Wars R' Us

It seems to me there are two understandable reasons why we rushed into war to avenge the tragedy of 9/11. In military parlance it was "AOS", all options stink. In the natural public outcry over our massive wounding, it was also the desperate patriotic demand: SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!

This urgency led us to respond with the familiar and oldest reflex in the psyche of mankind. An Enemy from Out There approaches us in our cave, threatens us and finally attacks. What do we do? By primordial reflex, we can only strike back. It’s kill or be killed.

Furthermore, the reflex of resorting to war, the joining together to fight a common enemy is history’s oldest bonding mechanism. It has unified one tribe to fight another ever since we were still in the caves. The victors became nations and have governed since time immemorial by rallying their people again and again to fight the next war.

Now, by declaring war against the people of Afghanistan and named and unnamed terrorists and terrorist nations, we did indeed fire a resounding warning shot at the world. We put meaning into the banner on our old flag: Do Not Tread on Me.

All options stunk. Something had to be done. We did it.

But did we win? Have we won?

To Sir Michael Howard, Oxford and Yale professor of military history and strategist for the United Kingdom in the Cold War: "It is like trying to eradicate cancer cells with a blowtorch. Whatever its military justification, the bombing of Afghanistan, with the inevitable ‘collateral damage’ it causes, will gradually whittle away the immense moral ascendancy that we enjoyed as a result of the bombing of the World Trade Center. Every fresh picture on television of a hospital hit, or children crippled by land mines, or refugees driven from their homes by Western military action will strengthen the hatred of our adversaries, swell the ranks of the terrorists, and sow fresh doubts in the minds of our supporters.

"Could it have been avoided? Certainly, and rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed ‘a crusade against evil doers’---that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States---many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against a criminal conspiracy that should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world, that is no doubt what would have happened.

"But we do not live in an ideal world. The ‘war’ word has been used and cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible."

Howard’s conclusion: "Prolongation of the war is likely to be so disastrous. Even more disastrous would be its extension, as American opinion seems increasingly to demand, in a ‘Long March’ through other ‘rogue states’ beginning with Iraq, in order to eradicate terrorism for good, all so that the world can live at peace. I can think of no policy more likely not only to prolong the war indefinitely but to ensure that we can never win it."

Men like Sir Michael Howard are questioning and searching for a better way for all of us. The patriot has to mourn the centuries of wars our people have had to fight. Because, in some cases, history shows, those wars have proven unnecessary to the welfare of our nation. Was the genocide wreaked on the Seminole Indians a "war of national defense", as President Zachary Taylor called it at the time. Could a handful of aborigines have seriously threatened the Manifest Destiny of the United States?