Posted by
Patrick Henry on Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:50:53 AM
Ethicists have, for ages, debated the matter of what constitutes a "just war." This
was necessary, you see, because men and nations have chosen to do battle over
land, commodities, political differences and even a woman, Helen of Troy. Their
best consensus seems to be that the protection of national sovereignty, wars of
self defense are "just," as are wars seeking to ameliorate the intolerable conditions
of enslaved peoples. Other conflicts are less clear cut, and require case-by-case
parsing.
The problem with such philosophical analyses in the modern world is that there
are so many definitions of what constitutes justice, self-defense and slavery. Once
Hussein was gone, for example, Iraqi insurgents argued that they were simply
defending their homeland against an occupying power, the USA. Many Americans
see Venezuela's Hugo Chavez as a socialist dictator, but Hollywood's Sean Penn
disagrees and cheekily says that journalists so depicting him should be thrown in
jail. One man's hero is another man's despot, one man's terrorist another's "freedom
fighter." The American left sees the confiscatory redistribution of wealth as justice,
while those on the right see it as Draconian oppression. It seems that what is just
("right") is in the eye of the beholder.
Adolf Hitler, Jozef Stalin and Benito Mussolini claimed that their mass murders
and invasion of other lands were justified because they were in the national interest.
Great Britan, France, Belgium, Norway, Poland, et al, would say that those actions
were decisively against their interests. So national interest alone cannot justify wars
of offense, though it is the sine qua non of protecting national sovereignty.
And most modern wars are marked by internal dissenters who object to going to
war given the government's rationale and justification, or sometimes even in any case.
If America had taken a national poll in advance of any given war in which it has
fought, a portion, sometimes a large portion of its citizenry would have objected.
In the end, only the objectives and results of armed conflict will bear history's
verdict, vindication or condemnation. So will the ways in which such conflicts are
fought, and the enduring post-surrender aftermath. The Revolution was justified by
liberation of the colonies from unjust oppression and the founding of the American
nation. The Civil War was justified by the preservation of the union and freeing of
the slaves. The two great world wars were justified by the removal of unspeakable
tyrants and the defeat of murderous regimes. The Korean conflict resulted in
preserving a free South Korea. Desert Storm and, arguably, Desert Shield were
justified by the protection of Kuwait and Iraq's other, weaker neighbors. In each
of those wars, the objectives were clear and unwavering. The Mexican-American
War was one of protecting the territory of Texas, and was provoked by Mexico's
attacks, including the slaughter at the Alamo.
But the rationale for America's other wars has been less clear. Critics say that
Iraqi Freedom was never about WMDs, but about oil. At the time, many thought
the Spanish American War was about annexation of the Philippines. Since we beat
the Spanish and the Iraqis, yet never annexed the Philippines or got any oil, it
would seem that whether those critics were right or wrong America failed in its
primary mission.
The U.S. has made three great martial miscalculations, leading to one draw, one
loss and the Afghan war currently raging and of uncertain prognosis. If we were
to clearly understand and admit those miscalculations, the enlightenment might
guide the nation safely through the uncharted waters of future wars.
One such lesson is never to ignore history. In Viet Nam, for example, powerful
European armies had sought hegemony, only to perish in a swamp of treachery,
betrayal and humiliation. This was a repeated historical pattern, and it was
both arrogant and foolhardy for America to believe so deeply in its own
exceptionalism to assume that where others had failed miserably, we would
succeed. The chemistry, the terrain, the political climate and the history made such
an expectation unrealistic. It is true enough that had we not gotten involved, the South
would have succumbed to the communist threat. But that happened anyway in the
end, and cost the lives of thousands of American fighting men and women.
In tomorrow's segment, we look at other such factors that can help us to
choose and fight our wars wisely and successfully in the future.