Friday, May 22, 2009

Why are we Always at War?

By Tom Kando

On May 21, President Obama and former Vice President Cheney had an exchange of speeches about our government’s approach to terrorism, including the use of torture. The two men’s positions are clear, and I don’t have to rehash them. I obviously agree with Obama. But this made me think of a more profound problem, namely that during most of my life, America has been in a near constant state of war.From 1940 to 2009, our country has been at war for 32 years, i.e. nearly half the time. This includes World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and the Iraq-Afghan War. Plus, we had the Cold War for nearly half a century.

This is tragic. I call America’s history prior to 1917 the “Age of Innocence.” Except for the Civil War and a few minor skirmishes, our country’s focus was to avoid war, to avoid entanglements in world affairs (E.g. the Monroe Doctrine), to concentrate single-mindedly on forging a fantastic new society that was materially and spiritually more advanced than anything the world had ever seen. This was the age of splendid isolationism. The age of American exceptionalism. And by and large, it was a magnificent success. Sure, there was slavery, there was Manifest Destiny, there was Indian genocide. But the beauty is precisely that these came to an end (at great sacrifice to the American people, I might add). All in all, the American Project was the most noble effort in the world.

In 1917, America joined World War One. From then onward, it increasingly became the World Power. According to America’s detractors, this was the country's gain (an empire, exploiting the rest of the world). According to me, it is a terrible loss.
After World War One, isolationism was still kicking - briefly. We didn’t join the League of Nations. There were still those who felt that it was to America’s advantage to avoid foreign entanglements as much as possible.

But the die was cast. By the end of World War Two, our country was hopelessly entangled in every problem on the planet. It had assumed the mantle of world leadership. It had become responsible for everything on earth - the good, the bad and the ugly. The nightmare had begun.

Today, we live in a constant state of war. The tragedy is not so much financial (only a small fraction of our resources go to war), but psychological. In fact, America should be far more laid back and unafraid than Europe and the rest of the world: (1) We are still by far the most powerful country and (2) we are still blessed by geography, with two oceans surrounding us. Even in the age of ICBMs, we are much less vulnerable to attack, invasion, bombing and terrorism than are other parts of the world. Yet, we are told from morning till evening to be afraid, to be very afraid. We must be afraid of Iran, of North Korea, of Al Qaeda, of the Taliban, of other terrorist groups, etc. etc.

It seems that we must be afraid of someone, at all times. First we had to beat down the fascist onslaught. Great. No question about it, it had to be done. Then we had to beat Communism. Another success story. Now we have Islamofascism and the clash of civilizations.

Don’t misunderstand me: I am not denying that there are bad guys out there. But do we always have to obsess about some external foe, who is supposedly out to get us? When I travel overseas, I don’t sense that people are obsessing from morning till evening about terrorism (or during the fifties through the eighties, about communism). People live their lives and hope for the best. People don’t fret every day about imminent attack.

Luckily, most Americans don’t either (I hope). But the likes of Dick Cheney, and a great portion of the media, keep telling us that we should - “be afraid, be very afraid.” Psychologically, we are in a permanent state of war. Isn’t this terrible? Can’t we chill out a little?

If I am wrong, at least I’ll have lived a happy life until the terrorists/communists/hordes/pirates (take your pick) get me.leave comment here

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tom,

Here is the way I see it:

It is "psychological" only from the standpoint that Washington promotes fear to keep its own power. By "Washington" I mean the Military-Industrial Complex.

a) The Civil War: Northern Industrialists could not stand an independent South where there would be no tariffs and Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans would replace Boston, New York and Washington as major ports.

b) The Spanish-American War was to obtain ports for our new Navy that could make the world safe for commerce.

c) World War I was entered at the request of banks that had a few billion in loans to Europe. In addition to getting the US to enter the war, they got the government to guarantee any loan failures "due to war" with tax dollars.

d) World War II was probably the most legitimate war: self-defense against aggression against the U.S.

e) Korean War: an extension of WWII, and justifiable against communist aggression. Handled well because of United Nations support.

f) Vietnam: Our entry was at the request of French Colonialism and gave our military a chance to experiment with new weapons. Highly dubious.

g) Gulf War I: Part of world force to push out aggressor. It was proper to liberate Kuwait and not pursue into Iraq.

h) 9/11 response into Afghanistan: Legitimate to pursue aggressor in lawless territory, but still a chance to try out new military hardware.

i) Gulf War II: Cheney's War to make Halliburton rich.

Gordon

Tom said...

Hello Gordon:

I am surprised by your perspective. I didn't think that you gave that much weight to the Military-Industrial Complex, and its conspiratorial machinations. That has been the (radical) Left's refrain (I know, Eisenhower coined the term, wherafter it was co-opted by the great sociologist C. Wright Mills and everyone else on the Left).

I thought that you had a more benign view of US wars and foreign policy.

Regarding our wars:
a) The Civil War: Surely it wasn't ALL about $$$$? Surely idealism, abolitionism and anti-slavery ALSO played a role, no? (Not to mention the preservation of the Union. Wasn't Lincoln one of our greatest Presidents?

b)Alright, I'll give you the Spanish-American war as a colonialist war (I already admitted Manifest Destinity in my post).

c) World War One: Again, maybe $$$ played a role, but altruism did, too. We came to the rescue of our best friends, the two greatest democracies in Europe - Britain and France.

d) World War Two: Yes

e) Korean War: Yes

f) Vietnam: Not that different from Korea. Except that we lost. But both were fought to contain Communism. Testing new weapons? Mmm...

g) Gulf War: Yes

h)Afghan War: testing weapons again? Mmm...

i)Iraq War: costly mistake (Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Principle" - you break it, you own it).

Tom

Anonymous said...

I agree with both of you in different areas. Gordon, yes I believe the military industrial complex as you call it does keep the american people in fear because its easy to manipulate people if they are scared. Easy to convince them its ok to go to war for example. I dont know too much about Americas wars, but I get the feeling in general that if a rich country has plenty to live on, has everything it needs, then it would tend to start wasting money on expensive weapons and space exploration, (a bit like a spoilt child needing expensive toys at christmas).

The trouble is that when those toys go out of fashion what should the child do with them?
He could give them to a poorer, younger child to play with? (That would be honorable if they werent so destructive) But what about the toys that were just that little bit too expensive to give away and could pose a threat in the wrong hands? Well, they could be dismantled and sold for scrap, or adapted to make newer, cleaner better weapons. "But do you know how much these things cost?"

I dont know exactly how much rich countries spend on defence, but I think it´s alot and I think the constant need to renew their arsenals stems from the fact that we have become unimaginative at spending.

The fact that we are a tribal race has, in the past meant that as a leader, the answer to the question, "what shall we do with all these taxes?" has been, "invent weapons and go to war to conquer larger lands for our people". Nowadays I think that has been replaced by an addiction to growth, capital growth, which although similar in a way, is destroying not only nations but the planet too.

So Tom I agree with you that we can and should relax a lot more as regards the external "enemy". If we can focus on the enemy within, i.e. the corporations which are destroying the planet. Then we can work towards becoming a global tribe. That is the future of spending so bring on the environmental policy.

Post a Comment

Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!