Logic Times

The United States at War

Posted by Aslan, 09/01/05, 9:51pm. Comments (4)

Despite 9/11, Americans still don’t get it. In a breathtaking display of national immaturity, support for the War on Terror has been declining in recent months, as if war were a popularity contest. That we now take (and heed) polls about matters of survival is offensive in and of itself, but equally alarming is the failure of so many to understand the special obligation placed upon American citizens in time of war. Polls taken in early 1942 as the Japanese rolled through the Pacific and Rommel gobbled up North Africa undoubtedly would have shown World War II to be tremendously unpopular (who actually likes being at war?), but support for the war effort would have never been in question…wait, you say, that was different, that was World War II!

Any American war, and particularly the War on Terror where the threat to western civilization is every bit as grave as in 1942, deserves the same commitment shown by the greatest generation during World War II. But, only a few years after this...

…the War on Terror holds no more significance for many Americans than the housing market or the latest TV reality show. The anti-war/anti-Bush faction has exploited this war attention deficit disorder by carving out the War in Iraq from the larger War on Terror, when it actually represents the boldest and most effective strategy for eliminating the roots of terror: fascist Islam (developed in the Brilliance of the Bush Plan and Iraq – Al Qaeda Linkage). Nothing better reveals this lassitude about the War on Terror than the constant moaning, "When will the insurgency stop?" or "What is our exit strategy?" – like a child in the car whining, "Are we there yet?"

What was the exit strategy in the Pacific in World War II? The defeat of the enemy. What was the exit strategy in Europe in World War I? The defeat of the enemy. Today’s complacent American apparently cannot understand that Iraq will be done, the Middle East will be done, this war will be done, when we defeat the enemy. We do not get to choose – beyond the commitment of our will, resources and forces – when that will happen, but we also do not have the option to pack up and go home because the enemy hasn’t the courtesy to wear uniforms, fight fair, or lose fast enough to accommodate our waning attention spans and aversion to unpleasant issues that disrupt daily life.

Support for the War on Terror and specifically the Iraq War should be unconditional, as every bit as unconditional as for other great World Wars. Besides the harsh reality that any conditional support for war gets soldiers killed and communicates a defeat strategy to our enemy (developed in Conditional Support for War), this attitude about the United States at war, a morally bankrupt residue of the 1960s, reveals a profound ignorance of why and how this great republic goes to war.

Dissent is not patriotic and is not an option. The very idea that the vacillating opinion of the American people once war has begun is relevant assumes that American wars happen for all manner of legitimate and illegitimate reasons and that the populace has a role, like the press in checking the government, in constantly re-evaluating the worthiness of war objectives. Nothing could be further from the truth. The check against illegitimate wars is built into our republican system of government, not into vacuous protest marches and the misuse of free speech. The definition of treason (Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort - US Constitution, Article III, Section III) demonstrates that the time for opposition has passed once the first soldier steps into harm’s way.

When soldiers agree to place their lives on the line, the citizens whom they represent must agree to place their opposition aside. The soldier's commitment is unconditional and so must be the support of his fellow citizens. Such an agreement is only feasible in a republican form of government where the authority to wage war has been vested in the people’s representatives and any decision to wage war has been arrived at through careful deliberation (thoroughly discussed in Federalist #41 and commented upon by the first Commander in Chief below).

The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure - George Washington

When the debate is done, the dissent is done. While every soldier may not personally endorse the mission, his actions are unequivocal. And while every citizen may not personally believe in the mission, their actions, too, must be unequivocal or else they aid the enemy.

Dissent is not banished; it is harnessed. Because of the extraordinary risks assumed by the military, consensus is essential before a commitment to war. The American mechanism for divining the will of the people in matters of war, however, is in no way inadequate; in fact, it is the most sophisticated and just of any system employed by any nation on Earth. Once again: in a republican form of government, the people, through their representatives, hold the power to wage war, and the representatives, bound by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and through the process of extended and visible public debate, safeguard American military power, reserving its use for causes that align with the organizing principles of this country: defense of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Defense of the American people. Defense of freedom. And should this free country be so moved to war in defense of these principles, there is no room, no moral basis, for wavering or calculated support.

What does vacillating support for a war, such as the Iraq war, reveal about morality and motivations? It reveals the mentality of a looter or a poacher. If our support for a just war wavers as the cost or difficulty increases, then there was a subtle, immoral calculus employed in our initial support, an opportunism where we desired something easy, something cheap that our strength enabled us to seize. But once prevented from looting by the arrival of some form of resistance, we judge the cost of overcoming that resistance higher than the value of the loot, and we flee. This is an immoral use of force, an immoral basis for war. If we are a people with convictions, our support for a just war should be independent of what the battlefield throws at us. Our support for the Iraq war today should be no different than when the military was pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein. Any other course of action is the action of a looter, a coward or someone who rejects the American system of government.

Comments

1: Kruelhunter

September 2, 2005 8:22am EST

Meanwhile some of those very representatives who approve the nation's entry into war use each and every difficulty as an excuse to criticize their political opponents in an effort to increase their own chances for re-election. Such is the worst effect of our having evolved a political class in America.

{Aslan: Term limits?}

2: Carl W. Goss

September 2, 2005 11:32am EST

On the other hand, a decision to go to war doesn't extinguish a citizen's right to disagree with it.

Or criticize the government for how the war is being executed, or demanding that the war be ended.

Free speech continues, war or no war.

{Aslan: Of course free speech continues. But can free speech be immoral? Certainly – one just need watch a parade of neo-Nazis or the KKK to understand this. Yet, there exists a responsibility upon citizens when surrogates stand in harm’s way defending what the people have freely declared worth defending. Any action eroding support for those surrogates costs lives.}

3: thomaspaul

September 3, 2005 4:15pm EST

"...Any other course of action is the action of a looter, a coward or someone who rejects the American system of government."

Those are some pretty strong words, Aslan; however, there just aren’t strong enough words available to us to describe the "shallowing effect" that the kind of liberal thinking you have described is having on our culture. I believe many adults – and most younger people – could not defend "democracy" if they had a gun to their head, nor explain our system of government, or why it was set up the way it is, or the history that led civilization to its doorsteps. How can a democracy continue to survive, let alone flourish, if its citizenry does not understand its own make-up and history? That’s a little like having group amnesia. These people only know what they are told by their "doctors" – their educators and the media. Actually, it’s worse because the doctor has also told the patient he is better off not looking into his past because he was a very bad person back then; and that the best thing for him is to issue a blanket apology, cleanse his mind of it all and just look forward, brightly. God help us.

It is also easy sell the idea of peace to these people. For one, we are all wired to know the value of peace. But without any context or experience, one doesn’t tend to understand that peace – on earth, anyway, is not ubiquitous and does not come cheaply; in fact, others want to take it away from you all the time. As a result, a person can become vulnerable to being sold a fool's gold kind of peace, sort of like a fake Rolex. Historically, it is only after these people have lost the peace that they become educated about the true value of peace and, after this little epiphany, usually develops a sort of paranoia about not losing it again – at any cost.

Unfortunately, these people do not live in a vacuum – they are under our protection. Can we really afford to let them lose the peace for their own individual enlightenment? What will this cost the rest of us who already know the cost of peace and don’t want to lose it?

Clearly, we cannot do that. There is really only one practical solution – to get rid of "the doctor" and the educators who have taken away their past and give it back to them. We must take back the education system in this country. Every citizen must learn their history and the true cost of peace to become productive members of this democracy if we hope to continue to share in, and fulfill, the dreams of our founders.

{Aslan: Amen, thomaspaul. While most of my ire towards the dumbing down of American culture is directed at the media, you raise a superb point about the lack of understanding about civil government.

This line, though, is priceless: As a result, a person can become vulnerable to being sold a fool's gold kind of peace, sort of like a fake Rolex.}

4: Evntprdcr

September 6, 2005 5:43pm EST

This is an absurdity. Soldiers do not go to war on their own volition. The 82nd airborne does not make the decision to invade Sri Lanka, a congress makes the decision to send them there. The voters who elect that congress have every right to question the motives, actions and decisions of their elected representatives. You seem to favor a monolithic, totalitarian society where the option of freedom of speech and opinion are seen as traitorous. How unfortunate.

{Aslan: I see absurdity, Evntprdcr, and it is in this statement, "Soldiers do not go to war on their own volition." Soldiers do go to war of their own volition – they join the military to protect and defend the United States and, to this end, they execute the orders of their commanders.

As for free speech, this issue is not so simple. Two realities intersect to create an insoluble problem – a) no national undertaking enjoys unanimous support, particularly military action where there exists a whole cottage industry of anti-war demagogues who protest the very existence of a military (think not? read here) and b) speech that erodes morale and empowers the enemy costs lives and makes it possible for an overmatched enemy to win (i.e., Viet Nam). Using your logic, every declaration of war, be it WWII or the 1st Gulf War, should immediately be accompanied by strident anti-war protests, because there are protesters to every war and those protesters have free speech and the right to "question the motives, actions and decisions of their elected representatives."

Membership in this organization called America (i.e., citizenship) comes with certain responsibilities that are not legislated, and those responsibilities include respecting the process by which we come to consensus for action and, in the case where that action may cost the lives of your surrogates, to refrain from hurting their chances for survival and success. The point of this article was not to suggest we return to the Sedition Acts of 1798 or 1918, but to suggest that responsible citizens in time of war must refrain from aiding and abetting the enemy with opposition that is fueled, not by alarm for the catastrophic direction of a war, but by their opposition to political opponents and/or their general opposition to war.}