The inexhaustible war adds a tragically ironic notch onto its belt
Barack Obama said frequently during his campaign trail, “I am not opposed to all wars—what I am opposed to is a dumb war, to an inexhaustible war.” I always felt okay with that; it seemed like him and me were on the same page. I suspect that many of his other voters experienced this same feeling. However, in an effort to “break the Taliban’s momentum,” President Obama has ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
After his ardent complaints of a carelessly misguided war-strategy, I am not sure this most recent action is the type of alternative many Americans were hoping for. That being said, I know I am stepping on my own toes a bit, as I have published in this paper—and some others, as well—very supportive words for our President and his efforts to maximize diplomacy with other nations, despite the criticisms he has received from the right. Nevertheless, I am worried less about my sense of political consistency and more about the well-being of our soldiers and of our socio-economic stability as a nation.
The truth is that this is an incredibly difficult issue to have a solid opinion about—for multiple reasons. Primarily, we—as the mere citizens—have just a whimpering iota of the information we would need to make intelligent choices on behalf of the country’s future. This is a nearly irreversible hurdle—the American government has had the long-established tradition of communicating with “us” on a very “need-to-know” basis (just think—the American populous didn’t know what the Atomic Bomb was until after it had killed thousands of innocent Japanese). Of course, they always wonder why everyone seems so disgruntled about certain actions even when we are tragically uninformed—or at the very least—under-informed. So where do we go from here?
Well most of us are next on the extreme ends of a given political spectrum. If you have given politics any amount of thought, it does not take long to realize that even your most adamant political positions can crumble in the face of a particularly complicated circumstance. Although I am opposed to war, as a sort-of general rule of thumb, given the right set of horridly inescapable circumstances, I could surely be swayed. Couldn’t we all, to some degree?
For example, if it turns out that Obama is right in saying that new Al-Qaeda attacks are being “plotted as we speak… making this a true crisis-mode, and that the terrorist group is adamant about bringing harm to American citizens—being wholly unwilling to negotiate or surrender in any way, then what else is available? I guess I wonder if there is an option in between nonviolent attempt at democracy and sending an invasion of troops. If there is, I am not entirely sure what it is—and it seems as though our political leaders aren’t either.
After weighing the issue back and forth, here are some of my individual complaints with the current course of action that I hope all of you will consider. One is that if there is, in fact, such a level of national security crisis—where a terrorist organization is aiming at us—why is this so underplayed in the national discourse? I do not blame anyone who lives their lives with a considerable degree of confidence in his or her own safety, because when I flip on the news, read the newspaper, or do online research, nothing seems to officially declare: “Red Alert! We’re in real trouble”.
It makes no sense for our government to hold back on showing us the data (or at least part of it) which proves that other countries are plotting harm against. Let me see the videotape of an Al-Qaeda leader declaring their goals for future American attack, and I’ll hush up quickly—you’ll have my unending support in employing more severe measures. But if you’re just sitting on the evidence that many of us require to change our minds, what else can we do but be frustrated? The government should know that our country does not operate on a “just trust me” line of reassurance. If they’re capable of rallying our support by showcasing the true danger of the issue; they’re crazy for not actively doing so.
I can’t help but studying WWII in high-school, looking at the pictures in textbooks and thinking, “Man, this is a truly national affair. It’s as though American citizens were waking up and going to bed with the war on their minds and how to contribute to America’s victory.” Companies put a hold on their business to help the war effort; families were actively supporting the troops.
Even if the Afghanistan conflict represents a lower level of overall threat, I have not noticed a remotely similar sense of attachment or support with the international interventions of the country. I suppose that it is because in a post-modern world, we are more distracted than ever. We have everything we need to satisfy our individual desires and we’re busy enough to justify our lack of knowledge about important international affairs. This type of apathy only fuels the fire of political stagnancy—we should be vocal and active about whatever side of the fence we fall on, otherwise no one’s listening, and I, for one, can’t blame them.
If it is truly of “vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan,” as President Obama said, then why is our media filled with celebrity news stories, Sarah Palin gossip, party-based political pontification, and the general blend of routine nonchalance? One reason could be that our country is so muddled with its own problems that it creates a priority issue, making it more difficult for our media to cover the entire scope of American conflict. In that case, here’s my two cents.
When our nation is in its own trouble, I think it’s a prime time to be selfish. It’s not a new concept in American history, although it may be easy to forget that since we have had a hyper-interventionist policy for nearly a decade. Isolationism used to be synonymous with America. In the Monroe Doctrine, James Monroe states that “”In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.” So much for that, I suppose.
Even if the administration’s goals are admirable and the intentions are noble (which is an awfully generous way of framing the picture), it still makes no sense for our country—with a lot of its own work cut out for it—to be playing the role of an international superhero, trying to fix other parts of the world (especially when it is suspiciously choosy about the Middle East as opposed to, say, Darfur, where some “fixing” may certainly be in order). The estimated $32.4 billion dollars that it will take to send more soldiers to Afghanistan can’t be—as well know—helpful toward efforts of health care reform or rebuilding our economic infrastructure.
I am worried about the very thing that President Obama said back in July of 2008—getting trapped into an inexhaustible war with endless rationalizations and no perceivable end. All of this, mind you, occurring at the worst possible time—when America has a lot of issues on President Obama’s “Change” chopping-block. I can remember being totally flabbergasted when I was learning about various wars in high-school and trying to imagine them lasting thirty-years, or in some cases more. What was everyone doing—surely not fighting every second of every day? I think I, somewhat naïvely, thought that such a dispute was impossible or highly improbable within my lifespan time where, surely, we must have learned from our mistakes. Frighteningly, I am starting to understand how this sort of conflict could drudge on for so long, and—quite frankly—it is not a realization that I, or any of us, should have to confront.
Short URL: http://www.themountaineer.org/?p=1126
Posted by Chad Skiles
on Dec 9, 2009 Filed under Voices.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
