Dulce et Decorum Est
by
Fred Reed
by Fred Reed
DIGG THIS
I
have just received the November issue of the magazine of the American
Legion, in which I discover an article by one Ralph Peters, reminding
me of why, having joined the Legion on impulse, I have never gone
to the Post. The piece is entitled Twelve Myths of 21st Century
War. A better title might be, A Pedestrian Compendium
of Agonizingly Clichéd Jingoism. (I guess he didnt think
of calling it that.) Anyway, Ralph believes that Americans have
become too comfortable, have lost their taste for war, no longer
want to pay the butchers bill. Ralph is for war. Not much
for history, though.
As a diagnostic
exercise in intellectual pathology, lets look at some of these
clichés. Ralph speaks of the terrible price our troops
had to pay for freedom in our various wars. Ah. In exactly
which wars did the military protect our freedoms?
The Mexican
War of 1847 didnt protect our freedoms. In the view of Ulysses
Grant a participant in that war, and unconvincing as a limp-wristed
liberal it constituted sheer unjustified aggression. In the
Civil War the Confederacy posed no danger to our freedoms, if by
us one means the Union. The South wanted only to be
left alone to misbehave in peace. The Spanish-American War of 1898
was also unjustified aggression: Neither Cuba nor Spain posed the
slightest threat to our freedoms. World War I didnt protect
our freedoms, nor probably those of Europe. It was an internal war
between colonial powers led by idiots. World War II was justified
retaliation for attack and a plausible long-term peril for freedom.
The Korean War wasnt about our freedoms many observers
assert that it took place in Korea and neither was Viet Nam.
We lost the latter and seemed no less free than before. Iraq has
nothing to do with our freedoms. It couldnt threaten the freedom
of Guatemala.
One for eight,
Ralph. It wouldnt fly in the NFL.
Ralph, a doubtless
well-paid commentator on television, complains that our elites do
not fight in the countrys wars. True. Neither do our Ralphs.
Relying on his biography in the Wikipedia, I find that he was born
in 1952, making him of military age in 1970. The war in Viet Nam
being at its height, he went to Europe for ten years. Rough duty,
it was. Cirrhosis always looms in those beer gardens. He retired
from the Army as a lieutenant colonel in intelligence. (Officers
usually being peters, it is not surprising that Peters was an officer.)
In the Marines we referred to such people as admin pogues
or REMFs, rear-echelon motherfuckers. I confess to a
loathing for those who shelter safely behind the lines yet send
others to fight, bowwow, grrrr, woof. Still, his record is not irrelevant
to his views. War looks exciting to office workers, but has less
appeal to those who are forced to fight. It has even less appeal
for those who are hit.
I remember
lying in the NSA hospital in Danang, across the way from some guys
whose tank had been hit by an RPG. I couldnt see them because
my face was bandaged. Still, we talked. They were badly burned,
but seemed likely to live, though with ghastly scars.
The RPG had
ruptured the hydraulics, they said, and the cherry juice cooked
off. The two across from me had gotten out. The other two crewmen
had burned to death. Apparently they screamed a lot. You panic,
it hurts, you are blinded, you cant find the hatches, that
kind of thing.
I could tell
a lot of stories like that. I dont because then I get very
strange and want to hit something. A loud-mouthed REMF, for example.
Dont
take this as denigration of Ralph, though. Intel work carries its
perils. He could have broken a nail on his shift key. Sure, a trip
to the nails parlor would fix it, but those things hurt.
Ralph of course
speaks of the sacrifices our boys are making. They arent making
sacrifices. They are being sacrificed. Sacrifices are voluntary,
but if the troops decline to fight, they go to jail. The mechanics
go this way: Having an all-volunteer army minimizes objections to
the war since no one of any influence has to go; if a lot of high-school
grads from Tennessee are getting killed, well, its not a good
thing of course, but who really cares? This facilitates hobbyist
wars. A voluntary army is a small army, so you have to send the
same troops for tour after tour until they are half-mad and their
families wrecked. Who cares? They are just rednecks anyway
not our sort of people, nobody a general would let his daughter
date.
What are the
current wars about? Ralph thinks, or says he thinks, that our wars
serve to protect civilization, decency, and apple pie. This is either
boilerplate brainlessness or deliberate cant. Permit me to cite
a contrary view:
War
is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily
the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits
are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives
A racket
is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it
seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group
knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the
very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people
make huge fortunes.
Many will recognize
this as the writing of the celebrated leftist Noam Chomsky, but
this would be a case of misidentification. The author is, of course,
Marine Major General Smedley Butler, holder of two Congressional
Medals of Honor, even more than Ralph. But what does Butler know
about war, compared to an office-weenie veteran of Europes
beer chutes?
War is a racket.
The military budget is absolutely huge after you add up the usual
budget, the expenditures for the current wars, the intel outfits,
the black programs, the Veterans Administration, and Homeland Security.
Each of these jelly jars attracts its swarm of hungry bees. Always
a new weapon is needed. Some threat pullulates in the darkness,
ready to defeat the weapons we have. Some of these programs become
virtual kingdoms. A fighter can take a quarter century to develop
at wonderful cost. Then you get to produce it for decades perhaps,
and sell spare parts and upgrades and then you slep it (Service
Life Extension Program, become a verb). Money, money, money. An
occasional war provides plausibility.
Of course we
are in Iraq to protect our freedoms, Ralph. Who could doubt it?
Only by coincidence does colonization put American troops on the
borders of Iran and Syria, enemies of Israel, and in a position
to control by intimidation the oil of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Iraq, and the UAE. Coincidence, I assure you.
A bloated military
requires enemies. Ralph sees one in the Mohammedans, a desperate
recourse but the only one available. Enemies have to be frightening
so as to justify the budget. The Soviets were serviceable in this
regard, having a huge if low-grade military and a history of occupying
places. When the commies punked out, no believable bugaboo was at
hand, so makeup was applied to Moslems to let them serve until China
comes online. Already one reads of the ominous buildup of the wily
Chinee. Evil lurks everywhere, fearsome shapes twist in the fog,
send money.
Why
does Ralph think Iraq threatens our freedoms? Because he is supposed
to. To quote Smedley Butler further, Like all the members
of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until
I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation
while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone
in the military service.
Actually it
is much more true of officers, who are issued their minds when they
sign up. They seldom turn them in upon retirement. Enlisted men
know less but think more.
Enough. I cant
stand it. Ralph complains that the presidential candidates have
never been in uniform, but I note that Hillarys combat record
exactly equals Ralphs. Frauds, phonies, poseurs, always saying,
Lets you and him fight.
January
1, 2008
Fred
Reed is author of Nekkid
in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well and the just-published
A
Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire to Be. Visit his
blog.
Copyright
© 2008 Fred Reed
Fred
Reed Archives
|