the Crips and Bloods. My own career reflects this, for in the process of detailing the history of the US Army I would end up writing two books that might be classified as traditional operational history, two that could be termed war and society, and a fifth that is a hybrid. Given my conviction that conflict between military history and war and society, if there ever was one, is moot, this essay will not be yet another attempt to parse out their commonalities and divergencies. Rather, my intention is to examine the evolution of three master narratives: the American Way of War, Huntington’s military professionalism, and counterinsurgency (COIN). They were chosen because each meets three criteria. The first is that they have continued to generate both academic and military interest. Second, all were appropriated, redefined, and politicised by American military intellectuals. Finally, and more idiosyncratic, I was introduced to these particular topics over forty years ago – almost concurrently