The casualties of war…

2012…a presidential election year…Memorial Day…a time for reflection….  At my age, I’ve lost friends and relatives, some from sickness, others from accidents, and still others in service to our country.  I value everyone that has served our country, from infantryperson to Peace Corps volunteer, infinitely more than the good old boys and girls sitting in the nation’s capital, those politicos who scheme and manipulate and put these volunteers in harm’s way.

My father was a pacifist.  He was a gentle man who had three professional boxing matches but was non-violent except for losing his Irish temper occasionally about human stupidity or with two growing boys who could try the patience of the Pope and his butler.  Our thrashings were mostly verbal.  He was Kris Kristofferson’s silver-tongued devil, berating the Truman Democrats in my family, because he was an Eisenhower Republican, but coming to their aid when things got tough.

I protested against the Vietnam War, yet I was sympathetic to veterans from that war, an uncommon trait for a war protesting pacifist in the sixties.  Graduate school friends passed their physical and headed off to that war, some never to come back.  Perhaps this is schizoid behavior on my part, but I never have once blamed a veteran for fighting for our country, no matter what his or her motivations might be.  They deserve our support.  Moreover, they deserve much more of the government’s support.  Memorial Day is their day, not the day for sycophant politicos to march in parades in order to mingle among their electorate.

Nevertheless, Memorial Day is more about the war dead—a day honoring those who have given their lives for their country.  These are the casualties of war.  It is our duty to value their courage and their sacrifice.  It is also our duty to comfort those friends and relatives they left behind.  But Memorial Day is also a day when we should pause and reflect.  I was moved by a crying little boy sending up a balloon to heaven with a message to papa to come back to him.  He doesn’t understand the politics, the Machiavellian machinations of politicos on both sides of a war, the secret meetings and power struggles that send young men and women to their death.  Even if the cause is just, as it was in World War II, the little boy wouldn’t understand.  His daddy is dead.

I can’t reconcile the image of that little boy with powerful politicians voting to lead us into these wars.  Perhaps that little boy will grow up thinking his daddy is a hero.  Of course, he is.  He’s also a victim.  Even if he fully believed in what he was fighting for, he’s a victim.  There has not been a just war since World War II—if any war can be called just.

In spite of all the good intentions associated with the counterinsurgency doctrine, even West Point faculty are reconsidering it.  Iraq is descending into the Yugoslavian hell of ethnic hatred.  Afghanistan will never give up its cash crop, heroin, a natural product with unnatural corrupting powers both there and abroad.  We should learn valuable lessons here about the futility of nation building when the majority of the citizens in these war zones have an attitude about Americans that is xenophobic at best and outright hostile at worst.

Yes, our counterinsurgency plans of overwhelming force, thousands of combat boots on the ground, are failures in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  That doesn’t mean that our soldiers there failed.  They did their jobs, from going after terrorists to improving the infrastructure of a war-torn and impoverished country.  They are a success story—our government is the abject failure.

Let’s consider the most spectacular success in Afghanistan and Iraq—killing Osama bin Laden.  By the way, even though I’m a pacifist, I had no problem with that.  Bin Laden deserved a lot more, of course, but the SEAL team that sent him straight to hell deserves our applause on this Memorial Day too.  This action showed what a small number of very skilled soldiers can do.  Swift, lethal retribution.  It felt good.

The use of UAVs, the Predators, often riles my pacifist brethren.  The missiles it rains down on unsuspecting terrorists are appropriately named Hellfire.  They send the SOBs straight to hell and I say, “Good!  Job well done!”  Again, their mission is accomplished without thousands of troops.  Generally speaking, a few Air Force pilots in Colorado, using some joysticks, carry out this mission.  In Yemen, the targeting is mostly called in by CIA, but special forces also participate there and elsewhere.  It’s far better than putting thousands of troops in harm’s way.

The two cases above show the fallacy in fighting wars the old-fashioned way.  Massive troop movements are ineffective against terrorists.  Yes, we need counterinsurgency aka the war on terrorism, but no, we don’t need conventional troops to prosecute it.  Old politicians like John McCain can’t understand this.  Young politicians like George W. Bush and Barack Obama don’t want to understand this.  The Pentagon and its esteemed national academy West Point (and probably the other academies as well) are even debating it.

However, it’s also a question of national priorities that seem obvious but politicians are blind to.  Conventional wars cost money.  Funding for thousands of troops on the ground is much more expensive than a few Predators and/or the insertion of special forces to take out known terrorists.  Moreover, the funding for those troops never seems to be enough.  How many GIs died in Iraq before Congress would pay for the adequate armor against IEDs needed for Humvees?  How many wounded GIs returned to the U.S. and suffered under the inadequate care of a Veterans Administration because Congress doesn’t fund it appropriately?  Etc.  Etc.

It makes me angry that our politicos are so nonchalant about sending our young men and women to war yet cheaply tie the purse strings instead of supporting that war effort.  If ever there was an attack on the middle class, Congress’ inadequate support of those precious men and women wins the ineptitude prize.  The powerful and the rich don’t fight wars—they make them.  Moreover, they are so insanely stupid that they can’t even recognize that there are better ways to fight.

In conclusion, honor our veterans and our fallen by forcing politicos to come to their senses.  My plea is completely bipartisan.  George W. Bush sent our young men and women to die in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Barack Obama has sent our young men and women to die in Afghanistan.  Congress backed up these actions.  The blame is shared by both Republicans and Democrats.  The blame lies on the shoulders of unfeeling, unthinking, power-hungry, greedy politicians.  It is time that we step forward and say, “Enough!”

God bless our fallen and our injured fighting men and women, their families, and their relatives this Memorial Day.  And may God damn the politicians who use and abuse them!

And so it goes….

3 Responses to “The casualties of war…”

  1. Scott Says:

    That’s a great point that bears repeating about the way to prosecute a war on terror. It can’t really be fought in the “old ways”. Viet Nam couldn’t be fought effectively that way; Iraq and Afghanistan can’t be either. The first Gulf War was the only way to use the war machine that we currently have effectively, and it did not involve any occupation. Bush I was apparently smart enough to realize it. Why other pols and military brass can’t is beyond me.

    Fighting terrorism is more akin to fighting crime in gang ravaged cities in the US. We don’t send in the National Guard to engage street gangs in combat in the neighborhoods. We let the police handle it, and they do it through intelligence and infiltration and community involvement. I suppose the army could do it that way, but the very nature of the “United States Army” probably precludes the occupied nation from ever trusting them enough to let such a strategy succeed.

    I too support the troops, but I don’t support the war effort…

  2. steve Says:

    Hi Scott,
    Your second and last lines are a great summary. We cannot roll over and die–terrorism must be fought. But we do have to fight it differently.
    One more point to get all the conservatives screaming at me: We won the American Revolutionary War because we fought like terrorists! The British, in their spiffy redcoats and using outmoded methods, couldn’t handle the American militia–the latter fought like terrorists…and they won! Something to think about….
    All the best,
    Steve

  3. Scott Says:

    I have often thought the same thing about the American Revolution. They hid under bridges and in trees and waited until they could get good shots at the enemy British, and picked them off like sitting ducks. They didn’t fight “by the rules”, did they? They fought to win.

    When you look at people in occupied countries whose main goal is to get rid of the occupiers (usually US soldiers), they are using what they see as the best ways to fight when they’re outmanned and outgunned.

    Unless you want to be a totally ruthless occupier (decide to kill 100 for every one soldier killed, and who cares who those 100 are), you can’t “win the peace”, UNLESS the country you’re occupying is culturally pretty much the same as you. We could probably occupy France or Canada, but I don’t know how we’d do in Mexico…