Progressive Ponderings: War Ponderings – Part One

06/10/2006

by Joe Meyers
June 9, 2006

“9/11,” “50 year war,” “9/11,” “The long war,” “9/11,” Endless war,” “9/11,” “I’m the war president.” In other words, if we allow continued governance by the neoconservatives who have fashioned our current foreign policy, the United States will use 9/11 as a mythological excuse to dominate the world until we expire under our own hubris.

As the present administration officials address the war issue, they rarely mention which war – the “War for Iraq” or the “War on Terror.” Since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, analysis can only conclude that this war confusion is deliberate.

· The strongest Navy the world has ever known, the most high tech Air Force conceivable, an Army and Marine Corp trained to kill on command, a spy system touching all corners of earth and even space, weapons systems powerful and sophisticated enough to destroy the earth several times over, a Congress willingly deceived enough to turn over all this military power and the decisions of its use to ONE man and we wonder why the world is anti-American.  Has any dictator in history had such power?

· The war took only weeks before the staging of “mission accomplished” was possible.  “Regime change” became no regime, became anarchy.  Is a feared civil war worse than the current anarchy?  If we can’t define “winning” in Iraq or develop an “exit strategy” can there ever be an “exit strategy” for the “War on Terror?”

· Even before 9/11 the Bush administration was well on its way to becoming the most secretive in U.S. history.  9/11 provided the excuse for even more secrecy and the classification and sometimes reclassification of documents.  How can citizens vote wisely if they don’t know what their elected officials are doing in their name?  Is classification of documents for “national security” or rather for “elected official’s security?”

· “We are a peaceful nation.” Variations of this statement have been uttered by many of our presidents, usually as they prepare to lead us into war.  Patriotism is seldom called forth to strengthen the common interest of peace, but patriotism is often encouraged to lead us to war.  Shouldn’t this be reversed?  Peaceful actions, conforming to our founding fathers’ principles, and defending the Constitution are, today, often called sedition under the guise of patriotism.  What urges Americans to associate patriotism with following often misleading statements rather than our founding principles and our best national impulses?

· Despite having a defense and national security budget equal to all other countries combined, United States citizens exhibit an irrational insecure fearful nature.  Politicians encourage and exploit this unnatural fear for their own ends.  Where is this fear generated?  Do we subconsciously recognize our aggressive actions toward the rest of the world and fear, even expect backlash?

· After 9/11, nations and peoples around the world demonstrated more goodwill and empathy toward the United States than it has in recent history.  This administration’s attitudes and actions changed this goodwill to discouragement and hatred within a short period of time.  Does American aggressiveness and arrogant attitude increase or weaken national security?  Is national security enhanced more by military action or by a friendly good-neighbor policy?  Why are American citizens so susceptible to military solutions as an answer to world unrest?

· All wars have few winners and multitudes of losers.  Winners include hawk politicians, war profiteers, and seekers of vengeance and patriotic fervor.  Losers include taxpayers, military conscripts and volunteers (usually the poorer and racially different citizens) and their families, the “collaterally damaged,” the environment, democracy, and God’s world community.  Total losses in war are never measured against mythological gains.  Why are the ravages of war never calculated and made known to current citizens? To history? 

To be continued