Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHope in Times of War
'Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men" is the operative aphorism for this season, but the United States is at war on two fronts with no end in sight. The Iraq war is going better for the United States than it was at this time last year, and Afghanistan is worse. But the reality is that neither war is anywhere near being won.
In Iraq, the United States has created the space it said it needed for political reconciliation, but the Iraqi factions have not used it, because they don't want to reconcile. They want to win. America is left holding up a suit of clothes that Iraqis don't want to wear, and for this the tailors of democracy fight on.
As for Afghanistan, the Taliban continue to make gains, and the government of Hamid Karzai is crippled by corruption, narcotics, and warlords. What might have been, had not so many resources been drained from Afghanistan to fuel Iraq, is a haunting question.
NATO now has the prime responsibility for defending Afghanistan, and one has to wonder what would have happened if the Soviets, in the old days, had sent hundreds of divisions through the Fulda Gap into Western Europe, only to have one NATO partner say: "Oh, we only want to guard the frontier with Switzerland," and another say: "We are more interested in peacekeeping than war-making." America's traditional allies, except for a few, have been a disappointment in Afghanistan.
Alas, the world has not yet been made safe for pacifism. War and resistance were midwives to American nationhood. "Gentlemen may cry peace," said Patrick Henry in 1775. But he asked: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" The Revolution, the Civil War, and especially World War II hold special places in American folklore. World War II was America's last, uncomplicated victory.
As I enter my 50th year in journalism, having reported on at least a dozen armed conflicts around the world, I have become pessimistic about the American imperium, and America's militarization of foreign policy. During the overarching struggle of the post-WWII generation - the Cold War - America was most successful when force, necessarily preserved and at the ready, was not actually used.
America was right to go to war in Korea, but Douglas MacArthur's mission creep to conquer North Korea, instead of simply defending South Korea, ended where it began at the 38th parallel, with China in the war and many thousands unnecessarily dead.
I spent too many years covering the tragic, and in the end inarticulate, struggles in Indochina, with the United States trying to prop up an ancien regime bequeathed to us by the French. Today we fight trying to hold together an entity in Iraq left over from the British Empire.
If the most hopeful stories I ever covered were Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem and the fall of the Berlin Wall, my most depressing was a visit to Baghdad under American occupation.
If military force is to be used, a good example of how to do it was George H. W. Bush's war to save Kuwait; accomplished quickly with a broad international coalition, with sufficient force coupled with limited and achievable goals, even if there were disappointments afterward. The worst by far is his son's invasion of Iraq.
American idealism can, and has, done much good in the world. But seldom have the benefits been worth the costs when liberty, democracy, free markets, and the American way of life were imposed on the point of a bayonet. Mostly this has led to great loss of life and treasure with little to show for it except for a loss of American prestige - and, therefore, a loss of ability to make the world a better place.
America needs to keep engaged in the world, and isolationism is not the answer. But I am forever haunted by Graham Greene's lines to the "Quiet American" who thought that bombs could bring democracy. What people want, says Greene's weary old journalist, is "enough rice. They don't want to be shot at. They want one day to be much the same as another. They don't want our white skins around telling them what they want."
H. D. S. Greenway's column appears regularly in The Boston Globe.
© 2007 International Herald Tribune
16 Comments so far
Show AllWar is a Racket, by Smedley Butler? I read that. Amazing little book. Points out that nothing much has changed in more than 80 years, except there's more money to be made in the "racket" and the weapons are different.
We've been conned for decades, but one thing has finally changed: now we know we're being conned, thanks to the internet and George Bush's ham-handedness. Before Bush and Co. the racketeers were subtle about their racketeering, at least relatively so. Now they're about as subtle as a Sylvester Stallone movie, although far less entertaining.
So maybe there's a silver lining: knowledge is power, if we can figure out how to use it (and if we dare).
Vote for Kucinich.
Mr. Greenway is mistaken. We are not at war. We haven't been at war since 1992.
WAR has 3 requirements:
1. A declaration of war.
2. An identifiable enemy.
3. A condition of victory.
Thus it is impossible to declare war on something intangible or abstract i.e. "war on terror", "war on drugs", "war on communism", "war on the color purple" as there can be no realistic definition of victory.
The USA is engaged in a conflict not a war. We committed an international crime when we attacked Iraq because they didn't have any chemical weapons after all. Instead of withdrawing, apologizing, impeaching bush, and paying war reparations to Iraq, we decided to overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq. This is another international crime. Once a new governship is established, the natural course of national evolution involves a civil war. The Iraqis will have to resolve this in order to legitimize their government. Since we are criminals and have already committed 2 crimes, there is no reason to stop. Instead of withdrawing and allowing the natural course of government to happen, we are staying and interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. We show a continual disdain for human rights in Iraq, contempt for their Islamic faith, and have tortured it's citizens and plundered it's resources. (More international crimes)
This process will continue until the perpetrators of the crimes (criminals) are held accountable and subsequently and brought to justice.
Yes we can be compared to Nazi Germany. Not in method, but in spirit. America is lost. Time will tell if we will ever be what we once were.
Our government has, for many years (maybe forever) given us war instead of good governance. I don't think that will ever change.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was . . .
Nathan Anderson___I have to agree totally with you that George H W Bush`s war to "save" Kuwait was not such a grand thing as the author made it out to be. Bush made no effort at all to use diplomacy and try to effect a compromise with Kuwait so that Iraq oil could be piped the the coast for distribution. Bush senior did exactly what Junior did, which was cause as big a fuss as possible and then claim war was immediately necessary for evereyone`s welfare. Everyone, meaning Bush and his oil cronies would benefit and who cared how many died or how much destruction it caused.
If military force is to be used, a good example of how to do it was George H. W. Bush's war to save Kuwait
Another good lie by Greenway who gets all his news and history from Readers Digest.
In July 1990, US Ambassador April Glaspie responded to Hussein's request that he take Kuwait by stating the United States did not take a position "on Arab-Arab" disputes. Saddam understood that to mean that the United States would not react to his invasion of Kuwait. (UPI, Nov 9, 1990)
And the Boston Globe publishes his garbage?
World War II was America's last, uncomplicated victory.
You arrogant POS. Over half a million Americans lost their lives in WWII. Simple? Only if you cannot count. Dickhead armchair warrior who knows jack.
I am with each year more radical in my opposition to war. I stated at the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq that we should have made a powerful UN speech in opposition to aggression and then let it go. The miserable leadership we re-entrenched in Kuwait is the as bad as Saddam was.
The Kuwait leadership just got better press. The only good part of that invasion was that it was short compared to the average murderous rampage our country has been engaging in since WW2.
But, I fear we ain't seen nothing yet. The handy assassination in Pakistan may make it possible for Bush the inferior and Shotgun Dick to widen their war on human life. Will Iran be blamed or will this be an excuse to strengthen the hands of fascist dictators in several countries?
Agreeing with most of the previos responces, I cannot believe this article was posted on COMMON DREAMS. He tries to justfy imperialist wars and U.S. agression!
Shame on you common dreams!
www.uspeacegovernment.org
Genuine hope founded on scientific research and the experience of several million people who make daily use of an ancient technology to create peace in their lives.
It is always good to read a traditional US Liberal's view of 20th and 21st century US wars.
As some stated above, some of these were not wars; in reality, they are, or have been occupations.
Other US military, or covert interventions have been counter-revolutions or counter-insurgencies.
To be a practicing US Liberal, one must never connect US foreign policy with the US society's unequal class system and the wealth-generating economic institutions that produce this system: transnational corporations, financial, investment and real estate companies.
In other words, a Liberal must ignore that the wealthy control the general direction of foreign policy...not US citizens.
The Establishment, or wealthy may sometimes have internal differences concerning tactics, but the overall strategy is something always agreed upon. What is that strategy?
The answer: Does this foreign policy objective maintain, and expand levels of capital accumulation for the wealthy.
However, earlier in the 20th c., there was a corollary: Does this foreign policy decision maintain and expand the world capitalist system as a whole.
With the economic decline of the US, the needs of America's wealthy don't automatically fit the needs of world capitalism, or the needs of other capitalist nations.
Hence the go-it-alone foreign policy of Bush II.
I can't believe this article was included in today's CD. Maybe some of those NATO countries who hold to PEACEkeeping in Afghanistan understand that people don't appreciate being blown up indiscriminately by Air Cowboys. If you want people to assist you in stabilizing a country, you conciliate and reconstruct. And you don't install women hating warlords/druglords to run the country. Nor do you dehumanize people because they are not Americans.
the typical liberal viewpoint on things ME, which holds it as totally ok that the u.s. has for a long time been pursuing a policy of ME occupation. what dreck.
Kuwait is a gas station not a country. When you justify any of our wars you don't offer hope, you promote war. You need to stop thinking even WW2 was justified. And finally, you need to read WAR IS A RACKET by General Smedley Butler.
Hoa binh
I can't handle a statement like this one:
"If military force is to be used, a good example of how to do it was George H. W. Bush's war to save Kuwait; accomplished quickly with a broad international coalition, with sufficient force coupled with limited and achievable goals, even if there were disappointments afterward."
Are you kidding me?
It is not a good example when hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered. It is not a good example when oil men use the american military to protect or open oil supplies. It is not a good example when american taxpayer money is given to a public relations firm (The Rendon Group) to intentionally deceive the American public. It is not a good example to boast about "smart bombs" when 90% of the bombs used were dumb bombs that caused many "civilian casualties" as the militry put it. It is not a good example to wage war with a dictator we were friends with a few years earlier. It is not a good example to promise the Shiites and Kurds they will have our backing if they revolt and then sit and watch them be slaughtered as they did revolt. Do I need to go on???????
Well damn, oh well at least in Afghanistan we have record opium crops, no pipeline, but you cant win them all for the master chosen race, and we should sack the sherriff who was going to get that man dead or alive,methinks he lied AGAIN
I can't believe that writers are STILL referring to the illegal assault and invasion of Iraq as a "war"! Call it what it is: AN OCCUPATION with "patriots" trying to run off the invaders.
Hall, that's what they'd call it if the situation were reversed. SPIN...what a concept!