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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 11, 2004
Re-read the text of the state of the union Jeremy. WMD were one of many things listed against Iraq. But even still, yes, speeches, by definition, are rhetoric.
on Mar 11, 2004
1441 encompassed all the issues that were outstanding against Iraq. You are lumping EVERYTHING under WMD. Did you read the Kay report? Just because we didn't find stockpiles of WMD in warehouses doesn't mean he 1) thought he didn't have WMD -- he thought he did 2) The Kay report makes clear that Iraq's strategy was to put things in place for after sanctions were lifted. 3) Iraq wasn't complying with inspectors if you recall. He was still playing cat and mouse games with them. He wouldn't let U2 over flights, he wouldn't let scientists be interviewed outside the country, he sent in falsified reports. It's as if you had your memory wiped. This stuff was only a year ago for crying out loud. France made it clear shortly before the war that "war is never the answer" and that it would oppose war NO MATTER what. Don't try to change the past.
on Mar 11, 2004
BTW, I noticed no one has disagreed with the fact that UN approval on any subject essentially means getting France, Russia, and China to agree with us. Do you really think most Americans, if they realized that, would take the UN as seriously as some of you seem to?
on Mar 11, 2004
BTW, I noticed no one has disagreed with the fact that UN approval on any subject essentially means getting France, Russia, and China to agree with us. Do you really think most Americans, if they realized that, would take the UN as seriously as some of you seem to?


I won't disagree with that because it's true; that's what the Security Council is. I think that Americans who laugh at the idea that the nation with the most nuclear weapons in the world (Russia) and the nation with the biggest army in the world (China) should have a say in things are out-of-touch pseudo-patriots like yourself.
on Mar 11, 2004
Ah, yes the mighty and fearsome French.....
on Mar 11, 2004
Gee...this whole article stems from a quaintly sketchy 'history' of US involvement in wars.....akin to a synopsis of War And Peace......a man was born...he lived...and he died.

I thought one of the 'first' wars was the systematic eradication of the Native 'American'....and things just went downhill from there....LOL

Details.....Afghanistan....sure there weren't some Ruskies involved there....and some US training of the 'resistance'?
Wasn't that oodles of time before 9-11?

I guess opinions are one thing.....and 'reality' is often clouded by interpretation....as in which side of the fence you sit/stand.

I think it is utterly important to 'attempt' an unbiased, unslanted outlook when determining/describing historical events.

The Japanese are currently rewriting WW2 history as taught in their school system to paint the 'Yellow Peril' in a rosier light.
History will 'try' to remind them about the systematic destruction of a Hospital ship and the subsequent rape and murder of its nurses. The Aussies were little better, though tended to just blow the brains out of prisoners rather than bother dealing with them...just as the Americans did.
What 'would' be 'nice' is that we at least NOT rewrite our history to make us feel better about ourselves.

The human animal is little better than pond scum....and we are often willing to sink beneath that level.
Anyone arguing to the contrary is wanting to rewrite reality.

Every country can look upon every war and say 'we screwed up badly...we are worse than animals'....rhetoric to the contrary is just attempts to appease consciences.....
on Mar 12, 2004
You forgot the war against indians and the secession war.In the same way you also missed the somalien people.
I DO NOT AGREE . This war was exclusively based on petroleum rubberry as a part of the contract Bush signed to be
president.You should ask their opinion to the people who was in the spanish trains yesterday.I definitively do not accept
to see US invade countries as they do without any respect for nato or onu values. Everybody knows that these war are only based on interest and not on human objective reason .All the money spent for the varnish could help to stop definitively the
misery all over the world. NEXT STEP CHINA. GOOD LUCK . Just a french reader. CHRISTIAN
on Mar 12, 2004
You forgot the war against indians and the secession war.In the same way you also missed the somalien people.
I DO NOT AGREE . This war was exclusively based on petroleum rubberry as a part of the contract Bush signed to be
president.You should ask their opinion to the people who was in the spanish trains yesterday.I definitively do not accept
to see US invade countries as they do without any respect for nato or onu values. Everybody knows that these war are only based on interest and not on human objective reason .All the money spent for the varnish could help to stop definitively the
misery all over the world. NEXT STEP CHINA. GOOD LUCK . Just a french reader. CHRISTIAN
i JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY.The countrie like spain ,Poland or England followed US because of money interest and promises
of business for the futur but no real desires to massakre irakiens as unfortunately it happened.Let say that when we can see
Arnold becoming governor in California here in France our question is : Where are your limits.The planet is not a movie.
on Mar 12, 2004
You forgot the war against indians and the secession war.In the same way you also missed the somalien people.
I DO NOT AGREE . This war was exclusively based on petroleum rubberry as a part of the contract Bush signed to be
president.You should ask their opinion to the people who was in the spanish trains yesterday.I definitively do not accept
to see US invade countries as they do without any respect for nato or onu values. Everybody knows that these war are only based on interest and not on human objective reason .All the money spent for the varnish could help to stop definitively the
misery all over the world. NEXT STEP CHINA. GOOD LUCK . Just a french reader. CHRISTIAN
i JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY.The countrie like spain ,Poland or England followed US because of money interest and promises
of business for the futur but no real desires to massakre irakiens as unfortunately it happened.Let say that when we can see
Arnold becoming governor in California here in France our question is : Where are your limits.The planet is not a movie.
on Mar 12, 2004
I believe the US was right to ignore the UN and invade. It should not have had to though. It created the problem itself when it tied article 1441 purely to WDM. It should have ignored WDM and focussed on the real problem, Saddam. If it had tried to get international approval for removal or Saddam due to previous non compliance it would have had a case and may have got somewhere.

Article 1441 has 14 points. 12 of these dealt with WDM, 1 with informing Iraq and 1 with international resolve to see the problem through.

People seem to be fooling themselves as to what 1441 demanded of Saddam or agreed to do under certain circumstances. 1441 required Saddam to produce a comprehensive weapons report, not interfere with inspectors and comply with UN disarmament decisions. It did not gaurentee war if Saddam revealed WDM, oly if he hid them and inspectors found that he had lied in the report.

To summarise:
Saddam must provide weapons report
Saddam must not interfere with weapon inspectors (including lettting them inspect the presidents palaces)
Failure to provide report => WAR
Interference with inspectors => WAR
Revealing of WDM => PEACE
Hiding of WDM and finding of WDM by inspectors => WAR

Result:
report produced => PEACE
Capability reported => PEACE
No new WDM reported => PEACE
Inspectors find no new WDM just capability => PEACE

US and UK refuse to believe report or inspector findings
refuse to give inspectors more time
=> WAR

Very clear cause and effect here.

Paul.
on Mar 15, 2004
A discussion on the wars cited...

Brad, you provide some darn good precedent for the US going to war, but you seem to be leaving a few key parts out, especially concerning Cold War-era conflicts. The presidents during the wars in Korea and Vietnam were following the U.S. policy of containment with regards to communism. Many American leaders were still following the thought process of Kennan and the Long Telegram, of which one key tenet was that if we stood up to the Soviets, they would back down. This happened in every confrontation in Europe (Greece, Germany, and Tito more or less pulled it off in Yugoslavia), thus I for one can see how Americans were able to justify these wars, as well as how surprised we were when Chineese stepped in for the North Koreans.

I have a hard time damning the U.S. decision to supply arms to Afghani rebels in their conflict with Russia. The U.S. saw this as an opportunity to deal another blow to the USSR, and any fool would know that if U.S. soldiers rumbled with Soviet soldiers on a field of battle, H-bombs would be dropped like bad habits. Not only would supplying weaponry probably keep us from a nuclear scrape, but would prevent the nation from risking American lives in a skirmish w/ the Soviets (Afghanistan was strategically unimportant). Yes, we ended up helping the same guys who probably planned or pulled off 9/11, but put yourself in the shoes of U.S. brass of that time (or of most people a decade ago). Foreign terrorists were just that: foreign. That sort of thing didn't happen in the states. Hindsight is 20/20 (forgive the use of a cliche).

Yellow journalism contributed to the War of 1898 as much as anything else. The U.S. was already involved with military and monetary aid, like the Lend-Lease Act, in World Wars one and two before we declared war (or had war declared on us). The Lusitania and the Zimmerman note for WWI, and Pearl Harbor for WWII merely touched off powder kegs that the U.S. had been harboring at that time.

These afforementioned facts (assertions) notwithstanding, looking for historical precedent was a darn good way of putting the Iraqi conflict in perspective.
on Mar 17, 2004
Great stuff, stubb!
on Apr 15, 2004
You know, I didn't even bother reading your analysis of Iraq, because your summation of all the previous wars is completely ludicrous. Study some history, then come back.
2 Pages1 2