Is the United States REALLY "At War"

Great Debates
1

I was driving into work this morning, and I happened to be listing to the Glen Beck radio program. I wasn’t paying too much attention to what was being said, until he mentioned something about “security moms” and the need for women to see and hear the debates tonight. The gist of what he was getting at is that it is important for people (and especially “security moms”) to understand that the United States is at war. And by watching the debates tonight, security moms will see (and hear) for themselves that President Bush is the logical choice in defending and protecting the US. Because we are “at war.”

Now, normally, I don’t listen to talk radio (other than the local sports talk programming) and I’m generally inclined to ignore much of the partisan slant that eminates from these types of programs. However, for some strange region (maybe it was the tone in Mr. Beck’s voice or his overall argument), I became noticeably irriated. Then angry.

The reason I became angry is that I began thinking - “Are we REALLY at war?” When I think of a country or group of people “at war”, I tend to think in terms of everyone making some sort of sacrifice or performing some sort of duty that works toward the goal of that war (ideally, defeating the enemy). The best example that comes to mind is World War II. During World War II, the country REALLY was “at war”, in that a majority of Americans were asked to sacrifice or perform some duty in ensuring that we would defeat the enemy. I’m sure many people can provide examples of how we, as Americans, made sacrifices and perform duties - the draft, millions of young men (and some women) going off to fight, large influx of women into the workforce in support of the war (Rosie the Rivetor), wartime rationing, war bonds, etc.

Now, I can agree that the US is ingaged in “a war” (in both Afghanistan and Iraq), but for someone to make the comment that we are “at war” simply doesn’t make sense to me. First, who are we “at war” with? Is it just Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorists? Radical Islamicists? Who? You would think that something as important as engaging in a war (and being “at war”), we would be able to clearly identify who we are “at war” with.

Second, if we are “at war” with global terrorism (whatever that means - I guess it means those people who are engaged in terrorism, wherever they are), then doesn’t it make sense that the war we are engaged in encompasses a rather large area (the entire world)? Woulnd’t it make sense that if this war were as serious a matter as those in power say it is, wouldn’t it require us as Americans to be as serious at being “at war” as we were during World War II? In other words, making sacrifices and performing duties necessary to win this war?

It’s upsetting and unsettling to me that people can claim that we are “at war”, when in fact it can be clearly demonstrated that only a small percentage of Americans are actually making sacrifices and performing necessary duties in acheiving the goal of winning. As a vet, it saddens me that it’s mostly our young men and women in the military (and their families) that are making the necessary sacrifices.

As a result, I can only make the following conclusion - the United States IS NOT AT WAR. Those powers that be are not serious about this war 1) becaue they have not clearly identified who we are fighting (leaving aside the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan, because it’s clear that we are ingaged in “a war” in those two places at the current time); 2) Even if it were demostrated who (or what) we are at war with, it’s evident of the powers that be they have not been willing (or cannot) make sacrifices themselves nor implore the rest of Americans to make sacrifices or perform necessary duties.

I’ll am open to the possibility that I am over-reacting to the statement “we are at war”, and am willing to listen to arguments that might persuade me otherwise. If my above comments came across as strident, I apologize in advance. But I really and sincerely want to know who are we at war with. And if we really are “at war”, why haven’t we as Americans been asked (and been willing) to make the necessary sacrifices or perform the necessary duties in propogating (and winning) this war?

2

No, the US is not at war.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has won the war and is now the occupying power.

Elsewhere, there is no sovereign state for th US to be at war with. One can no more be at “war” with a terrorist organisation than with a cartel of dodgy bookmakers.

The War Against Terror is propaganda. Its acronym describes what those who invented the term think of those who believe it.

3

Waddaya mean? Those “Support Our Troops” ribbon magnets are everywhere.

4

No peace treaty has ever been signed with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Only an armistice exists to hold the sides at bay.

5

Well, I know what I’ve done for the defense of our country, namely my five years of uniformed service. I know what I’m doing for the current war, too, namely working as a defense contractor in the Tomahawk cruise missile program. Even if my job weren’t so closely connected with the military, just being a taxpayer entails a level of shared support.

If you want to do more, you’re welcome to do so. Contact the USO or a local military base and they’ll give you some ideas. I heard of a spouses group that was sending their deployed unit air conditioners. That’s a great idea, and one that could use some resources.

I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but one of the first conflicts we engaged in, as a nation, was against stateless terrorists. These were the Barbary pirates in the Mediterrenean. One of the ships that distinguished itself in this struggle, the USS Constitution, is still a commissioned vessel in the United States Navy today. This war took place thousands of miles away, and did not directly affect most Americans. The sacrifices were directly borne by a few hundred sailors and Marines. The war was necessary to fight, though, to protect American shipping in the region from plunder.

From this we get the line in the Marine Hymn, “To the shores of Tripoli.”

6

And Bush told us to go shopping! And/or go to Disneyland.

But I refuse to go to Disneyland. So I suppose the terrorists have won.

7

Agreed, at least we’re not at war in any convention sense. On the other hand the face of war does change as the technological and political landscape changes. We might be seeing a lot more conflicts between nations and organizations instead of conflicts between nation states.

Sacrifice on the part of the general population certainly isn’t a criteria for being at war.

Marc

8

Aside from the ‘is the US at war/not at war’ question, I really don’t understand how an affirmative answer leads automatically to ‘so we must re-elect the guy who started it and has screwed it up so badly thus far’ (with reference to Iraq).

And what the hell is a ‘security mom’?

9

It’s what they used to call soccer moms.

10

Not really. Soccer moms cared about healthcare and such. Security moms want to kill, kill, kill, without mercy the islamic terrorists who target civilians.

In the most literal sense, we are not at war. However, I think a case can be made that there are groups around the world who are actively engaged in efforts to destroy the US (and other countries) and that these groups could do very significant damage. In that sense, they have declared war on us, and we are, de facto, at war with them.

11

It’s hard to believe that we are in a war that involves national survival when our full resources aren’t mobilized for such a task.

12

Yes, but they’re the same people. The electorate is fickle, and savvy politicians know how to tell people what they should be concerned about.

13

I think this is also one of the flaws, we should be (I.e Western States) should be mobilised on a war footing, total war footing, against the organisations which want to destroy us. We’ve been fighting to sloppy to achieve any significant victory or real positive change in the areas deemed friendly towards Islamist terrorists.

Only a total mobilisation organisation and commitment to victory will stop these forces.

There should be no compromise, no deals only surrender. Either that or be destroyed.

14

JM: In the most literal sense, we are not at war. However, I think a case can be made that there are groups around the world who are actively engaged in efforts to destroy the US (and other countries) and that these groups could do very significant damage. In that sense, they have declared war on us, and we are, de facto, at war with them.

I see your point. But I think one of the problems with calling this situation “at war” is that it conjures up ideas from the old “face of war”, to borrow Marc’s phrase, in which physically destroying stuff is the most important step toward victory.

In typical wars of one national entity with another, there are lots of people and infrastructure involved, and one side wins basically by destroying enough of the other side’s people and/or infrastructure so that the leadership of the national entity is either taken out or gives up. That’s how we won last year’s war in Iraq, for example.

But in a “war” like TWAT, where a national entity is fighting a non-national organization with very few people (compared to the population of a country) and very little infrastructure, it is very hard to destroy stuff without impacting lots of folks who are not in the fight. And that tends to strengthen the other side’s forces, by enraging more people against the first side.

It becomes a sort of hydra-head situation: the more you hit the monster, the more heads grow back. And when people are in a “typical war” mindset, where the amount of stuff you physically destroy is more or less correlated to how successful you’re being in the war, they’re apt to support just hitting the hydra harder. This, IMO, is a recipe for disaster in the type of “war” we’re currently facing.

15

<dusting off old anti-Clinton playbook>

So, you admit George W. Bush is a “waffler”? :smiley:

16

I agree. But I think “the War on [Islamic fundamentalist] Terrorism” is not in the same silly league as the “War on Drugs” or the “War on Poverty”. In the first one, there is an actual enemy whereas in the other two there is not. Is the WoT closer to a convential war than to those other “wars”? That’s a tough one.

17

How much control over the economies should the government have? What levels of deficit spending is appropriate? (can we run deficits along the levels of USA 1944)

Should the western allies require all ships on the open seas to get allied approved documentation to carry allied approved cargos to allied approved destinations, subject to inspections (and confiscation) at the whim of allied naval vessels? Will such total war tactics help win the war or antagonize neutrals? (Or are there no neutrals). How far into starvation are we willing to let nonfriendly countries fall?

What goes for cargo on the seas should certainly also go for airplanes flying cargo. How about satellite communications? How can we possibly allow our enemies to use “neutral” owned communications satellites to further their goals? Should we shoot them down or merely demand the ability to monitor any (all) communications on them?

Should we reinstate the draft or bring in universal military service for the duration of the crisis, while simultaneously training the currently unemployed/unemployable/not suited to military service to replace them on the job.

Should we ration gasoline and other petroleum products to reduce demand and deny profits to evil regimes (or just send CAFE standards aggressively through the roof)? How about other consumer goods - should we convert significant proportions of the civilian economy over to producing military goods or should we let it wither away to divert the workers to military roles?

How much censorship should we have? Once committed to the war do we turn control over war information entirely to the government, which is far more capable then we of deciding what we need to hear and what will encourage defeatist talk? We must certainly return to censoring the mail, plus DHL, Fedex, UPS, and other commercial carriers. And e-mail - how should we censor email traffic and monitor it for illicit communications - should coded or encrypted emails be illegal unless the code or key is provided to the government? (would this result in no leet speak on message boards?) What sort of propoganda movies should the government make? Who should we hate first? (Don’t say terrorists unless you can teach us how to recognize them before they blow something up)?

How far should we spread the war - how do we determine who is friend and foe? What are the criteria for leveling a city? How do we determine our allies? We sacrificed Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union in exchange for their assistance against Nazi Germany. Is it too much to give China a free hand in Taiwan and a pass in Tibet in exchange for friendly neutrality wrt the war on terrorism?

Or is it possible that total war isn’t really what we want at all.

18

It’s basically any adult, non-lesbian, predominantly white, married, in a houshold making more than $40k a year woman who grooms herself and doesn’t wear a burlap sack with a canibus leaf stenciled on the front while carrying a Stop Bush sign (one of the s’s replaced by a Swaztika of course). She is often married to Nascar Dad. Your basic Liberal generally views Mr&Mrs Soccer/Nascar as too stupid to see the “truth”.

19

Who ever said we want Total war? I’m saying it is a viable option to defeating them. Last time I heard, having a united unyielding front against this sort of foe is a great thing.

20

Marc,

Please elaborate on this point. While I wouldn’t expect every single citizen to put their lives on the line, I would expect the majority of people being willing and able to shoulder some of the burden. And this can take many forms. Again, I’ll use WWII as an example. Those that didn’t go off to fight the Axis powers directly were helping shoulder the burden back home (rationing, war bonds, women entering the workforce, etc).

It seems incredulous to me that if this “war” is so important and so serious, then why aren’t more people willing (or able) to shoulder some of the burden? Why should I ask a young man/young in our armed forces to put his life on the line, if I am not willing to step up to the plate, so to speak, and make that young person’s burdern less onerous?