Me on War (Part 4)

Bet you thought I had forgotten to pick up all those loose ends! Not so -- but there were a few things that had to be gotten out of the way first, like all the serious, world-altering entries under "Snapshots". But, that having been accomplished, it's time to sum up the "war" topic for now and deal with those questions I left hanging.

There should be no doubt, at this point, that among the four major positions -- Nationalistic/Patriotic, Pacifist, Anti-Pacifist, and Just War, I favor the last. And, there should be no doubt that the war in Iraq failed the Just War criteria at the outset as well as in retrospect. But surely, you'll say, the U.S. has, in fact, fought just wars in the past? Quite a few, in fact? Well, at least two? One? I guess I'd be willing to admit that, to the best of my knowledge, the Revolutionary War was "just" if you believe that the _cause_ was just -- for if the cause was just, then it was also just to defend it against the armed displeasure of Britain. And I suppose also that the War of 1812, since, among other things, it involved an actual invasion of our territory by the Brits, was just. But then we come to that unpleasantness known as the Civil War, or The War Between the States, and recent revisionism has shed more and more doubt on the justifiability of that war. I'll leave it to competent historians to continue to hash out these issues. Suffice it to say that the fallout from the Civil War is still very much with us, a situation which casts a bit of doubt on either its justness or the way in which it was fought, or the way in which it ended, with the aftermath in Reconstruction, the KKK, Jim Crow, Harlem, civil rights, forced busing, affirmative action, quotas, "diversity", hip-hop, Obama... and the list goes on.

To move along the time-line of history... we shouldn't forget the Mexican War, which was basically a huge land-grab, and thus not "just" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor was the Spanish-American War for the same reasons. But how about World War I? Again, we have to look to the revisionists, who contend that that war could very easily have been prevented, if the European governments hadn't been such a bunch of butt-heads. But even if they were, what reason did _we_ have for jumping in? In a word, Wilsonian utopianism, i.e. the zeal for spreading "democracy". Is George Bush channeling Wilson, the way Hillary channels Eleanor Roosevelt? Apparently so -- and with just about the same edifying results.

But now it gets tricky -- because if World War I was a mistake (for us, at least), then how about World War II, which was arguably World War I Part II? How can a mistake lead to something that is not a mistake? How can a "bad war" lead to a "good war"? As luck would have it, there is a column by Pat Buchanan in today's paper entitled, "So WWII was a good war?" Buchanan's point -- and he is coming out with a book on this question next month, which I promise to review on this blog -- is that, yes, WWII was a good war -- but for only two countries, and unambiguously for only one, namely the Soviet Union. (It was also indirectly good for the Chinese Communists -- and led, let's admit, to the creation of the State of Israel.)

Now, I have said on other occasions that World War II was fought to make the world safe for Communism -- the way World War I was fought (allegedly) to make the world safe for democracy. The truth is that World War I was fought to get rid of European royalty and make the world safe for secular totalitarianism -- and "may the best system win". But wait -- did we consciously get into WWII in order to insure that Communism won out over Fascism and National Socialism? Well, if you take a look at some of the maggots that infested the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, you have to admit that that might have been exactly what was on their minds. I mean, think about it (and this is something we really have almost totally lost track of, historically) -- on the eve of WWII Europe had already put away all knowledge of kings and emperors (except for a few pathetic token eunuchs who were maintained in state -- and continue to be, to this day -- for the amusement of the people). Democracy had, indeed, been promoted by WWI, and had become familiar, if imperiled, in much of Central Europe, where it had previously been unknown. But what was really happening -- the "thing" of the moment -- was socialism, collectivism, totalitarianism -- and the two forms vying for dominance were Fascism/National Socialism and Communism. Rome, Berlin, and Moscow had the "churches of what's happnin' now, baby!" The democracies started to look like "boys' state" -- a charming idea, but come on! The _real_ Church, i.e. the Roman Catholic church, looked on in horror and made every attempt to warn Europe and America of the perils that were either developing (Germany and Italy) or that had already shown their true colors (Russia) -- but everyone was so caught up in their own political cause that they ignored the warnings. So the two big pots -- Germany and Russia -- continued to boil, almost side by side, with the little pot -- Italy -- bubbling and hissing down across the Alps. And the Eastern version of the same thing was proceeding apace in Japan.

Eventually it would seem as though -- regardless of how one feels about WWI -- the onset of WWII demanded that one take sides. The notion of taking a position against _all_ forms of totalitarianism would have seemed a form of lunacy, simply because, as I said, the choice seemed quite clear-cut -- Fascism of some sort or Communism, because they were hot, they were trendy, and they were, most importantly, the wave of the future -- and never let it be said that Americans, in particular, are ever the least bit hesitant about embracing "the future", no matter how bleak and soulless it appears to be. Now, as we know, there were voices raised -- for a while at least -- in favor of staying out of it altogether, and other voices raised in favor of siding with Germany and the Axis. But we had already, for six years up to 1939, been resonating with the Soviet system in the form of the New Deal -- and besides, they were our old allies from the previous war, and Germany was our old enemy, and... well... it just made sense, that's all. Am I implying that "principles" had little or nothing to do with it? Exactamundo. If we had sided with Adolf and Benito and Tojo, and Western Europe and Russia had been ground into fine powder, all history from that day to today would have been written with that scenario in mind, and its justness and nobility. Yeah -- sorry to sound so cynical, but I can see that happening. Why? Because the people we _did_ ally ourselves to -- namely the Soviets -- were every bit as vicious and destructive, if not more so, than the Axis. And what's more, they had already had 20 years to show it. How enthusiastic do you suppose Ukrainian-Americans were to join the Soviets in a war against Germany? But this is all idle speculation; we cast our lot, and there's an end on't. But... was it a "just war"? Let's wait and see what Buchanan has to say in his book.

We have already treated of Iraq, and much the same could be said of all the "mini-wars" we have fought since World War II -- you know, places like Granada, Somalia, Freedonia,... (OK, that last is from a Marx Brothers movie -- but you get the idea). That leaves two middleweight wars, namely Korea and Vietnam, and for an answer on both of those I refer you to the very next section.

There are three questions I left hanging in the previous "Me on War" blogs.

1. What about a war to defend others?

The Church's just war statement seems to leave an opening for this, by talking about the "community of nations". Now, of course, the interpretation of what on earth _that_ means is anybody's guess. After all, the aggressor state is _also_ a member of the "community of nations", in the broadest sense. So we can't be talking about just anybody here. We must be talking about -- the U.N.? God, I hope not. How about NATO? Well... OK, how about "established democracies that are really democracies and not just abusing the term"? If you want to get that strict, I say, "America, heal thyself!" But just defining "community of nations" the way Bush defined "coalition of the willing" seems a bit lame and arbitrary. How about "people we feel somewhat compatible with and allied to today, but who we might just as easily betray and sell down the river tomorrow"? Oh, that gives me a nice secure feeling. How about "old friends" -- of whatever stripe? Or _new_ friends, like Albania? This is just getting much too confusing.

What I would say is this. Regardless of how we define "community", the criterion should be that the damage inflicted must be of the sort _we_ would regard as damage. In other words, throwing out some weenie of a King or head of state doesn't count. If _we_ would consider it a serious matter, than we can claim a certain solidarity with another country when they consider it a serious matter. I would also question whether the damage inflicted could, with a high probability, spread to us. Let's stay someone attacks Canada, starting with the Maritime Provinces. That's awful close to our own borders. We could see the fallout from something like that in no time at all. But would an attack on South Africa _ever_ meet that criterion? Highly unlikely. (Does this criterion disqualify nearly all of our current "mutual defense" treaties? Damn straight it does. I ask again, if you would not send your son -- or yourself -- to defend some shithole -- or even a halfway decent country -- then please don't ask anyone else to do it either.)

2. What about preventive war?

This question is particularly germane to the Iraq situation. We were convinced -- (weren't we?) -- that Saddam was all ready to lob a scud into the Wee Kare Pre-School down the street. Well, of course that was a total scam, and everyone knew it. But let's say that, at least in theory, it's possible. What I say is this. If it has our name on it, and the coordinates have been punched into some computer in Baghdad, and the countdown has begun, then OK, nuke the bastards, no problem. But the burden of proof is onerous, to say the least -- and the process is highly subject to fraud (think: Gulf of Tonkin). Frankly, I don't care how fat an arsenal someone like Saddam, or Gaddafi, or Kim, or Mahmoud, or Hugo, or Fidel, or Nikita, builds up -- we would have to be more certain than we could ever be that they were about to strike for the usual concept of "preventive war" to have _moral_ validity. I mean, at the very least, we think of these other guys as paranoid when they start complaining about _our_ arsenal. I mean, what, do they think we're crazy? Well, are they any crazier than we are -- really? Again, where is the burden of proof? If we see the Japanese fleet headed for Hawaii we might have an inking as to what they're up to... but it couldn't hurt to ask.

3. What about the atomic bomb (and Buchanan asks this as well)? Not as a weapon per se, but as a source of considerable "collateral damage". Well, hey, "total war" has been around as long as war has been around -- and there are always arguments that, in effect, it's all of us against all of them, and the geisha girl in Hiroshima is just as much the enemy as the kamikaze pilot heading straight for this very ship. Well, of course when _they_ develop that attitude -- like they did on 9-11 -- we get highly incensed. What does a Salomon Brothers trader have to do with our foreign policy in the Near East? (Maybe more than we think.)

I think, as a general rule, the government of a hostile power and its troops, war manufacturing, infrastructure, war-related transporation, material, etc. are all fair game. Civilians not part of the war effort, and resources devoted strictly to their service, are off limits. But that still leaves a huge gray area. What about crops and food storage? They go to feed the troops as well as the civilians. Most transportation facilities will serve both -- ditto manufacturing, utilities... What about a teen-aged boy who is bound to be drafted in less than a year to fight in the war? What about his public school, that puts out anti-American propaganda along with math lessons? On the other hand, if you bomb an army base you're going to hit some military families, including toddlers and babes in arms (as opposed to "babes" in arms). Then there's the even more awkward issue of "striking terror into the hearts of the enemy" -- you know, by doing things like firebombing Dresden. Make it so miserable for them that they want to surrender, in other words. (Of course, _that_ kind of "terror" is a whole different thing than the Al Queda kind. Right?) So on this question I don't have a definitive answer. My answer is, elect leaders who can weigh the factors and make moral decisions within the larger context of moral chaos. Yeah, it's a tall order, but what are the alternatives?

And, BTW, I think that the atomic bombs we stuck on Japan -- given the circumstances at that time, and in that place, and in that war -- might well have been justified. Sorry about that, but I've heard many arguments on both sides and that's what I say -- for now, at least.

[End of "Me on War" series]