Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved).




Saturday, May 05, 2007

War Drums

[When you are about to discuss something which you yourself have never experienced, other than through reading or pictures, it is good to start with words by someone who has.]

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Growing up as I did, right after WWII had ended, the question of whether war was ever needed was meaningless. Of course, it was needed. My uncles fought in WWII, the world was endangered by the aggression of Hitler. I was taught in school that other wars were also needed-- like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War. Movies, by cinematic heroes like John Wayne, illustrated how wars are heroic and a part of life which cannot be avoided. Some of those historic assessments have been adjusted as they are looked at from more distance; but still for many cultures, time after time, war is the seemingly best answer to many political problems.

Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic debate basically said war was not needed, that we could avoid all wars and should. No other Democrat on that stage would have dared say the same. Democrats are already thought to be the wimps who won't even defend themselves if a bully on the street knocks them down (let's not bother to check back in history to how many wars were begun under Democratic administrations. History is meaningless anyway, right?).

But what he said did make me consider this question again-- when is war justified? Is it ever needed? When, other than in self defense, is violence justified? Does it ever get the kind of results for which society hopes?

Human history is full of not only wars but violent means to attain political goals. Assassination, duels, wars have been part of the human arsenal of communication skills. When all else fails, blow them away with weapons as advanced as you can afford.

I was born during one war and have basically known five now-- WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, some smaller skirmishes, and whatever the name is for the one we are in today. I have believed sometimes war has to be but have likewise believed when we do enter into a war-- noble cause or not-- there will be a higher price extracted than the obvious one on the battlefields-- call it karma. This doesn't mean no war should ever be fought, but it means when it is, the price is higher than those involved might originally think.

This was reinforced for me when I watched a program on cable this week-- Outlaws of the Old West. Our desperadoes were trained and equipped with guns by the Civil War. Was the Civil War needed? Some say if there had been reasonable negotiations, it was not, that the cruel practice of slavery was dying out in the South due to economic and social changes and the war was really over state versus federal power. Oppression of one people by another is bad (what you sow, so shall you reap), but if the Civil War was needed to stop that practice, its impact didn't end at Appomattox. That war, which had the greatest loss of life for this country, might still be a factor in our violence today. Without any doubt, the Civil War armed our people in a way they had not been before-- did it also prep us?

What about the American Revolutionary War? Well Canada and other former British colonies won their freedom without going to war. I read recently that the war with Britain was desired for reasons about which the average person of the time had no clue. The tea tax only impacted the wealthiest who could afford the tea.

In history, over and over again, you see how humans get pushed and excited into going to war-- Remember the Maine! I realize sometimes things go so far that probably there is no choice, but too often has war been a first resort, not a last one.

I am not a pacifist. I did not believe in the current Iraqi war and the Vietnam war not because I believe you should never fight, but because I never heard any reasons for those wars that made sense. In Desert Storm, there was a genuine worldwide coalition with clear goals. When those were achieved, the war was ended. This time the current president has changed his reasons with the winds and kept the war going on longer than WWII with no end in sight as far as he's concerned. Fortunately for his popularity among his base, those who most believe in him have short memories and never draw conclusions based on history (apparently).

The so-called War on Terror has been misnamed all along, and many are now calling the name out for the lie it is. Terror is a brutal, cruel, political tactic. You can't fight a war against a tactic. You have to have an enemy, and the enemies in this case are Islamic extremists who don't mind murdering innocent people (including their own).

Thomas Friedman had an excellent column in the NY Times called The Hail Mary. In it, he spelled out what he felt Bush should say now, the gist of which was to get the Arab world to realize what is growing in their midst. The suicide bombers, are a threat to all of the civilized world. Terrorists are a group of people who are ruthless, must be hunted down, imprisoned or killed because their sickness spreads, and hatred of the United States has blinded many to the real danger.

Oops, I got distracted but any thoughts on this-- is war ever needed? If it is-- when? What price would you then be willing to pay or is your idea of a good war one that is fought at no personal cost and on television?

It seems appropriate to also end this with words of someone who knew something about fighting a war. A Republican no less--

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
Dwight D. Eisenhower


22 comments:

Dick said...

It would seem that this "war" in Iraq was entered into on either poor or incorrect intelligence reports. That brings into question whether or not we should have started it in the first place. But it was declared over and "won" four years ago by none other than the one who started it.

Now there is a civil war going on there over who will control the country. We do not belong in the middle of a civil war in another country. There is no way we can win as there really can be no winner. I think the best thing the US could do is to get a coalition of Arab countries to step in and help maintain peace, if it is possible, in Iraq while the politics are sorted out. But it should not be us.

Sandy said...

I don't believe in this "war". I thought that looking for certain individuals was right, but not a war. Is there perhaps a "hidden" agenda? I don't believe that there is any reasons for soldiers to be over there and further more none that need to be dying although it keeps on. I DO support all soldiers that are there doing their job. I have a friend whose son has been there 8 1/2 months. It's time for them all to come home.

Judith said...

Well said Rain, also the comments from Dick and Sandy. It appears to be out of the hands of 'we the people' in any case. Unfortunatly, I can't see it ever changing.

Anonymous said...

Another though-provoking post.
Is war ever needed and if so, when?
I'll say upfront, I'm a liberal Democrat. But yes....I feel, very much so, that sometimes (unfortunately) war is needed.
Like WWII....I was born in '47, after the war, but I know enough about history to know I would not have been one of the isolationists, that so many in this country were. Before the Japs even bombed Pearl Harbor, "I" would have been one of the ones that felt we needed to get into Europe and stop the insane and horrific events that Hitler created.
Revolutionary War? Yes, I'm afraid that one was also justified. Taxes were only one of the reasons. Maintaining a true independence from the British was the main one and one that was worth fighting for.
Vietnam War? That most definitely could have been avoided.
War on Terror? It all sounds good and certainly necessary....but it's sure not being handled the way it could.
You forgot to mention the War on Drugs, Rain. Another joke, in my opinion.
Which brings us to the current war....It's been a lie and a sham from the very beginning. It never should have happened. Like you, I could fill a book with my personal thoughts on this. We need to get out and stop dragging our feet and killing our people.
So is war necessary? In my opinion...yes, sometimes it is. Do I like it? Of course not! But I also feel, again unfortunately, that sometimes we must get involved, do what what we're there to do, and get out. If we come to realize we're beating a dead horse, we still need to admit....we can't do any more and hasten to bring our military back home. War is ugly and there's always a huge price to pay, but many times it's justified. Unlike the current situation.

Anonymous said...

Rain, of all the excellent posts you have done, I believe this is your best. It is definitive, not only of you, but of the "war" we find ourselves stuck in, and war in general.

I do believe there are times when fighting is justified and is the only way to resolve an intolerable situation. Yes, WW II was one of those. The current situation in Iraq is not.

Thanks for this important post. Now I need to go and try to drive some traffic your way so more will read it.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

A World War II slogan was that it was the war to end all wars. Wars are driven by lies. Until the vast majority are thinking for themselves, there will be wars started by leaders with clever propaganda. In seventh grade my teachers sincerely believed there would be no more wars. They said that we fought and won World War II so there would not be any more wars. We debated it. One of my fellow students qutoed the Bible and Armageddon. As long as people take to heart and believe prophesy of war there will be wars. There will be wars as long as there are weak people who have no hope of others listening to what they want.
In highschool I studies how propaganda works in war. I studied how drugs imported to China weakened the country.
As for having a justifiable war,there can only be one justifiable war. Wars are waged because of belief and propaganda reasons and a break down of mechanisms of agreement between peoples of different cosmic views.
It could very well be that the final battle between the sides of good and evil will not be fought with physical weapons but with words opening the gates of understanding that opponents are not evil but are just like us with needs and wants.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

The Tibetan monks engage in what I regard as a primary skill for peace and the continuation of the human race. They debate questions which would be regarded as nonsense in Western thought process. They become very proficient in delivering their solutions to a problem. In addition they listen to other responses than their own. The debates are conducted like a sport with judges - a verbal physically nonaggressive sport inwhich creative imagination, theatrical presentation and thought processes at work condition their minds to become more elastic. What if a game designer developed a debating game and marketed the game through UNESCO? Would it become as popular as Monopoly and sadistic electronic games? A game to promote peace building skills could really make a difference?

Anonymous said...

I believe that sometimes war is justified. That being said I detest what war creates and promulgates. However, the question arises-what do you do if a nation or a people's (or a religion's) stated and demonstarted purpose is to annihilate you and your civilization? It is a fine thing to oppose war and a terrible thing to suffer from it.

Ingineer66 said...

OK a few rambling late comments here. The Civil War gave us many things besides just arming the people and then sending them out to the frontier after the war. We got our modern prison system from this war. Since they were Americans on both sides we kept POWs instead of just killing them. After the war we started warehousing criminals instead of just killing them or making them serve hard labor. We also got a generation of morphine addicts as injured soldiers were treated with this new pain killer.

As for the Revolutionary war being necessary, It was started over taxation without representation, the Tea Tax was just a symbol to rally the people. That and Americans wanted religious and personal freedom not the feudal system that Britain was wanting to force down our throats. And yes Canada got freedom without war, but do you think that would have happened had we not already won our independance in a war. And still they did not get the total independance that we got. And while being a wonderful place Canada is not quite the economic powerhouse that the US is. England would not give up the US nearly as easily. What about India? They did not get independence without bloodshed.

Vietnam. Maybe we didn't need to go, but I am not so sure. All of those battles that slowed the spread of communism eventually caused the fall of the USSR. And I guess the war only delayed the killing fields in Cambodia and Laos. All of those murders would have happened sooner without the war. Maybe the war allowed some of the people to escape that would have been killed otherwise.

I agree on the War on Drugs being a joke. If it really is a war then we should fight it like one. When a plane carrying drugs is trying to enter this country we should shoot it down, not just tell them to land so they can be inspected. We should be spraying valleys in Columbia, Bolivia and Peru with paraquat. Although then the farmers would all join the socialist rebels and overthrow the governments. Then we would be back in a real war to help them out.

And finally on Tibetan Monks. That sounds like a great idea teaching thinking and peace. But just who controls that country? Oh thats right the Communist Chinese marched in and took over. So much for being pacifists.

Rain Trueax said...

Vietnam received more help from China than the Soviet Union. You can't take credit for that having an impact on the Soviets. More likely was 10 years fighting in Afghanistan. Think of anybody who could be in that spot today-- money down a hole, debts that aren't being repaid?

As for us and the British Empire, Australia is also independent. Eventually empires didn't make as much sense, but if you think it was good that we separated by war, how are you feeling these days about Venezuela taking over American and other country's investments there? Britian could have felt they had invested in the Colonies and were entitled to some payback. It's like so many people-- we'll take your money and help and then never pay it back.

I am btw not saying that past wars didn't need to be fought or did. It's only good to look at what we got from them besides the obvious. It is not just the United States that is quick to pull the trigger. Some countries have learned from it but it's been a human trait and one that might be costing humans a higher price than they realize. That was my main point.

And on Parapluie's comment on the Tibetan monks. Peacemakers often are killed but sometimes, like say with Christ, the message goes on and someday perhaps the message could make a difference-- if humans wanted it to do so.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

I am relieved that others are continuing to contribute to this very important topic of war drums. I was afraid I put a damper on it and did not intend to.
Rain, are you saying that the originaters of a peace game could get murdered for presenting imaginary problems for game players who create absurd thought and then present it persuassively? Then they are given a turn for rebutal in debating with others who present their original solutions to the same unreal problem?
I can agree with everyone that war is tragic. There might be a way to convince people not to want to destroy our civilization and kill us all as we believe they might want to. The peace solution must have something to do with them getting the message that we hear what they want. What do they want? - Do they want to know that we are as poor as they are? Or that our military isn't a threat to their proud people who have contributed to our civilization which could not have attained our degree of complexity without their acheivements? What do they need to know? That we are sorry for our policeman of the world policy? That we are sorry for making smart bombs that make them feel they have no power? It is the feeling of powerlessness and beifng an outsider that leads to terrorism.

Ingineer66 said...

I was not trying to devalue your points, I was just rambling about the topic.
Yes Vietnam got more help from China but the Soviets helped too. The largest Soviet Navy base outside of the USSR was in Vietnam until they closed it due to budget cuts. Kind of like Subic Bay in the Philipines for us. It alone probably didnt break them, but Afghanistan and all of the little wars in Africa that almost no one knows about and trying to keep up with nuclear arms is what did it.

The British Companies got plenty of payback and are still reaping the rewards of a strong Anglo American relationship, but the crown was who we were fighting.
It was really France that got screwed by the young US. They helped us fight the British and then when it came time to help them in their revolution we said sorry.

As for Venezuela, I believe they are paying for what they are taking. They are not outright nationalizing the assets like Cuba did. They have to be careful because only the foreign companies have the know how to get the oil. Mexico tried to kick out the Americans in the Gulf in the 60's and they ruined one of the biggest oil finds ever. If you want oil out of the ground you need men from Texas, Louisiana and Oklamhoma to get it for you. That is why we are in Russia, the Middle East, Nigeria and Venzeala etc.
I am tired of upwards of $4.00 a gallon. I say get the CIA on the phone and take over Venezuela and get a US friendly government in there. ;-)

Rain Trueax said...

I wasn't suggesting making a game would get someone killed but just that peacemakers are often killed-- Gandhi, Sadat (Egypt), Israel's Rabin. Make peace (or try to do so) and somebody feels threatened by it. My point was you can't say the Tibetans were wrong simply because they were overrun.

I don't think ending war in the world is as simple as figuring out what somebody else wants who is attacking you. I do not really believe you can win peace by being weak and giving others whatever they want as they probably will just escalate what they want. It's like the bully down the block who begins to threaten you. Could you ever give them enough to stop that as long as they feel it pays off?

Many wars are fought over land and until the world began to work together to stop it, stronger nations took the land of weaker ones.

As for your joke, Ingineer, a lot who read here are from other countries and they won't think you are kidding given recent US history :)

Anonymous said...

Rain in the entire history of haman kind there have been wars and rumors of wars and no one to date has figured out how to make war go away. It is not surprising due to the fact that there is so much contention in the world and not all of it is created by the big nations-the little countries play at war too. It is also big business. To make war disappear you have to address many things that contribute to it politically,economically, socially and morally. Good luck !

Mick Brady said...

A great post, Rain, and an important question; guess I'll have a go at it...

I was born at the beginning of WWII, and at age three didn't even know who my father was when he returned from the battlefront. He and most of his buddies at the VFW tried to drown their memories with alcohol, and as a result, I lost him at a young age. That was before anyone had heard of the term 'post-traumatic stress disorder.'

Due to the war's indirect and dramatic effect, we wound up living on welfare in some of the toughest neighborhoods in town. I quickly learned that violence bequeaths power to those who have no conscience, and that in many ways, mankind hasn't moved very far beyond the jungle. I also believe it will be hundreds, perhaps thousands of years before we move beyond this simple fact, if ever.

To illustrate my point, I add this story: when my wife and I moved to California from New York ten years ago, we rented the larger portion of a house; the owner lived in the other portion. Our next door neighbor was a physically powerful pathological bully, our landlord an avowed pacifist. One day they got into a dispute over something trivial, and it quickly escalated into a tense series of confrontations, with the constant threat of violence from our neighbor.

In the middle of all this, our landlord offered to sell us the house at a very low price, and he then moved to the other side of town. Now, why would I want to live next door to the neighborhood bully? Because I understood something my landlord didn't: all it takes to defeat a bully is to give it right back to him, eyeball to eyeball, which I was soon forced to do. He never bothered us again, and in fact, regularly brings barbequed ribs, chicken, etc. over to the house.

Is war ever necessary? Only when someone with this type of retrograde personality happens to run a neighboring country, and presents a direct threat to you and your neighbors. The painful truth is that only the threat of force, or the actual use of it, will persuade some people to back down. When this occurs on planet earth, we don't have the option of moving to the other side of town.

By the way, the value of the house has tripled since then, so I can truthfully claim that pacifism made me rich. The barbequed chicken is just one of the perks. :-)

Ingineer66 said...

Excellent story Mick, I really enjoyed it. Hard to believe someone would give up their house over a neighbor. Unless there was gunfire involved, but it doesn't sound like it was that bad.

On this topic, How about thoughts on the recent power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland. This took 40 years but, I think it is great that all sides are figuring out that they can get along and be successful much better than they can fight each other. One of the things that led to this success was a large wall that separated the groups so they could live their everyday lives in peace. Much like the walls that are being decried in Israel/Palestine and Iraq. Eventually they may not be needed, but they need to start somewhere.
The second and probably much larger reason is economic. The Republic of Ireland has become an economic powerhouse especially with high tech companies due to tax cuts and other business friendly reforms. I am sure that Northern Ireland would love the grab part of that economy.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

Mick,
A good story you have about bullies and pacism. It brings memories back to me when dealing with a bully. My experience is not as great a tale as yours but I can relate to fighting a bully. After I threw him into a wasp nest he left me alone. Since I was five and he was six, after a mild adult slap on the hand failed a verbal debate between us youngsters would not have worked. I try to justify my violent act.
Between the countries of the world with adult leadership there will always be differences that could percipitate war. But I believe there is a way in this day and age to wage peace with words and debate.
As for the Tibetan monks, they are not debating by design of the Chinese government. Debate is part of Buddhism. Buddhist exiles have the same debates.
Tibetan Buddhists were not pacifists. Historically they fought over the boarder of their country. After the invasion the Chinese have the cosmic view that they saved the Tibetans from a theocracy. They have written Chinese history to show they were justified in taking Tibet because down through the ages there has been inter-marriage
of royalty. There were gift exchanges as early as 1642 between the "Great Fifth" Dalai Lama
and the emperor of the Qing dynasty as equals but Tibet became weaker and the first axiom of their invasion began in 1706 when China offered protection of the doctrine of Buddhism.
I am not writing justification for the Chinese invasion of Tibet. I am only pointing out that the Chinese justify their invasion by stacking historic events to suit their Chinese cosmic view. We do the same.

Ingineer66 said...

The winner always gets to write History

Rain Trueax said...

Those have all been very insightful posts. I hope that as someone thinks of more to add to this, they will do so as when other search to find something on war, it won't only be the original piece I wrote but also all these very good additions to the subject. I think what you said, Mick, and Parapluie are all right on the money. Sometimes we do have to fight to defend ourselves. Becoming disillusioned with a war which many have come to believe made no sense from the start, should not disillusion us with the need that sometimes we do have to fight to have quality life. Too bad the world (including our own neighborhoods) isn't otherwise but as it stands, it's not.

Rain Trueax said...

and you are right, ingineer, about northern Ireland as one example of ways solutions can be found when people get tired of killing each other for what in the end wins nothing for anybody.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

There is not one completely easy way to avoid wars. Peace will come gradually with each victory such as we now see in Ireland. Many people will contribute as we have seen in the Nobel Peace Prizes which record victories for peace. The Hadassah Women Zionists have among other projects set up Hadassah hospital, Jerusalem to care for all with Israeli and Palestinian working side by side as equals. I believe there are many other ways to gradually wean the world from war. Oregon State University has a department studying the resolution of world disputes on water. Their studies show a surprising fact. Otherwise hostile countries sharing water sheds vital to all life in their respective countries have come to treaty agreements without armed conflict. So brain storming ideas for conflict resolution is important. And anybody could come up with a small idea that will keep the movement towards peace snow balling.

Ingineer66 said...

That is interesting about the water Parapluie. I have heard about that in some South Asian and South American countries where major rivers flow between poor nations and they have to co-esxist with the same water system. But I also know that is why Egypt has been quiet on the Darfur massacre because they know the Nile River comes from the Sudan and they don't want to do anything that will piss off the government there. So in that case it may have stopped an armed conflict between Sudan and Egypt, but let the Sudanese government slaughter opposing tribesmen.