By Mark W. Danielson
I generally sidestep political topics, but the possibility of entering yet another Middle East war demands that I shed my cloak of silence. At a time when our nation’s economy is suffering enormous debt due to war, how can our presidential candidates ignore this subject?
There are a lot of definitions of war, but most agree it is a conflict between nations or between parties within a nation, prosecuted by force and having the purpose of compelling the defeated side to do the will of the victor. General Patton put it a little more bluntly. You don’t win wars by dying for your country – you win by making the other poor bastard die for his. In this sense, the last part of the previously mentioned definition must be emphasized. Nations go to war to win. If the intent is to influence and not win, then it will fail with horrible and lingering ramifications. Anyone who doubts this has not been following our war in the Middle East.
World War II was the last true war to be fought with US involvement. Our survival was depended on winning. During this conflict, every theater had clear boundaries for opposing sides. Military uniforms defined the enemy, and mass casualties were expected on both sides. The only acceptable surrender was unconditional, and when the enemy was defeated, new political structures were put in place to ensure peace. A few years later, the US became involved in the Korean conflict to prevent the spread of Communism. A decade later, we began sending advisors into Vietnam to prevent the Communists from taking over the region. The end result is Korea remains divided at the 38th parallel, and Vietnam now is united and a thriving trade partner. Communist China has blended Capitalism into its society and is now an economic superpower that heavily depends on trade with the United States. A lot has changed since 1945.
But in recent years, it’s the Middle East that has consumed our politics and stifled our economy. Where wars were common between Iran and Iraq, India and Pakistan, and Israel and various Arab nations, the United States has spearheaded military involvement in nearly every conflict in this part of the world. In doing so, the US is often viewed as the catalyst for war occupations, not unlike those seen in medieval times. Granted, the unprovoked attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon sparked a military response in Afghanistan, but I remain confused over our invasion of Iraq. Would we have gone in if we weren’t already there? The same can be said for our involvement in Libya and our potential for involvement in Syria. Clearly, none of these nations requested our forces, and our continued presence can only lead to further economic decline while elevating our status as the world’s most despised country.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I only know that the apathy in this country has exceeded my expectations. While we continue to see Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, no one seems to care that our soldiers are dying every day in the deserts of the Middle East. To think the US can win loyalty by occupying a foreign country is ludicrous. To think we can buy loyalty by sending billions of borrowed dollars is absolute lunacy.
I am sending this to my elected representatives because it is time we insist on bi-partisan discussions about withdrawing from unwinnable wars. It is time we start taking care of our own citizens and realize that other countries must fight their own battles. It is time our presidential candidates stopped ignoring our wars and start bringing our entire force home. Russia learned this lesson after nine years in Afghanistan. After our experience in Vietnam, we never should have gone in without the intent to demand complete and unconditional surrender. Without winning as its goal, no country has any business being involved in warfare.
I generally sidestep political topics, but the possibility of entering yet another Middle East war demands that I shed my cloak of silence. At a time when our nation’s economy is suffering enormous debt due to war, how can our presidential candidates ignore this subject?
There are a lot of definitions of war, but most agree it is a conflict between nations or between parties within a nation, prosecuted by force and having the purpose of compelling the defeated side to do the will of the victor. General Patton put it a little more bluntly. You don’t win wars by dying for your country – you win by making the other poor bastard die for his. In this sense, the last part of the previously mentioned definition must be emphasized. Nations go to war to win. If the intent is to influence and not win, then it will fail with horrible and lingering ramifications. Anyone who doubts this has not been following our war in the Middle East.
World War II was the last true war to be fought with US involvement. Our survival was depended on winning. During this conflict, every theater had clear boundaries for opposing sides. Military uniforms defined the enemy, and mass casualties were expected on both sides. The only acceptable surrender was unconditional, and when the enemy was defeated, new political structures were put in place to ensure peace. A few years later, the US became involved in the Korean conflict to prevent the spread of Communism. A decade later, we began sending advisors into Vietnam to prevent the Communists from taking over the region. The end result is Korea remains divided at the 38th parallel, and Vietnam now is united and a thriving trade partner. Communist China has blended Capitalism into its society and is now an economic superpower that heavily depends on trade with the United States. A lot has changed since 1945.
But in recent years, it’s the Middle East that has consumed our politics and stifled our economy. Where wars were common between Iran and Iraq, India and Pakistan, and Israel and various Arab nations, the United States has spearheaded military involvement in nearly every conflict in this part of the world. In doing so, the US is often viewed as the catalyst for war occupations, not unlike those seen in medieval times. Granted, the unprovoked attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon sparked a military response in Afghanistan, but I remain confused over our invasion of Iraq. Would we have gone in if we weren’t already there? The same can be said for our involvement in Libya and our potential for involvement in Syria. Clearly, none of these nations requested our forces, and our continued presence can only lead to further economic decline while elevating our status as the world’s most despised country.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I only know that the apathy in this country has exceeded my expectations. While we continue to see Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, no one seems to care that our soldiers are dying every day in the deserts of the Middle East. To think the US can win loyalty by occupying a foreign country is ludicrous. To think we can buy loyalty by sending billions of borrowed dollars is absolute lunacy.
I am sending this to my elected representatives because it is time we insist on bi-partisan discussions about withdrawing from unwinnable wars. It is time we start taking care of our own citizens and realize that other countries must fight their own battles. It is time our presidential candidates stopped ignoring our wars and start bringing our entire force home. Russia learned this lesson after nine years in Afghanistan. After our experience in Vietnam, we never should have gone in without the intent to demand complete and unconditional surrender. Without winning as its goal, no country has any business being involved in warfare.
Permission is granted for anyone wishing to use any or all of this post to send to their elected representatives.
