No, Vox…

…9/11 is certainly not a joke (I reference his WND column). It may be that for the policy wonks and related asshats who use it to justify our current imperial endeavors, but it is no joke to those of us who view that as an act of war against our people, one that is the product of a government that fostered a culture that made that act of war possible and which continues to foster that very culture.

But to answer the questions:

1. Are the national interests at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq more vital than eliminating all of the state and local government debt in the United States?

No. In fact, an integral part of our response to 9/11 should have been to make our military response limited–restricted to Spec-Ops missions designed to take out specific terrorist networks–while drastically reducing the size and scope of government in order to unleash our economy, and embarking on a monetary course that would ensure a strong dollar.

Instead, we spent like crazy domestically, committed ourselves to multi-theater wars with very limited resources and no plans for an endgame, and pursued a monetary policy that handed us the real estate bubble, multiple commodities bubbles, severe financial crashes, multiple bailouts and stimulus packages, and an economy that has–for all intents and purposes–about 20% unemployment when you include discouraged workers.

2. How many wars are too many wars?

Of our current endeavors, a credible case can be made that we embarked on five too many, and even the one that was legitimate involved way too much commitment to “nation building” and other pet projects that were hatched by government planners.

3. Is a permanent state of war acceptable?

No. If we don’t end them on our terms–while the opportunity is favorable–they will end on less favorable and voluntary terms. The Soviets learned that lesson the hard way: they were involved in perpetual global war, and that was not sustainable. Our current course is also unsustainable.

4. Is an aggressive foreign policy even remotely compatible with small-government principles?

No. In fact, such a course of action is more amenable to a mother lode of unintended consequences.

5. Why are aliens from enemy nations permitted to migrate to the United States?

Probably because the policy wonks who decreed that it was good didn’t ask those of us who have to deal with the consequences.

6. Why is popular Islamic democracy not only to be preferred to any other form of Arab government, but justification for military intervention?

This is what happens when you let academics–who don’t deal with real consequences–join forces with our military-industrial complex. Both groups have a vested interest in securing government largesse.

7. How long is it appropriate to fight a war that cannot be won when the nation is bankrupt?

It’s not. That said, I would contend that our necessary tasks in this war are largely accomplished. Osama is dead, and the AQ terrorist network has been all but crushed.

One could argue–and I would–that our military ventures in Afghanistan have involved a colossal waste of money, as well as strategic and tactical assets, and that we could have accomplished our work in a far-more-efficient manner. That said, if we define our mission in terms of what needed to be accomplished, the fight is not only winnable; the endgame is pretty near.

I would also heartily agree that it is long past time to call an end to our ventures in Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, and Pakistan.

And here is one last question to consider as you celebrate the tattered vestiges of what was once American freedom. After every war of the 20th century, from World War I to Vietnam, Americans eventually learned that they had been manipulated into going to war by their political leaders. From the sinking of the Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin, from Woodrow Wilson’s secret machinations to those of Winston Churchill and F.D.R., history has always revealed that the bloody flag was at least partially stained with red paint. In light of what has happened in the last 10 years, what are the odds that this is not also true of the current collection of wars?

While our government has engaged in all manner of deceptive practices–including false flag operations–to lure us into wars that would not have otherwise had popular support, I would reject the arguments of the 9/11 “truthers”. This was no inside job.

In order for that to have been an inside job, there are too many federal, state, and local agencies that would have had to actively collaborate in secrecy–in concert with all branches of our Armed Forces. No way in hell that happens.

As for the case for war in Iraq, the roots for that go back to 1990. That we went there in Gulf War I only guaranteed that we would eventually return to finish the job. One could make the case that we should not have gone there in 1990–and I have–but we did and Operation Iraqi Freedom is a consequence of that.

9 thoughts on “No, Vox…

  1. “3. Is a permanent state of war acceptable?”

    This assumes that there is an “acceptable” alternative other than victory..

    It neglects the fact that it takes two to make a peace and that there are people in this world who have committed themselves to attacking America (and by extention, every Western nation”) until you either fight back or submit.

    Apply the same arguments with regard to the domestic enemies of your population, and you will feel compelled to disband your police forces because they have failed to “defeat” crime after over 200 years.

    If you study history, you may recall that one of the key signs of the decline of the Roman empire, was when they attempted to rely on passive defence. Isolationism. When the barbarians knew that they could choose their battlegrounds, prepare in peace and retire after a battle without fearing pursuit and dire consequences. they lost their fear of Rome.

    Had Britain taken that attitude, the whole of Europe would now be speaking German. Few Americans seem to recall that the long-term plan of the Nazis was to consolidate the resources off Europe in order to build a navy that could challenge both the Royal navy and the USN.

    I would say that a permanent state of war is inevitable as long as barbarians and free people coexist on this planet. We may argue HOW we fight, but let us not pretend that unilateral peace is possible, Mr Chamberlain.

  2. Incidentally, a friend’s son has just returned from his 3rd tour.

    His comments are that the troops there believe in what they are doing, believe that they are doing a good job, and believe that they can win. Now they are returning home and finding too many civilians (who have not been there) flying the white flag.

    Vietnam veterans are reporting a strong sense of deja vu.

  3. @Peter
    The problem is deciding what that “victory” looks like. Regarding Vietnam, Gen. Westmoreland said, “We won every battle, until we lost the war.” We won every single engagement with the enemy, but were not able to close out the war for whatever reason. There is a credible case that this was due to bureaucrats making battlefield decisions and putting unnecessary constraints on the troops, but the fact remains: we failed to close it.

    The same is largely true for Afghanistan. Marcus Luttrell–the Navy SEAL who survived Operation Redwing–claims that the war would be over in about two weeks if we would throw rules of engagement out the window.

    He is certainly embellishing, but there’s some truth to what he’s saying: if we fought World War II with the constraints that our troops have today–and with the MSM serving as the Fifth column for our enemies–the endgame would have had a whole different look, too.

  4. ReconsDad :@Peter The problem is deciding what that “victory” looks like.

    With respect, I find that an evasion, even if it is a popular one.

    It is popular because people like to fantasize about war that is cheap (and in historical terms, the current war has been very cheap, neither of our countries has been forced to place our economies and manpower on a war footing) and finite. It is popular because defining victory also defines the commitment required of us….. and nobody likes that particular piece of bad news.

    Victory in Afghanistan is relatively easy to define. “Is not hostile to us and does not harbour those who are.” Achieving it is difficult. Achieving it in a form and by means that we find acceptable is more difficult still.

  5. A further comment on the justification for particular conflicts…

    It would be easy if we had a functional crystal ball, but we do not. The consequences of going to war, or not, or declaring Peace when our enemy has not are often unclear.

    Churchill put the problem better than I can.
    If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

    Sometimes it is preferable to accept the certainty of some costs and some casualties, to prevent the possibility of far greater cost and casualties. In choosing to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan – and in choosing to continue to fight right now – we are choosing the certainty over the uncertainty. Professor Hale is very confident in his crystal ball… his prediction that we could walk away from Afghanistan and Iraq right now and not pay a price. Having seen so many such predictions fail, I am not so sanguine.

    Respectfully…. Peter

  6. My crystal ball has proven itself reliable to my satisfaction and I am a trained expert in this field with 33 years of experience in the national defense field. I have backed my opinions with my back. I understand that wars are choices not random forces of nature and that victory is a continueum of possibile outcomes depending on what you are willing to accept. Blind adhearance to a policy of “victory or death” is just as likely to lead to failure as a policy of “no war at any price”. War is a hard messy business and someone always dies before it is over. As such, it should never be taken lightly and should always be treated as if life is at stake, because at least one life is.

    This is why bombing Libya is moronically stupid beyond belief. Killing some random Libyans to save some different random Libyans is foolish by any standard. If we stopped doing it this minute, would we call that a loss? Would the Libyans declare victory? In truth, if we stop doing stupid things, both sides win.

    If we depart from Iraq and Afghanistan, after having won all of our major war objectives, it is a victory. If we stop killing Afghani children, who just happen to be sleeping in the same house as their Taliban dads and uncles, we all win. If we stop spending billions of dollars on dubious marginal political objectives, we win. Wastfull American spending in Afghanistan is every bit as bad as money thrown down rat holes in the USA like endless job training programs, head start, day care centers, funding for arts and building fringe museums all around the country.

  7. @Peter
    Hardly an evasion, given that the question should help define the scope of our involvement.

    It’s one thing to target hostile armies and governments–we can and should do that much–it’s a whole different matter to transform our wars into social engineering experiments that have not been proven to work here let alone in the Middle East.

    We also have done a piss-poor job of thinking through the unintended consequences. You want to know who the biggest losers in Iraq are? Not the Sunnis; not the Shi’ites; not even Al Qaida. Heavens no….It’s the Christians.

    Sunnis and Shi’ites–who otherwise are at enmity with one another–have declared open season on Christians, who are fleeing Iraq en masse. So please tell me, did our policy wonks and related neocon asshats consider that in their grand calculus of Islamunist Democracy?

    As for Afghanistan, the Taliban is just waiting us out. Their families have lived in that region for hundreds of years, and it will be status quo ante once we leave. What are we going to do? Nuke them? Napalm them? Kill entire villages? We could do all of those things, and we would “win”. The question then is whether that face of “victory” would be worth it.

    Ultimately, the Afghans have to own their country.

    The problem is that–while we have the military might to wipe the Taliban off the face of the earth, that isn’t a practical solution. We don’t have the economic or political will to colonize them, so–ultimately–the Taliban is going to be an integral part of their society, and that isn’t going to change.

    Don’t get me wrong: but for my medical issues, I’d probably be over there right now. I tried–several times–to get into the military since 9/11. I’m ethnically Kurdish, and had no great affection for Saddam Hussein.

    The question is not a matter of whether the regimes were/are evil; the issue is the wisdom with which we embarked on the courses we have chosen.

    Given that we appear to be on a path that includes several elective wars–Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan–while we are financially bankrupt, I’d say Vox raises some important questions.

  8. Professor Hale :

    My crystal ball has proven itself reliable to my satisfaction and I am a trained expert in this field with 33 years of experience in the national defense field. I have backed my opinions with my back. I understand that wars are choices not random forces of nature and that victory is a continueum of possibile outcomes depending on what you are willing to accept. Blind adhearance to a policy of “victory or death” is just as likely to lead to failure as a policy of “no war at any price”. War is a hard messy business and someone always dies before it is over. As such, it should never be taken lightly and should always be treated as if life is at stake, because at least one life is.

    This is why bombing Libya is moronically stupid beyond belief. Killing some random Libyans to save some different random Libyans is foolish by any standard. If we stopped doing it this minute, would we call that a loss? Would the Libyans declare victory? In truth, if we stop doing stupid things, both sides win.

    If we depart from Iraq and Afghanistan, after having won all of our major war objectives, it is a victory. If we stop killing Afghani children, who just happen to be sleeping in the same house as their Taliban dads and uncles, we all win. If we stop spending billions of dollars on dubious marginal political objectives, we win. Wastfull American spending in Afghanistan is every bit as bad as money thrown down rat holes in the USA like endless job training programs, head start, day care centers, funding for arts and building fringe museums all around the country.

    Yep. I’d have to concur.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.