What is it in the human psyche that makes us think that wars are an answer to problem-solving? Why do we prefer to opt for intractable wars of perpetual duration, rather than recognize an intelligent need to change direction?
What is it in the American psyche that makes us talk in terms of "winning and losing," as if those are even measurable concepts in the context of wars, especially today's wars? When are the Hawks going to realize that we are never going to achieve a surrender on the deck of an aircraft carrier from al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any of the other insurgents that we are now fighting, and so we won't have a clear indication of what a "win" looks like?
In insurgency wars, we have difficulty knowing who the enemy is, or where they live. We eventually become occupiers trying to win the hearts and minds of a group of people who don't want us to be there. Yet, we can't find it in our psyche to admit that we can't "win," so we don't leave. Guess what, the Taliban isn't going to leave Afghanistan--ever-- and will wait us out, if it takes 25 years or more. We cannot put enough soldiers in that country to kill them all. So they will wait until we run out of patience, soldiers or money (or all of them).
We don't admit that fighting an insurgency in someone else's country is not winnable. An insurgency has never been defeated in history. It's the nature of the conflict and its setting that makes it unwinnable, not the quality or quantity of our soldiers.
What type of ignorance or arrogance makes us think that we can afford the cost of continuous war--either in terms of the human loss of life or the financial cost to our country's treasury? Every dollar that we spend in Iraq or Afghanistan is borrowed. Yet, inexplicably, we remain unconcerned with the cost. We hire private contractors at exorbitant rates, because we don't have enough enlisted soldiers in our army.
Our soldiers and their families are paying a huge price which we can never repay in any way--other than by making sound decisions to stop putting them in life-threatening situations in nation-building experiments.
We refuse to talk about bringing the soldiers home without asking if it will mean that others who have died in those wars "died in vain." Stop asking that question. Instead, start asking if the next death is worth staying for. If you answer "yes," then be on the next plane there to fight yourself.
Would we view the prosecution of wars differently if we reinstated the Draft? You bet we would. Would we view the wars differently if we had to raise taxes to pay for them without any borrowing? Absolutely. So if that's so clear, what are we basing our policies on?
Do you think that the Romans realized that their empire was crashing around them while it was occurring, or were they too blind to recognize the need to change their course?
Why is it that we readily say "no to drugs" and "no to single payer health insurance for all Americans," and "no to raising taxes" and "no to welfare" "no to gun control," and "no to abortion" and "no to gay marriage" and "no to immigration" and "no to big government"--but we always seem to say "yes" to War?
No comments:
Post a Comment