War, as has been said before, is hell. It is that realization that prevents most sane leaders from engaging in war activities unless they have been left no other option. But when war does become unavoidable, it is the duty of every leader to make sure that war is as short as possible, as precise as practical, and as forthright as it can be. The people in leadership positions must be made to realize that war is not an opportunity to reward their contributors with lucrative contracts, nor is war a game played on a playground. War is brutal. People die. Cities get destroyed. Nations get ravaged.
American’s understand that the use of military power is an awesome choice to make. As such, the public hesitates to get behind any military action that is not necessary for the defense of the homeland. Unfortunately, the politicians recognize this reluctance all too well, and, along with their corporate conglomerate contributors, connect all military actions to our own national security and paint a picture of imminent doom without the use of force. Sadly, most of the time, these representations are not accurate. Occasionally, these representations are downright dishonest.
American’s can discern the difference between a war for security, a war for freedom, and a war for profit. We will all fight to protect ourselves. Many will fight for the freedom of others. Few will fight merely for profit. History will show us that the wars America has fought to preserve her own freedom have been more successful than the wars that we’ve fought to supposedly assist others in gaining theirs. World War II, and to a lesser degree, World War I were successful for the U.S. because American’s understood that their very way of life was in danger if they failed to act. America was in full support of those efforts, and the policies of the government and the actions of the people expressed that support. Korea, Vietnam, and many of the other skirmishes from the 60’s to the 90’s were unsuccessful (or at best, less successful) because the American public was not in direct danger, the administrations of the time could not realistically defend their positions to the public, and the public did not rally around their stated cause.
There is little dispute that the United States has the most comprehensive and powerful military in the world. We have the capability to deploy our forces anywhere in the world pretty quickly and we have the might to destroy almost any enemy on the battlefield. We also have an arsenal that guarantees destruction to any organized country that would try to attack us. Our technology is incredibly sophisticated, so much so that other nations are clamoring to get some of it for themselves. And our troops are educated both in running that technology effectively and winning military victories. In short, we carry a very big stick and everybody knows it.
Because we carry such a big stick, we rely on the benefits of that power to further our national security policies. American military policy is an offensive policy, and has been since the end of World War II. In recognizing that our security at home depended on a stable geopolitical atmosphere, the United States placed our military forces in strategic locations across the globe to rebuff any nation from becoming too aggressive and developed terrible weapons to ensure devastation to anyone who would consider attacking the homeland. That America has gone 60 years without being attacked by a foreign aggressor nation is a testament to that policy, and if it had stopped there, we might have been okay. Instead, through the years, successive administrations of both political parties have squandered the reputation of the Benevolent American Military and have given it the reputation of Imperialist American Military. Rather than just sticking to the mission of promoting peace through strength and preventing discord through presence, our leaders also embarked on a course of active intervention to achieve their goals.
The decision of when to use military force can be a complicated issue. Without question, any attack on our homeland can be retaliated against with our military. In this one instance, the choice is pretty clear. We get attacked, we find who attacked us and we attack them back. This is a basic “law of the jungle” situation that is pretty much accepted by most people. The goal of this kind of action may be simple retaliation, or it may go much deeper to include the destruction of an aggressive government to prevent future attacks. Once we move beyond this kind of situation though, the use of the military to achieve foreign relations or national security objectives becomes a bit trickier. Do we attack a country because we just don’t like their government? Do we attack a country because we want easier access to their resources? Do we attack a country in order to establish a democracy for their people? Who we attack, when we attack, and how we attack are vital questions for any military action. Perhaps most vital though, is why we attack.
The U.S. military machine is a formidable part of our national security apparatus. However, it is imperative that we adhere to some set of standard operating procedure whenever we call out the fighting forces. Because we carry the biggest stick, we are always going to be scrutinized and judged when we wield our might. Different people, depending upon which side of the stick the see, will interpret our conduct on the battlefield in different ways, and for that reason, we must be extra cautious in our objectives and our planning. We must have clearly defined reasons for using our power, we must have clearly defined goals for our forces, and we must have clearly established plans for ending any conflict. We must be prepared to be decisive and use all of our means to achieve a quick, clear victory to reduce the costs (both human and financial) of war, and we must attempt to avoid the devastation of civilian infrastructure to reduce the costs of reconstruction. Without these elements, any military action taken by the U.S. will always create argument in the world body and at home.
Our government must also learn to recognize the difference between fighting a war for our own protection and fighting a war on behalf of others. Fighting to support the freedom of others requires a different mindset than fighting a war of self-preservation. I’m not talking so much about the mechanics of the war, but rather the attitudes of the warriors. If we send our military to support a popular uprising against a brutal government, or even if we initiate the uprising for some reason, we must recognize our place as secondary in the conflict, and not demand to drive the battles towards our own goals. We must recognize that other cultures may strive to get out from under the thumbs of despots, but need only our military might to support them. If we decide to help them, we should be upfront regarding what we expect in return for our assistance, namely the establishment of a more secure and democratic government. But we must also remember that any resolution resulting in a freer society leaves us victorious and safer anyhow. Sometimes, it is enough to just be the tool of freedom that another wields, for in the end, we gain an ally and lose a foe in one fell swoop.
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 3rd, 2005 at 7:03 am and is filed under Democracy, Foreign Relations, Government, Military, national security, Politics, War.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 3rd, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Another thought provoking post, Ken. I wonder how many folks will actually plow through the meat of your arguments. Here’s my two cents:
Unfortunately, truth is a slave to perception: http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/02/truth.html#comments
What happens to be accepted rationale for engaging in violent conflict on one side looks a lot like genocide on the other.
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/02/genocide-pleasant-topic-for-weekend.html#comments
The sad state of it is that many innocent people get killed for the actions we implicitly support with our tax dollars. Moreover, it depends upon which end of the bomb you reside:
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/03/one-iraqi-viewpoint.html#comments
You bring up a good point. Remember the long lines to join up and support Uncle Sam in WWII? Women taking on industrial roles in the factories?
If the current war actions are so valid and justified, I wonder why there hasn’t there been a simliar run to the recruiting office. Is it, perhaps,that our aims are less than honest and true?
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/03/its-getting-drafty.html#comments
Blog on my friend
March 4th, 2005 at 3:17 am
It is a fine line between a just and unjust military action. I would support us “liberating” people if there we some sense to it. People are currently dying by scores in Africa, but we decided to liberate people who were better off than many others. Saddam was a bad guy, but we used things he did in the 80’s and 90’s as our reasoning for regime change.
I am essentially a pacifist who believes that occasionally you have to blow stuff up to keep the peace.
Good post. You pretty much summed it all up.
March 4th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Where has the UN been all this time? How many genocides have taken place since the UN was created for the purpose of preventing them?
How many Trillions of tax dollars have gone to the UN and what have they done that justifies our continued support?
The Oil for Food scandal is just one example of the idiocy created by appeasers who’s desire it is to talk everything to death while the world burns.
The actions taken by U.S. military have done more to spread freedom than any other nation on earth.
If it were not for our involvment in WWII and most other wars and conflicts, how many more millions of lives would have been lost to date? America doens’t start a war unless there is no other way to fix what’s wrong. And yes there IS a difference between right and wrong, up and down, good and evil! Debating shades of gray is a waste of time.
We do what needs doing when we can. Nobody else does it because all others want to do is sit on their hands babbling about crap they know nothing about. Yak, Yak, Yak, but don’t upset the applecart.
This is the insanity of liberalism!
March 4th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
i only have one thing to say. We need to remember that in the end the people we are hurting is our own brothers and sisters…
March 5th, 2005 at 2:15 am
I wonder sometimes if the US really does have the baddest military force on the planet. Neither they nor the Soviets could take Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Iraq. And that’s after Iraq was weakened after years of sanctions. Or [erhaps the neocons’ goal is not to win wars, but to prolong them, because the military industrial complex is their bread and butter.
March 5th, 2005 at 3:58 am
Great blog!
I found you on blog expolision….
Begalke
March 5th, 2005 at 6:40 am
(various responses)
Windspike- I’ve read your posts and they provide good thought fodder. We must continue to ask these questions of ourselves and of others.
Truth and perception may not be as inseparable as we would like. What is perceived is often more powerful than any truth which is why we must be more honest in what we do so that the perception and the truth are more in synch.
Scott-Thanks for dropping by. I agree that our selection process may be somewhat askew. If bringing democracy is our goal or fighting despotism is our goal, where do we start? Saddam was a bad guy and his country was an easy military target and many Iraqi’s support his demise…but they still should have gotten a better planned salvation.
Ottman- Agreed that the UN is a failing bureaucracy, but the premises that it was built upon are still valid. If not for the corruption seemingly inherent in politicians of all countries, there could have been a better chance for success. But just because the cake went flat doesn’t mean you toss out the recipe. You just have to try and make another cake…
Sure, the US has made the world a better place for many millions…but we have also advanced policies that held many millions down. The dichotomy is perplexing to our allies and is fodder for our enemies.
As for us not starting a war except when no other choice is left, that is not always the case. How many times have we interjected military solutions onto other nations instead of trying to use our formidable power to create a negotiated settlement that makes sense for the people in conflict instead of one that suits only us? We’ve elevated many a battle that might not have been. And our blind policies have sometimes created the very enemies we hope to vanquish…
Diplomacy is not a crutch for the “liberal” any more than Agression is the tool of the “conservative.” These labels mean nothing.
Levya- And that is the reason why war should be avoided. But if we must stand and fight, we should go forth with gusto, to minimize needless fatalities created by lengthy wars. Thanks for making a note.
SheaNC- I don’t think our lack of success in those areas are due to our force capability as much as to the politicians driving the show. It is indecisive or incompetance that makes war draw on too long. Our mechanics are top notch, as is shown when used with determination. They aren’t perfect at all, but they are the best on earth.
Begalke- Stop by again sometime.
March 5th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Great post but I would like to remind everyone that we did not jump whole heartedly in WWI and WWII, we went kicking and screaming because back then we were an isolationist society. It was only with the great insight of our leaders that we entered these wars. Most of the public did not understand these wars at the beginning. Look it up, you’ll be surprised to see that they had war protestors back then, lots of them. It’s only through history that we have come to understand that these wars were necessary.
I am not a fan of this war but I have to ask the question, “Will history prove the protestors wrong?”
There is a lot of information not released to the public and the world is so complex that it is very difficult to understand or see “the whole picture”. That’s what our leaders are paid to do.
We might digest a ton of information and think we have an understanding of what’s going on but if one little piece of info is missing, that alone, could change your opinion.
For example, I often wonder why Russia did not retaliate militarily after their “9/11”. I thought for sure you were going to see scenes of takes rolling through cities but it didn’t happen, why? They must know something I don’t that’s why.
Again, I’m not always for this war but sometimes you have to wonder if history would prove me wrong?
Ken, thanks for making me think today. I thought it wasn’t going to happen, it being Saturday and all, but it did and it feels good. I’m going back into my weekend coma now!
March 6th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
(response to Bastard)
Glad I could churn to brain cells for you. It’s what I aim for.
You are right, of course, about our isolationism policies of the past. My point was with regards to the public coming on board in the face of an actual threat to democracy, wher they are much less liekly to do so for the threat to others.
As for the informatin angle, my lastest post talks about that very thing.
March 10th, 2005 at 5:28 am
Interesting series of posts on our responsibilities as the leader of the free world – and thoughtful comments. I agree with your assertion that military action must be taken advisedly. But in fairness to the thousands of personnel who serve in the armed forces, I think that it should be stated that a lot of what they do is not in the furtherance of war, but peace.
This is not just an issue of semantics. I’m not referring to the terminology bandied about that our army is a “peacekeeping” force. That is perceived by most people simply to mean that keeping the peace sometimes requires fighting a war. I am talking about the incredible and varied things that are done by our armed forces in a forward area.
When we send “troops” in, they are hardly a homogeneous group. Their respective missions are not limited to hostile engagement or even “keeping the peace” in a military sense. We send psychological specialists, construction crews, administrative support personnel, medical staff, advisors (not just military analysts), engineers – the list goes on.
In the vein of your comment that the public is often poorly informed, I think it’s important to remember that many of the people that we send into a region truly are there to support and rebuild. Many of them are reservists who offer their civilian expertise to the military in the cause of aid to affected regions.
This is not to contradict any of your message – only to say that we do a disservice to the men and women who serve in our armed forces when we overlook their commitment to all aspects of peacekeeping in the world (and their willingness to interrupt their lives in the effort).
Iraq is not the only place in the world where armed services personnel are stationed and not the only location where reservists and national guardsmen are deployed. And what we are doing in Iraq is scarcely adequately described as a hostile engagement. Even the “peacekeeping” forces actually do spend most of their time safeguarding the area, not wreaking havoc upon it (i.e. keeping the peace). Those who are there in other capacities also make a commitment, endure hardship, and brave similar risks to do their jobs.
All of the people who serve in our armed forces have one ultimate mission – to build peace from the ruins of war. They are our most visible ambassadors. We should remember all that they do for us and the world.
March 10th, 2005 at 7:25 am
(response to diogenes)
Thanks for bringing up an important aspect of military activities. Of course everything you mention regarding the other tasks undertaken by our military personnel are on target, and it should never go unmentioned.
But the point that I am trying to make in this series of posts is that we should be doing those kinds of things and providing that expertise long before war becomes the only option. If we expended as much energy on fostering and assisting nations towards free societies as we do on subterfuge and less than honest “alliances” perhaps our need to wield our big stick would become less necessary. That would allow these same people to use their expertise and humanitarian leanings without fearing for their lives.
Thanks for dropping by again.
March 10th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Ken, I must apologize for running afoul of my own point. My only excuse is fatigue :-). What I meant to say (and did badly) is that we do humanitarian work now and that yes, ideally it would be all that we do. I was trying to agree with your point that war is not the only option and to highlight that our armed forces are not only prepared to do more than fight, they actively engage in those efforts now. Our military is much more than a warmongering machine and those humanitarian efforts benefit from the incredible dedication of many people.
I assume that we agree that war is sometimes necessary but it would be nice to know that we were hearing the truth instead of propaganda about that. Frankly, if the mission in Iraq had been described as a humanitarian effort to oust a despicable tyrant and nothing more, I would still have supported it. It is in fact all I ever saw it as (I tend to take any assertions as to imminent threat as so much bilge water anyway). Great posts, btw.
March 13th, 2005 at 5:17 am
(response)
diogenes- I knew where you were going with your comment and don’t think that you ran afoul- pointing out the positive aspects of our military should be done more and more loudly so that people understand that in the wake of destruction, we often try to put things back in place…we don’t always succeed, but we try.
As for Iraq- I am of the same mind as you with regards to approving of our actions in theory- we still should have done a better planning job and made an effort to decrease the length of hostilities. But the Iraqi people’s willingness to embrace political reform and to finally begin to stand up to the insurgents in their midst shows that standing up to tyranny can have positive consequences…not perfect consequences, but positive nonetheless.