I have never been to war. I don’t know how to write about it, other than to say I hope my son never goes. My thoughts and feelings are simplistic in most areas, and especially so when it comes to this topic. I can’t get much past the level of a young child who asks “Why?” about everything, and when given an answer, replies again, “But why?”
We seem to be addicted to war. I can’t remember a US president who didn’t conduct a military campaign somewhere. Many historians say presidents all need a war to prove they aren’t wimps. Who came up with this definition, and why did we all buy into it? I can’t think of anything that represents strength more than the ability to defy mindless tradition or public criticism for the sake of saving lives. Nor can I think of anything wimpier than sitting in a comfortable office and sending other people off to die.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of Grenada, a tiny island in the Caribbean whose government had been overthrown in a military coup. I won’t go into details, because I don’t know the details. These things are very complicated, even when they involve a small island nation of 100,000 people. But military fatalities included about twenty Americans, at least two dozen Cubans, and forty-five Grenadians, with an additional five hundred wounded. There were reports that twenty-four civilians were also killed.
What do those numbers mean? We seem to accept wartime deaths with a cold resignation. It reminds me of the scene at the end of so many action movies. There’s a long chase that climaxes in a multiple-car crash. Vehicles fly through the air, flip over, and burst into flames. We ignore that. Our eyes are focused on the hero. Is he all right? The fact that there are people in those other cars doesn’t matter. Many of them were just killed, but what’s important is that the film’s main character has survived. The fate of the others becomes a background abstraction, mainly because we don’t know those people.
This is how we so easily accept the loss of dozens of soldiers, and the wounding of hundreds more. And it’s how we so effortlessly come to terms with the deaths of twenty-four civilians. The heroes — the president, his cabinet, and the generals — are all okay. The dead don’t seem to matter. And in the case of Grenada, they are especially insignificant, because that little invasion doesn’t even appear on most lists of American military campaigns.
Wars are almost always the result of irrational decisions made by a tiny group of political leaders. Somehow, those irrational leaders always have the power to send thousands of young men and women to some unfamiliar place to shoot at other young men and women who have been sent to fight by their leaders. This power is rarely questioned. Why? If a political leader is caught cheating on his wife, or giving money to cronies, or lying, he is often driven from office. But shipping the children of his citizens off to be mutilated by bullets and bombs and land mines is acceptable. It may even make him a hero.
Go to any bookstore and find the History section. Most of the books are about war. Why? How did we come to associate history with war? Maybe it’s because most of human history has been stained by fighting. Forty-five million people were killed during World War II. That’s the equivalent of killing every person now living in the states of Texas and New York. If we hadn’t been so in love with war, could we have possibly found another way to stop the Nazi threat without losing forty-five million lives in the process? Could we have found a way to compel the Japanese to surrender without dropping atomic bombs on cities filled with innocent people?
Every week I get emails imploring me to “support our troops.” What does that mean? If I were in charge, I would support our troops by not sending them overseas to get killed. Wars grind people up. They leave human beings dead, crippled, or traumatized. And they leave almost everyone involved hopeless, weighed down by the knowledge that the war that just ended will flare up somewhere else, and they have little or no power to stop it.
Our own collective confusion about war is evident in the way we vacillate between neglecting our soldiers and worshipping them. So many end up unemployed, homeless, permanently disabled, or mentally ill. Then, after decades have passed, we honor the few surviving veterans with parades and tear-stained Hollywood salutes and meaningless standing ovations.
The leaders, the irrational people most nations keep choosing, are addicted to war, to the blood of others, while they hide safely in their headquarters and their bunkers, eating meals served by silent butlers and attending briefings and high-level meetings. They confer with their chiefs of staff, studying charts and drinking from clean glass goblets, while the sons and daughters of the people who put them there lose their lives in the jungle or under the rubble, thousands of miles away.
These views, I realize, are considered naive. Life is complicated, and there are evil people out there who wish us harm. I know that. And I’m not suggesting that we don’t protect ourselves. What I am saying is that in most cases throughout history, the real threat has been created by lunatics — power-hungry lunatics. Then, thousands of people with absolutely no grudge to bear have willingly killed each other at the command of those lunatics.
The Fourth of July is a holiday of flags and fireworks, baseball and barbecues. But let’s not forget that American independence began with a fourteen-hundred-word document and was won at the cost of fifty thousand lives. Since that time, the United States has rarely been able to avoid war for more than twenty years. Soldiers are dying right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars will end sooner or later, but it seems inevitable that within a decade or two, American blood will soak the soil of some other country.
I hope before that happens, we take a good long look and at least ask the question: Why?
cooperstownersincanada
June 30, 2010
Very well written and thought-provoking. I think I’m equally as naive (as you say you are in the blog entry), but I agree with the vast majority of what you’re saying. Another great contribution to the blogosphere.
LikeLike
bronxboy55
June 30, 2010
Thank you. I appreciate the feedback.
LikeLike
heidit
June 30, 2010
Wonderful post and thought-provoking. I’ve often had the same thoughts as you, starting with the movies (what about everyone ELSE who died?) and the war. I don’t think that by questioning the war you are not supporting the troops. The best way you can support the troops is by questioning everything to ensure they are where they are for the right reasons.
In my work, I have frequently written about the VA and it breaks my heart how veterans are treated when they come back from war. The condition of the hospitals, the lack of proper medical care, the denial of vital services…all against people who risked their lives so others didn’t have to. Many people put bumper stickers on their cars proudly proclaiming they support the troops, but how much thought do they give to those same troops when they make it home again, their lives forever changed by what they’ve been through?
Sorry, I think I got off topic there. I think it’s vital to question everything, even if you feel the questions might be naive. Sometimes the most naive questions have the most difficult answers (or no answer at all). But that doesn’t mean those questions shouldn’t be asked. It’s for that very reason they should be.
LikeLike
bronxboy55
June 30, 2010
The VA situation reminds me of all of the people who call themselves pro-life, but then they’re against any social programs that might actually help those babies as they struggle through life. And now it seems as though I’ve gotten off topic, but I think it’s really all connected, don’t you?
LikeLike
charlespaolino
July 1, 2010
“I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot, nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.” — Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
LikeLike
bronxboy55
July 1, 2010
What would Sherman have thought about today’s video games? There’s a popular one called “God of War.” I’m not sure if the title refers to an individual who is so talented at killing that he is the god of war, or a spiritual being that controls the outcomes of wars. Or maybe it means that we practice war as if it were a religion. No matter. The General said it all, much better and in many fewer words. You both could have saved me a lot of typing.
LikeLike
Amiable Amiable
July 2, 2010
Great post. Lots to think about.
LikeLike
Mitch
July 4, 2010
I’m a military kid, so I will have a different take on this than others. I’ve also studied a lot of history.
Here’s the thing. People just aren’t very nice. At some point the collective “you” have to decide if you’re ready to die without fighting or ready to stand up for what you believe in. You also get to decide if you’ll stand by and watch someone else hurt or killed and just go home and go about your business.
I think most countries have progressed from the days of wanting to expand their country by invading another country, at least after World War II. But not all countries have learned that lesson, and not all countries have decided to try to debate with others through mutual negotiation.
I will bet that if there hadn’t been a response to Afghanistan, there would have been other buildings blown up in the United States because terrorists would have been allowed to plan in the open without any fear of retaliation. I would bet that there wouldn’t have been many Muslims left if the United States hadn’t intervened and decided to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. I would bet that the world would have been a much different place if Germany and Japan and Italy had been allowed to continue carving up Europe, Africa and Asia without intervention.
Were these things worth fighting for? In my mind, absolutely yes. That’s what war is good for; it’s good for eliminating bullies who believe the world is theirs for the taking. Yeah, sometimes even the United States is wrong; Iraq was definitely wrong, and the reasons for going into Vietnam and Korea initially were wrong as well. But overall, the U.S. has been perspicacious in what it’s gotten itself into; thank goodness for those miracles.
LikeLike
bronxboy55
July 4, 2010
I’ve studied a lot of history, too. I wasn’t trying to make the point that war is never necessary. I acknowledged the evil in the world and the need to defend ourselves and our friends. And of course we can’t tolerate terrorism.
My point is that we — the collective we, as in almost everyone in the world — seem to like war. We glorify it. We jump on it as a first resort, rather than the absolute last resort it should be. The invasion of Iraq was going to happen no matter what the facts were.
Human beings like to kill each other, and as long as that’s true, we’re going to act on that trait and we’re always going to find a reason to fight another war. The real tragedy is that it’s usually the people in the streets and in their homes who suffer the most, the ones who had no desire for war in the first place, the people who are just trying to live their lives.
LikeLike
Mitch
July 4, 2010
Ah; that’s different.
I used to glorify war as a kid, because the way it used to be written about was so glamorous. At the same time, I’ve only watched one movie ever that could be considered as anything close to a war movie, that being Pearl Harbor some years ago. Well, I don’t count The Alamo, but I guess it should be in there for some reason. With my dad serving in both Korea, and me seeing him go off to Vietnam when I was 10, it’s just not something I really have ever wanted to deal with. I remember the numbers count weekly on Fridays while my dad was in Vietnam, and was bothered many years later when I learned the government was lying about the statistics; weasels.
But we at least do support the troops, who signed up to do it but probably never thought they were ever going anywhere; at least a lot of them didn’t think that. Collateral damage is a terrible thing as well, but I think it proves that those who perpetrate bad things could care less about what’s right, only what they believe things should be like. That’s a shame, but in a way, I guess that’s what happens when some folks decide to exhibit a God belief in themselves.
LikeLike
partialview
November 14, 2010
It is amazing how all of us (read humans) are the same everywhere. Thoughtful people in India are also trying to bring the masses’ attention to the fact that soldiers are humans, too! While we expect them all to be GI Joes, they aren’t, because they are not plastic. Simple deduction, yet people go on… Considering the US (and India’s and every other nation’s) activities in the last so many years, one would be inclined to imagine the people living in these countries are trigger-happy barbarians. But the fact, as we all know it, is quite different. We are just lame people who let it happen. I do have strong feelings regarding this, because I’ve seen soldiers preparing for that final battle (that may never come) and in the meantime get deployed to war-riddled places (made so for political glories) and live a i-might-die-and-be-a-useless-piece-of-meat-soon life. Shameful. And we call ourselves humans.
ps. I like your graphic images. Do you do them yourself?
LikeLike
bronxboy55
November 14, 2010
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Sometimes I wonder if this love of war is wired into too many people to ever stop it. Or if the tendency to quietly follow along is wired into the rest of us, so that we keep letting a fraction of humans cause so much destruction for the rest. If we took all that money, energy, and knowledge and applied it to something constructive, imagine what we could accomplish.
I wish I could say I do the graphics. I download them from a subscription clip-art service, then combine them, and add captions or dialogue. They make the posts more visually interesting, I think, and also create the illusion that I have artistic talent!
LikeLike
partialview
November 16, 2010
It seems like a lost cause, trying to get people to employ all the resources on something constructive. Human history shows the callous attitude of a handful of ambitious people towards the general well being. Perhaps Utopia could come handy here. But only for this aspect of our lives.
LikeLike
partialview
November 16, 2010
ps. Great idea, the graphics.
LikeLike
bronxboy55
November 16, 2010
Actually, I didn’t alter the two images in this post at all. If you want to check out the service, it’s:
http://www.iclipart.com
LikeLike
bronxboy55
November 16, 2010
When I hear people say that they’re praying for world peace, I feel discouraged and sad. I don’t think we’ll ever get there.
LikeLike
Wyrd Smythe
January 25, 2013
I’m not sure it’s possible without some fundamental change in who we are as humans. And the thing is… I’m not sure I would support such a change.
One of my favorite Bruce Cockburn songs is called Burden of the Angel/Beast…
Could be the famine
Could be the feast
Could be the pusher
Could be the priest
Always ourselves we love the least
That’s the burden of the angel/beast
As Hamlet said, “How like an angel” man can be, but at the same time we carry the beast within. It is a key Yin and Yang with humans, and I’m not sure it can be separated out. I’m not sure you can reduce one without damaging the other. I’m not sure I would choose to live in a world so passionless that war was impossible.
LikeLike
bronxboy55
February 6, 2013
I’m not saying I don’t understand the force that drives men to battle. What I can’t stand is the idea that those deciding to go to war are sending others off to die, while they (and their families) remain safe at home. I don’t believe in an afterlife, so to devalue the one life we’re sure of is the ultimate crime. At the same time, I can’t think of a solution that doesn’t seem equally unacceptable.
LikeLike
Wyrd Smythe
February 6, 2013
There was a time when leaders, even kings, led soldiers into battle. There is a difficult equation to consider: Do you risk those who have accumulated a life time of success and experience, or do you keep them out of harm’s way and leverage their expertise? The harsh reality is that the rigors of war pretty much demand young people. It’s an ugly equation, to be sure, but I think any perception we’ve evolved much beyond our basic animal ugliness is, perhaps, wishful thinking.
There is also that most of the who have reached the point of giving orders have experienced the battle field and are painfully aware of the cost. They have the willingness to pay that cost, but never assume they don’t regret every life lost. They’ve experienced the horror of war directly, and know full well its cost.
That said, once you get up to the level of politicians, it’s a whole other ball of wax, and at that level, I often agree. There are those politicians who’ve never experienced or paid the cost of war. But there are also some Joe Bidens and John McCains (although the latter seems to have fallen deeply into senility… used to respect the hell out of the guy, but now I think he’s a jackass).
LikeLike