On
Enthusiasm for War
by
David Dieteman
On
the afternoon of September 11, I was surprised to hear calls for
war. I was especially surprised to hear such calls from typically
dovish persons.
"This
is war," was the refrain.
I
could see where the attacks were the worst kind of terrorism, and
deserving of capital punishment, but I could not see where it was
necessarily war. Of course, if it turned out to be state-sponsored
terrorism, then perhaps war would be in the cards.
And
war seems justifiable based on the facts we've received. Osama bin
Laden appears to me to have been responsible. The attack fit his
modus operandi, as in the embassy bombings and the U.S.S.
Cole.
Even
so, I continue to be surprised at the nearly uncritical enthusiasm
for war.
War
is a terrible thing, as Robert E. Lee observed, lest we should grow
too fond of it.
In
the years since the men of the United States fought a major war,
it seems that we have grown too fond of it.
I
found Saving
Private Ryan to be an excellent film. I was particularly
struck by the closing scenes, in which Private Ryan (if you haven't
seen it yet, stop reading) is told to earn the sacrifice of his
comrades.
There
is something to that idea of earning the sacrifices of the defenders
of liberty which has been lacking in America. Political correctness
and deconstructionism, not to mention Marxism, cavalierly and foolishly
sought (and seek) to dump all that is good in America with anything
that might be bad.
Saving
Private Ryan, however, happened to be on ABC television on Sunday
night. This struck me as verging on propaganda. Yes, it was a great
movie, but with the White House pushing Hollywood for propaganda
films, the timing struck me as not quite tasteless, but not praiseworthy,
either.
On
the one hand, the film shows the horrors of war up close and personal.
On the other hand, if we are supposed to make the syllogism (as
more than a few commentators have urged) that we must now sacrifice
our lives and liberty as our fathers and grandfathers sacrificed
in World War Two, I object. The present threat is not nearly equal
to the threat of World War Two. And besides, our course of conduct,
to my mind, continues to risk making things much worse for America
over the long-term by causing yet more Arabs to despise the United
States. I very much hope that things do not turn out that way.
In
that regard, I continue to consider what it is that causes men to
cheer for war as if it were football. I am not a pacifist; war is
sometimes justified. Furthermore, I am not anti-gun (far from it).
War, however, is not football. It is killing, death, and destruction,
the waste of human lives and valuable resources, which might otherwise
make the world a better place for everyone.
Paul
Craig Roberts observes that "Liberal-stifled patriotism, pent-up
for decades, has burst forth in response to the events of September
11. It is in fashion again to be a proud American."
There
is some truth to that. I am old enough (not that one has to be that
old) to remember the days before Rush Limbaugh and the American
Spectator, when left-wing shibboleths were the order of the day.
Limbaugh was so enjoyable precisely because he said what no one
else was willing to say out loud.
The
left-wing has indeed stifled patriotism in America for a long time.
There was something of a rebirth during the Persian Gulf War, but
because there was no similar attack on Americans as occurred on
September 11, it did not grow deep roots.
The
roots now run very deep indeed.
Aside
from such historical explanations, however, it appears that some
people regard war as an alternative to their usual routines.
Hillary
Clinton once blathered about "the politics of meaning." Americans,
not so long ago, were looking for meaning in their lives. War and
questions of human existence have always provided opportunities
to find meaning.
And
so perhaps many Americans are latching onto the swell of collective
feelings in an effort to lend a higher meaning to their perhaps
hum-drum lives.
If
so, they ought to consider the very great risks entailed by the
war. Unlike the wars of history or the silver screen, the present
war is presently real, and so poses a very real risk to those of
us alive today. In the month since September 11, Americans have
perhaps reverted to seeing war as something which takes place somewhere
else, and feeling themselves safe from attack.
As
the anthrax attacks should make clear, our safety is not quite so
absolute as we would like. As Roberts adds, the terrorists are not
only in Afghanistan, but likely hiding out in the U.S. and Europe
as well:
Ali
Mohamed pleaded guilty to assisting in the terrorist conspiracy
that blew up the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998. Mohamed was a sergeant in
the U.S. Army in a sensitive position at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Mohamed
told the FBI there were hundreds of "sleepers" in place in the
U.S. who do not fit the terrorist profile and are not dependent
on orders or financing from abroad. Trained and in place, the
separate cells act at their own choosing.
Terrorism
expert Simon Reeve recently told C-SPAN's audience the same thing.According
to the FBI and to a report compiled by the Michigan police for
the state legislature, most of the Muslim terrorist organizations,
including Al Qaeda Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Gamat,
are present in Michigan, which, thanks to former Republican Sen.
Spencer Abraham, is home to the largest Arab population outside
the Middle East.
These
are not comforting facts. Recall as well that the government has
announced that future terrorist attacks on American soil are 100%
likely.
Perhaps,
then, Americans continue to support the war because they see its
successful prosecution as a way to ensure their own safety. If that
is the case, then Americans ought to think about other measures
designed for long-term safety, such as a fundamental alteration
of the way the United States conducts foreign and domestic politics.
More specifically, we ought to consider whether Americans would
enjoy being treated by other nations in the same way that other
nations are treated by the United States, i.e., as pieces on a chess
board. (In that regard, see the
treatment of Guatemala over mercantilist American trade policy
).
In
closing, the enthusiasm for war is a puzzling thing. I am an avid
student of military history. And yet I am not enthusiastic about
war. The maneuvers of Stonewall Jackson and Erwin Rommel, not to
mention Julius Caesar, reward study. Personally, however, I have
come, over the course of my adult life, to have a greater appreciation
of what is going on in combat. At Chancellorsville, for example,
when Union troops fired into waves of retreating Union troops, men
died. The lives of families far away from the fighting were forever
changed.
Again,
this is not to say that combat is evil. There is such a thing as
a just war, in particular, in defense of home and family. Which
is why the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution.
Even
if it is a choice of us or them, however, (and at this point, it
does not seem to be), it seems proper to be temperate in our enthusiasm
for as great an evil as war.
December
4, 2001
Mr.
Dieteman [send him mail]
is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy
at The Catholic University of America.
©
2001 David Dieteman
David
Dieteman Archives
The
Truth Needs Your Support
Please
make a donation to help LewRockwell.com tell it,
no matter what nefarious plans Leviathan has.
|