Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Causes of wars are historically less important than the results
Published on March 10, 2004 By Draginol In History

Over the years, Americans have died all over the world fighting for causes that, at the time, seems pointless. It is only in the long view that many of these actions can be judged. The war on terror, which includes the "battle" in Iraq is no exception. Bringing democracy to Iraq will, in the long term, bring peace and prosperity to those people and make us a lot safer. We are a lot safer having Saddam removed than leaving him there for the inevitable day when sanctions were lifted and either he or his psychopathic sons were in charge to do who knows what.

As wars go, this one was unusually justified.

Here's a list of the wars the US has been in:

War of 1812: Declared because a handful of US merchants were impressed into the British Navy. Thousands of Americans died and the most of Washington DC was burned to the ground by the British. Our President, James Madison, wrote most of the constitution.

Mexican/American War: We wanted Mexican territory so we seized it.

War of 1898: A US ship in Havana Harbor blows up likely due to a failure on the ship. The US declares war on Spain and seizes Cuba and the Philippines.

World War I: Germany declares unrestricted submarine warfare around the British Isles. So we declared war on them.

World War II: Japan attacks Pear Harbor, Germany and Japan both declare war on us.

Korean War: North Korea invades South Korea. US troops sent to defend South Korea.

Vietnam War: North Vietnam aims to unite all of Vietnam into a Communist country. US defends South Vietnam. Ultimately ends in a stalemate with the US leaving. North Vietnam ultimately violates the agreement and conquers South Vietnam anyway. US doesn't respond.

Gulf War I: Iraq invades Kuwait. US and UN give Saddam an ultimatum to leave Kuwait or be forced to leave. US and Coalition forces liberate Kuwait but stop short of removing Saddam (since that wasn't part of the UN mandate). A cease fire is called in which Iraq agrees to UN inspections, a no-fly zone over the northern and southern part of the country to protect the Kurd and Shiites respectively, and reparations to Kuwait.

Afghanistan: After 3 hijacked airliners crash into the WTC and Pentagon (a 4th was retaken by the passengers and crashed into the ground), the US determines that a worldwide terrorist network, Al Qaeda, was responsible and is mainly based in Afghanistan. After demanding that the Afghan Taliban government hand them over being refused, US forces work with "the northern alliance" to eliminate the Taliban government and eject most of Al Qaeda from that country.

Gulf War II: Iraq, having thrown out the inspectors, not paid reparations, and regularly firing on US/UK planes patrolling the no-fly zone is given an ultimatum in the unanimously passed resolution 1441: Abide by the previous agreements or suffer "serious consequences". He is given 90 days to do so. By February, it's clear Saddam is playing the same old games. Coalition forces remove Saddam from power.

Now, if you look at this together, it's pretty clear that as wars go, this one had more thought and justification to it than most efforts the US has been involved in (the war of 1898, the war of 1812, and the Mexican-American war are all 3 wars that are pretty hard to justify IMO).

I tend to think that most people just don't know much on these wars. IN the Mexican-American war, the US army actually conquered Mexico. Not just some piece of it. US forces conquered Mexico City. If they had had mass communications back then, there's a pretty good chance that most of Mexico would have been incorporated into the United States.  Similarly, the war of 1812 was incredibly foolish and had virtually no justification that I can find. And as for the Spanish-American war, imagine the reaction today of US troops fighting and dying in the Philippines because some old US ship blew up for unknown reasons 90 miles south of Florida.

50,000 Americans died defending Korea. What was the justification for that? It was a rural nation on the other side of the world with no national interest to us. I certainly grieve for every one of the hundreds of Americans who have died in Iraq, their sacrifice will ultimately help a great many people in the long run.

Most defeated enemies of the United States have benefited in some way. If Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California had remained part of Mexico, does anyone think the citizens there today would be better off? Does anyone think that Japan and Germany aren't better off today than they would have been otherwise? France, which regularly whines about US "unilateralism" only exists today because the same gang liberated them from the Germans (and was it not French unilateralism that aided the US revolution? The French justification for helping us was basically to piss off the British). 

The point is, what we're doing in Iraq is almost certainly going to benefit everyone on all sides (well, not the terrorists probably.  We won't have to worry that some dictator is using his billions in oil wealth to plot some horrible revenge on the United States or its friends.  Iraqi's won't have to worry about having their children taken from them and tortured, killed and imprisoned simply as a way to "teach the parents a lesson". Iraq's neighbors don't have to worry about becoming a "province" of "Greater Iraq".

In other words, the benefit being gained from the war in Iraq is great and our sacrifice has been relatively low. But not absolute zero. When people worry about the details of justifying the war they ignore the bigger picture. Most wars in history have had little or no justification. The US is no exception to this. But what is exceptional is the long term results - US actions do tend to benefit other peoples. There is no denying this.  People who carp about the UN not agreeing with this or that ignore the obvious - the UN was created by the United States. It wasn't a team effort. It was wholly a US idea with British backing that the US then talked others into being involved with. And the UN was an action that resulted from World War II.

Wars are hell. But they do bring change both good and ill. But based on history and based on a broader look at the situation, the war in Iraq is likely to benefit everyone in the long run.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 10, 2004
Just a thought, because I am sick of the phrase after MASH:

Hawkeye: "War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse."
Father Mulcahy: "Why do you say that, Hawkeye?"
Hawkeye: "Simple, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?"
Father Mulcahy: "Sinners, I believe."
Hawkeye: "Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is full of them."
— from the TV series M*A*S*H

IG
on Mar 10, 2004
Nice quote Geek.
Those bystanders are now classified as "collateral damage" by Army war college standards.

Brad,
I concur, I only wonder how soon the Iraqi's will produce a car to compete with Toyota or BMW ?

Seriously, when given the opportunity to finish what we started, the US is like a good boyscout,
We always leave the place better than we found it. ( for those detractors - I said when we finish, not when we quit )
on Mar 10, 2004
There was once a farmer who's horse ran away.  The people in the town all came around and consoled him and said "I'm sorry to hear the news, such a bad stroke of luck".  The farmer replied, "maybe".
Three days later the horse returned, with six wild horses.  The towns people heard the news and congradulated him "what fortunate turn of events!"  The farmer replied, "maybe".
A few days after that, while breaking one of the horses, the farmer's son was thrown and broke his leg.  When next he returned to town for supplies, all the townsmen said to him "such a horrible thing to have happened".  The farmer replied, "maybe".
The very next morning the army came by with the son's draft papers, and could not enlist him due to the broken leg.  He said to his father, "in a way it's good that I broke my leg.  The farmer replied, "maybe".
on Mar 10, 2004
and also....you open up by explaining that in war, it seems like things happen for pointless reasons.  Then you go through all of the reasons that wars have happened.  But you fail to recognize that wars also happen for reasons that DO seem important at the time but are later proved to not be so.  
on Mar 10, 2004
Brad,

For the most part, I agree with your comments. Germany really benefitted from the Marshall Plan after the war. Too bad the Americans had to leave the rest of Germany to the USSR.

But what about all the American intervention in Central America? Who did that benefit? Certainly not the civilians of those countries. Are those countries any better today as a result of America's involvement there? Seems that they're about the same.

Now those weren't officially "wars" but they did involve American military intervention (covert or not).

My fear is that whatever the Americans do in Iraq it'll be undone once they leave. There will be a coup and they install some fanatical religious leader (like what happened in Iran) and the same crap will start all over again.

American intervention help the former Yugoslavia. I only wish Clinton had bombed the Serbs much earlier.

And maybe if the UN and the US had acted quickly and decisively in Rwanda, they could've saved hundreds of thousands of life. After the debacle in Somalia, Clinton was scared to commit troops to save African lives.

Strange how the US media never mentions the failure of the Clinton administration or the UN in Rwanda. Here in Canada, it was in the news frequently because it involved Gen. Romeo Dallaire (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dallaire/).

Begin quote:
"As the death toll mounted [in Rwanda], General Dallaire submitted a detailed plan for a Rapid Reaction Force. He needed 5,000 soldiers to dismantle the killing machine of the genocidaire and to stop the Hutu power movement. The UN Security Council rejected the plan. The United States even refused to acknowledge the genocide to avoid any legal obligations to help."

Romeo Dallaire has written a book about his experience in Rwanda called "Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679311718/qid=1078973471/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-8046776-4800655?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Now you'll probably say that helping Rwanda (or even Yugoslavia) wasn't of national interest to the US, whereas Iraq is. Well, I think that nations should not only protect their own interests, but the interests of humanity. And that means intervening militarily when dictatorships are killing their own people in large numbers. Isn't that the point of remembering the Holocaust, to never let it happen again? Sure, 800,000 Rwandan lives doesn't equal the six million that died in the concentration camps, but it's still a hell of a lot of lives. And saving them warranted sending troops. It was noble and just cause. And we failed.
on Mar 10, 2004
Gulf War II: Iraq, having thrown out the inspectors, not paid reparations, and regularly firing on US/UK planes patrolling the no-fly zone is given an ultimatum in the unanimously passed resolution 1441: Abide by the previous agreements or suffer "serious consequences".


People who carp about the UN not agreeing with this or that ignore the obvious - the UN was created by the United States. It wasn't a team effort.


Clever omission of the WMD lies. In addition, one wonders why the Republican take on the UN is so inconsistent; when Iraq violates a UN resolution, that's a big deal because the resolution is somehow sacred, but when the UN Security Council quite clearly votes not to bust into Iraq with guns blazing, then the UN is silly and stupid and irrelevant.
on Mar 10, 2004
In addition, one wonders why the Republican take on the UN is so inconsistent; when Iraq violates a UN resolution, that's a big deal because the resolution is somehow sacred, but when the UN Security Council quite clearly votes not to bust into Iraq with guns blazing, then the UN is silly and stupid and irrelevant.
Clever omission of Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement and the billions the opponents of an invasion were set to make from their inaction.
on Mar 11, 2004
Clever omission of Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement and the billions the opponents of an invasion were set to make from their inaction.


Fails to account for GOP wishy-washiness on role of the UN. Either their resolutions and opinions matter, or they don't.
on Mar 11, 2004

The UN resolutions matter when they're politically useful. They don't matter when they're not politically useful.


France didn't consider the UN binding when it sent troops into the Ivory coast during the run up to the invasion of Iraq.


Also, you should look into the actual legal justification of the war. WMD were never involved in it. WMD may have been brought up in some of the rhetoric to gain public support, but it was never involved in the actual legal justification.


Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire and thus it became null and void. Opponents of the war latch on to the WMD stockpile thing as if this were a big deal. Those who opposed the war would have latched onto something else even if WMD had been found.

on Mar 11, 2004
The role of the UN is irrelevant when anti-war EU nations sell their votes to Iraq to leverage trade agreements. Please, stop pretending like France, Germany and the other most outspoken anti-war nations gave a damn about war, they didn't. They stood to gain billions from Hussein, and lose even more if he was toppled. If UN 'cliques' are willing to abuse their security power as a tool for trade, then yes, it is irrelevant.
on Mar 11, 2004

And let us remember who the UN really is: The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council:


1) USA
2) France
3) Russia
4) UK
5) China


So the UN not supporting US action in Iraq is actually saying that France, Russia, and China didn't support it. It is too bad that conservatives haven't been better at educating people what "UN support" actually translates to. Amazingly, I am able to sleep at night even with the knowledge that Communist China, Russia, and France did not support our action in Iraq.

on Mar 11, 2004
Amazingly, I am able to sleep at night even with the knowledge that Communist China, Russia, and France did not support our action in Iraq.


You keep saying this while praising your boy in the White House for gathering the support of the mighty nations of Bulgaria and Uzbekistan. Either international support matters, in which case the UN Security Council should matter most of all, or it doesn't, in which case the coalition is meaningless.
on Mar 11, 2004
People are being very vague about resolution 1441.

USA, UK, France, Russian and China ALL supported it.

What's your problem here. They all supported military action IF Iraq failed to comply with arms inspectors. Oh wait a minute. You mean resolution 1441 was about arms inspection? YES. Wake up and see the truth! It was not about sanction busting, not about no fly zones, not even about Saddam remaining in power. It was about failing to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectrors and the fear that Iraq was therefore involved in production of WMD. There are 14 paragraphs to resolution 1441, 12 deal with WDM, 1 deals with notifying Iraq of the resolution and 1 deals with remaining resolute.

So lets be clear.

France DID support military action IF Iraq failed to comply with 1441
1441 WAS about WMD and NOTHING else

As for the article, I think that peoples perceptions of what is and is not acceptable have greatly changed in the last two hundred years. Most of the previous US initiated conflicts could never occur today. This does not automatically mean that current conflicts are therefore OK in comparison or will turn out OK.

Paul.
on Mar 11, 2004
WMD may have been brought up in some of the rhetoric to gain public support, but it was never involved in the actual legal justification.

So the state of the union address is just a little rhetoric?
on Mar 11, 2004
Agreed that the WMD was not the legal reason for the war, most anti-war, anti-Bush people cling to that like a security blanket.
2 Pages1 2