You Call This a War? I’ll Show You a War
By Anthony Gregory • Tuesday March 20, 2012 11:01 AM PDT • 26 Comments
In light of Obama’s “National Defense Resources Preparedness” Order, I’d like to comment on a troubling trend I’ve seen in American discourse about war since 9/11. From left to right, it was often said that the U.S. government’s interventions abroad as well as its activities at home did not rise to the level of drama and seriousness that typified previous U.S. wars. In particular, World War II has been brought up time and again as a model of which the current militarism has fallen far short. This observation has generally been given with the observer demonstrating palpable lament if not nostalgia.
The conservative hawks took up the call most loudly, at times decrying the modern American squeamishness about killing civilians. Although certainly Americans do not seem so sensitive to this concern that they are driven to the streets demanding peace amidst the many estimates ranging from a hundred thousand to a million civilian deaths caused by U.S. wars in the last decade, there is some truth to the comparison. In earlier generations, U.S. policy was simply to target civilians, destroying cities and villages not just wantonly but deliberately. The many, many thousands liquidated by U.S. firebombings in Japan were not “collateral damage.” They were the product of a purposeful U.S. policy carried out exactly as it was intended to be.
About six years ago, talk radio hosts frequently argued that the U.S. should treat all of Iraq the way Britain and the United States treated dozens of German cities, most famously Dresden. And the hope that the Bush administration would revive past precedents of warmaking was not limited to the topic of targeting civilians to be killed. Some have argued that the U.S. should increase spending on “defense” to the proportions familiar to the Cold War generations. Many called for the punishment of antiwar voices along the lines of what might have been expected in past U.S. wars. Others argued that the official alienation of ethnic minorities or others associated with “the enemy”—as had been done to Japanese-Americans or alleged communists—was more than warranted. A book called In Defense of Internment was eaten up vociferously by those in favor of such nationalistic nostalgia.
Not to be outdone, the liberals have had their own fit of disappointment in America’s supposed failure to adhere to past traditions, and really make this war count. First it came in complaints that Bush did not engage in the types of national mobilization or Keynesian public works programs that glorious U.S. presidents initiated in the past. Then came the general accusation that America’s war party itself was refusing to “sacrifice” enough in the midst of the war effort. Most on the progressive left, claiming to oppose war as they do, nevertheless admire the national unity that supposedly characterized (but in most cases did not in reality characterize) World War II. Taxes should be higher. The economy must be made the executive branch’s domain. The military should be better cared for. And most disturbingly, national service—along with military conscription—should be made mandatory. Some advocated this measure in a straight-forward manner, believing that it would usher in a much-needed era of unification, patriotic identity, and service. Others favored national slavery as a means to ensure that pro-war politicians and leaders would only support wars that were “legitimate,” the logic being that their kids would be forced to fight. Putting aside the utter moral bankruptcy of using a politician’s powerless children as pawns in a game of chicken, as well as the implausibility that any draft would actually affect all equally, the fact remains that any rationale for forced labor to the state, including for the purposes of waging war, amounts to the total dismissal of the liberty of those being conscripted into service, and should be rejected for that reason alone.
In any event, all these lamentations that the U.S. has fallen short of its grandiose militarism of years past have for the most part brought me nausea and frustration, yet they also seem to carry some lessons with them. It is almost as though most Americans fail to understand that the U.S. is in fact at war. It might be a smaller drain on the gross domestic product than before. Fewer millions have died in these wars than in others. Our civil liberties, in some avenues—although not in all—are in better shape than in the worst Americans wars of yesteryear. But this idea that we are at peace is obviously wrong, yet seems implicit in the way many have talked about U.S. security policy for the last eleven years.
Consider this headline about Obama’s new and frightening executive order: “Barack Obama Prepares for War Footing.” This Huffington Post article helpfully sums up the disturbing elements of the order, including the fascist claims of executive authority over the lion’s share of the physical economy (although Robert Higgs puts this matter in pithier and sharper terminology). It also tells of the horrifying prospect that the president could reinstate the draft at any time. But the headline certainly implies that the U.S. is not at a war footing already. It clearly insinuates that the U.S. is now threatening to engage in an activity it was not already threatening to engage in. This is balderdash. Even in the isolated case being discussed—the possibility of a U.S. war with Iran—this was already the case. The U.S. labeled that regime part of the Axis of Evil a decade ago, has since likely been involved in covert war operations against that country, instituted numerous sanctions against its people, surrounds the nation with military bases that bestride the countryside of its westward and eastward neighbors, and is financing its main enemy in the region, Israel, to the tune of billions a year, giving assurances that in the event of a military conflict, the U.S. would side with Israel and perhaps even provide bunker-busting nuclear weapons.
Then there is the fact that the U.S. has been involved in active military operations without an instant of relent for years. Since 9/11, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and I’m sure some others that don’t come immediately to mind have been the recipients of U.S. military bullets and bombs, and covert operations and U.S. military advisers have been deployed to many, many others.
The U.S. government has spent trillions on these wars; destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions; killed many thousands in Afghanistan, the longest U.S. war to date, and in Pakistan without any conceivable justification; unleashed an ethnic cleansing in Libya that has already depopulated an entire town; trashed habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, detained thousands of captives, many completely innocent and very few of them terrorists, often for years without meaningful oversight; tortured many hundreds of people, dozens of whom died in U.S. custody; shoveled many billions to military-industrial-complex firms, some that now permeate every major federal department with facilities in most states, and hundreds of others that are much smaller but exist solely because of the war on terror; nearly completely overturned all Fourth Amendment standards concerning national security; turned every American airport into a microcosm of a police state; ramped up funding to militarize nearly every police department in the country, giving them tanks, assault weapons and even unmanned drone technology; spied on rightwing tax protesters, leftwing antiwar activists, Muslims, Catholic charities, Quakers, and many others in the name of stopping terrorism; preempted one ridiculous “terror plot” after another, in almost every case setting up the suspect to plan violence he never would have without federal instigation; claimed the Stalinist authority, possessed by the president acting alone, to kill anyone on earth he deems a threat; made traveling to Mexico and Canada, a previously routine endeavor, into something out of an Orwell novel; and finally destroyed previously sacred (if inconsistently upheld) taboos on federal molesting of travelers, violations of financial privacy, interrogation techniques, Congressional war powers, and judicial due process.
Ah. But NOW we are on a war footing. And sadly, it is true that something has shifted with Obama’s executive order. It is more out in the open than before that the entire U.S. economy operates at the discretion of America’s rulers—just as in fascist Italy. It is now clearer than ever that the lives of American citizens can be sacrificed on the altar of Mars should the president decide that those registered in the Selective Service must go abroad and shoot at Iranians, whose country has not attacked America (or any other country, really) in centuries. All the economy, and all our lives and liberties, belong to the presidential state, as far as it’s concerned. And where’s the opposition party on this issue, one that would seem to make the importance of all others—certainly all others that are ever discussed on CNN—pale in comparison? I hear no criticism, and if it came it would be transparently disingenuous, since people like Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have been calling for a “real war” for years. Yes, they are finally saying maybe the U.S. should leave Afghanistan, but this simply amounts to a concession that it’s time for the empire to move on and crush another country.
Once again the U.S. hyperpower is ready to pounce. It smells Persian blood, and on the basis of a tissue of lies no less absurd and easily debunked than those that pulled America into war with Iraq, or wars with many other nations, the U.S. may very well jump into a conflict that develops into something that conservatives and liberals have long wanted—a dramatic sequel to the great crusades of America’s most worshiped presidents. Conservatives will get their blood-letting. Liberals will get their collectivist sacrifice.
You call this a war? I’ll show you a war, says the President. He with the Peace Prize appears unsatisfied with the relatively low-cost discrete militarism we’ve seen since 9/11. Unfortunately, so have many of his subjects, making his Order of last Friday all the more ominous.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Imperialism, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Personal Liberty, Presidential Power, Terrorism, The State, Torture, War 
My only complaint is your use of the word ‘conservatives’. True conservatives don’t support this nonsense. Only the neo-cons.
America is precariously similar to Athens on the eve of the Peloponnesian war. Its a shame that no one reads Thucydides
Daniel Chase | Mar 20, 2012 | Reply
Your problem is lack of knowledge, you have no idea what the term war means. You are using it incorrectly. War is the last step in diplomacy and is meant to deal with populations not governments as the diplomatic mission has failed at this point. Elevate the word diplomatic to it’s higher meaning so the discourse is between political/countries, not the lower usage. Read Von Clausewitz.
jon | Mar 20, 2012 | Reply
Ron Paul 2012! Write him in on your ballot in November!!!
Patty | Mar 20, 2012 | Reply
Mr. Chase, you may be right, but I define neocons more narrowly—the tradition hailing from former leftists who infiltrated the right long ago. But not all pro-war conservatives are neocons, by this definition. If we define neocon broadly enough to include only those who support perpetual war and executive supremacy, it would unfortunately include most who call themselves conservatives—the National review types and most mainline Republicans, represented by all major Republican politicians over the last fifty years.
Anthony Gregory | Mar 20, 2012 | Reply
Details of Talks with IAEA Belie Charge Iran Refused Cooperation
by Gareth Porter, March 21, 2012
vv | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
There is no doubt that this is the mind set of american politicians and agencies are counter productive.Neo-cones will further wars in the middle east and pakistan etc. At present is a mind set against Muslims and they are main victims. Even our rulers are imported made in america. As our interior minister says this is our war on terror whereas americans knows who are behind them.
I know in pakistan poorest region is Pakhtun belt upto Kabul and for suicide bombs need explosives, belts, money to buy and informations who is providing these things naturally CIA just to destroy pakistan.
In the end america will destroy itself and remember minorities will hve to pay for that.
ghouri | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
The “conservatives” who support these mindless wars of conquest aren’t consevatives, they’re knee-jerk reactionaries.
carroll price | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
Since it is impossible to expect reason to enter the discussion with respect to the U.S. actions internationally, what can we hope for to stop the murderous blood lust gripping this nation?
The fallback position to normalcy from murderous lunacy is national bankruptcy. All empires in history have ended bankrupt trying to maintain their positions. They then disappear from the pages of history along with all the evil they formerly embraced to maintain their empire.
It seems the only hope we have to end empire amerika is for national bankruptcy to intervene. We are well on our way to the economic state of bankruptcy. When it is evident to all we are, indeed, bankrupt, the empire we should not have will be taken from us. This will be a good thing for we, the people, as well as the remainder of the planet.
So, spend on, great
kirk | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
to finish:
So, spend on great leaders. You hasten the freedom of us all.
kirk | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
Petty B.S. comments. I don’t care whether you find the need to lable yourself “con, neo-con, lib, christian,jew, white, black,or whatever other name you can come up with, I really don’t give a damn. The bottom line is this, these labels have become blurred labels that mean very little and just serve to divide us as AMERICANS. Get over yourselves, open your eyes, and see, If WE as AMERICANS, do not become UNITED, none of it will matter.
Mike Mark | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
I had to quit reading at this sentence: “Others argued that the official alienation of ethnic minorities or others associated with “the enemy”—as had been done to Japanese-Americans or alleged communists—was more than warranted.”
The national origin group’s members who suffered more in both world wars was the German-Americans, and they and Italian-Americans were subject to the relocation policy in the second world war exactly like the Japanese-Americans.
It’s too involved a discussion for this small space, but suffice it to say that the diverse white victims of prejudice and discrimination far outnumber the celebrated Japanese relocations and internments (two different things that have been merged into one thing by sloppy thinking).
Yes, this is part of the anti-white narrative, wish you hadn’t reinforced this body of lies. Even as a practical matter, if you actually discussed who was harmed, lynched, and maligned during the two world wars, you might motivate more support for your position than simply “whipping” the diverse white Americans as war criminals and haters. It wasn’t that simple at all.
Cary | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
So we can become even more enslaved by the huge international banks? No thanks.
clay davis | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
“...left to right...the U.S. government’s interventions abroad... activities at home... not rise to the level...previous U.S. wars...” Contrary to what appears to me to be the author’s hypothesis, I find this more true than not. I have a slightly different take that does not oppose the arguments, just the conclusion. My view is that the US government has been conducting wars primarily by proxy and therefore have been self-limiting in scope by devious design. The nation has not been mobilized for war; the government (as represented by one party with two names) and corporations (privatizing) have. Until perhaps now, the lesson learned (and being followed by the ruling class) demonstrated by the fiasco of Viet Nam is that even the usually sheepish vox populi may rise up in revulsion, actually putting home rule at risk (any wonder why reaction to public protest seems so over the top?). By that I mean too high a body count, ours not theirs. It was no wonder that Cindy Sheehan was such a threat to the Bush administration because she personally put a face, her son’s, to that war, limited as it was. For the most part, recent administrations have done a very good job insulating the citizenry from the horrors of war – using the poverty draft, privatization, corporate control of MSM, and marginalization the the democratic election processes and the legal system in general. So, no, I don’t think the nation has been at war recently. The will of the American public has not recently been put to test, most likely because it would have been found wanting. However, with Obama’s recent order, maybe he’s getting ready to change things and raise the stakes, either believing the Viet Nam lesson doesn’t apply, or that what’s at stake genuinely deserves the risk and price of a national mobilization (not just of people but of all resources and institutions, without any challenge), or perhaps something more mundane like it’s what he needs to get re-elected? Make no mistake, the country will rally behind any cause that’s drummed up and wrapped nicely in the flag, based on fact or whimsy makes no difference. We’re a country with so many people that depend for their existence on “believing” as opposed to knowing or understanding. This is particularly palatable if our homeland (i.e. our own lives and we have enough others willing to fight and do our dirty work in the short run) is not under any serious threat of invasion or harm (other than the occasional small isolated terrorist incident that we’ll put up with as a minor nuisance equivalent to a tornado or hurricane or flood or...). My fear and, regrettably, my hope is that Obama may try to take us down this path because it will be a path that after all is said and done with treasures being spent and any number of people suffering as casualties, eventually it will wake the consciousness of the sleeping giant resulting in the kind of change and return to values we have distanced ourselves and perhaps rescue and rehabilitate this great American Experiment. War (and battle) is all about will, asserting one’s over another. It presumes first that the aggressor contestant, the one that has a choice to conduct warfare, likewise presumes a will to sustain it and all the ugliness it entails (greater good rationale). My view is that we have clearly demonstrated that we have lacked not only political will but the national will to date to conduct these recent wars of empire, at least to a successful conclusion. That’s why we’ve consistently gotten our asses kicked and why we’re so hostile and angry and frustrated. That’s also why they’ve been limited and not unconditional (tell that to the 16 just murdered in Afghanistan). I maintain that we still don’t have the national consensus or will to sustain a war footing of the like being suggested by Obama’s recent order, though it won’t stop him from trying. Quite possibly he will go down in history as one of this country’s worst Presidents, in a long line of terrible Presidents in recent memory, which is a shame when many of us had so much hope that this guy would be different.
P Nolan | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
At this VERY late stage in our devolution as a species, I think it’s time to abandon the outdated “conservative” vs. “liberal” conflict. Either one is an Imperialist, or a Humanist. ALL those running the U.S. and NATO and global corporations are members of the former category; the rest of us, who merely wish to live in peace on a healthy, sustainable planet, are in the latter category.
REDPILLED | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
Don’t be stupid.
Chris | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
Since the end of WWII in 1945, aggressive war and the deliberate targeting of civilians has been strictly banned by both International and US Law. Vietnam and subsequent wars clearly violate this ban in that they are all unjustified as wars of aggression. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are the worst of these aggressive wars so far; Iran, if started, will be much worse.
Eileen Kuch | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
It will always be thus. Read Marx. Read Hitler.
Read Bismark. Read Orwell... In order to steal on a grand scale you need a crisis. And what better crisis is war.
This will only be resolved, ironically, with more war. It always has.
Moses David | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
being an old poot who was eligible for the draft during vietnam i have to say the fact of the draft was one of the great incentives for young men and their families to oppose that war. i have mixed feelings about the draft but think the professional standing army we now enjoy is the greatest threat to whatever sovereingty still remains with the people.
David Bend | Mar 21, 2012 | Reply
RE: Clay Davis – It ain’t my debt. Repudiate the debt and tell the bankers to shove it a la Iceland.
Paul | Mar 22, 2012 | Reply
Cary, the German and Italians who were targeted were foreign nationals, and they were mostly released faster than the Japanese-Americans, most of whom were loyal U.S. citizens. You are right that the treatment of German and Italian aliens was horrendous, but certainly American racism toward Japanese Americans allowed for their detentions to persist. Certainly in World War I, Germans were principal victims. And if you bothered to read my whole post you’d see I also decry the mass slaughter of German civilians in WWII.
Anthony Gregory | Mar 22, 2012 | Reply
You won’t be able to in CA. There will not be a space on the ballot for write-ins.
Leslie | Mar 27, 2012 | Reply
Very inventive of Bush and his necon friends to come up with an enemy that can not be defeated and will always pose a threat.Now we have what is called preventive action.that is to stop a person or a country from doing something we believe they may do in the future.Even if it means the killing of innocents.
Bob Marshall | Jan 3, 2013 | Reply