| Receive the monthly "Message to America" newsletter. Your address will never be traded or sold. |
June 17, 2005
A Brief History of American War
"The record is clear; there are some things the U.S. simply cannot accomplish." -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 2001
Like many people, this latest and awful terror attack in London prompted me to think about war, specifically the nature and history of war here in America. On July 4th, 2005, our country turned 229 years old. During those years, we've fought twelve major wars: one for every generation since 1776. Isn't it shocking, then, that for a country who goes to war as frequently as we do, that we have no codified methods or nationally recognized system of determining how and when we go to war?
"Hold on," you say. "We've got the 'Articles of War' as framed by our Founding Fathers." Yes, that's true. But those codes only apply to our soldiers' conduct, not to any rules of engagement. "Wait!" you say, feeling feisty. "What about Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution which grants to Congress the sole right to declare war...?" Also true. But this important passage only applies to the declaration of war, not to the process by which that fateful decision is reached. "Not so fast, Smartypants..." you now say, growing cocky. "You forgot that we've got the Geneva Conventions...!" Yes, but those are international documents – not American - that only apply to actions taken once war has already begun, not to actions which might occur before war begins.
So again I ask: how can a country that's been fighting wars for 229 years have no widely known rules of engagement on which the nation's citizens can all agree? Is it because we can't all agree on a few core principles concerning war? Certainly not. We can all agree, for example, that no one likes going to war...except for those who profit greatly from it. In truth, I believe the reason America has no nationally recognized process by which we go to war, is so that our establishment never has to fear reprisal. Without rules, our leaders don't have to worry about breaking them and then having us to hold them accountable. And we have no such rules...or do we?
In his book "Plan of Attack", Bob Woodward reports that in March of 2001, just two months after he accepted George W. Bush's invitation to become the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld crafted a document on the use of war. That document, which he submitted to the President, was called "Guidelines to be Considered When Committing U.S. Forces." and it asks some fundamental questions concerning war:
Is the proposed action truly necessary?
Is the proposed action achievable?
Is it worth it?
Rumsfeld ends the essay with a section on honesty: "U.S. leadership must be brutally honest with itself, the Congress, the public and coalition partners. We must not make the effort sound even marginally easier or less costly than it could become. Preserving U.S. credibility requires that we promise less, or no more, than we are sure we can deliver. It is a great deal easier to get into something than it is to get out of it!"
While I'm unabashedly progressive when it comes to politics, I'm not an idealist: I understand that there are occasions when using violence against an enemy becomes a necessity. But what are those occasions, specifically? What are the actions we need to first attempt taking in order to avoid war? Is there, for example, a set amount of time that we must wait before we use force? And when we do commit to using force, how much force should we use? Further, what type of force is best suited so that we use as little as possible to accomplish our task? I was comforted to see Rumsfeld asking similar questions in his document.
But even by his own standards, our current military actions in Iraq have failed to meet Rumsfeld's handcrafted guidelines. And that's because what's been missing from "The War on Terror" and "Operation Enduring Freedom" is what's been missing in America for 229 years: an open conversation between America's leaders and its citizens about the use of force to achieve our means. But until that conversation occurs, radical Conservatives will continue to be intolerant towards Liberals who openly criticize the position of the sitting administration. And radical Liberals will continue to insist that war is never necessary.
Without that conversation, without a national consensus on when, why and how we use violence, we will continue to remain a house divided, giving up our power to make decisions to those who we continue to not hold accountable.
Like many people, this latest and awful terror attack in London prompted me to think about war, specifically the nature and history of war here in America. On July 4th, 2005, our country turned 229 years old. During those years, we've fought twelve major wars: one for every generation since 1776. Isn't it shocking, then, that for a country who goes to war as frequently as we do, that we have no codified methods or nationally recognized system of determining how and when we go to war?
"Hold on," you say. "We've got the 'Articles of War' as framed by our Founding Fathers." Yes, that's true. But those codes only apply to our soldiers' conduct, not to any rules of engagement. "Wait!" you say, feeling feisty. "What about Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution which grants to Congress the sole right to declare war...?" Also true. But this important passage only applies to the declaration of war, not to the process by which that fateful decision is reached. "Not so fast, Smartypants..." you now say, growing cocky. "You forgot that we've got the Geneva Conventions...!" Yes, but those are international documents – not American - that only apply to actions taken once war has already begun, not to actions which might occur before war begins.
So again I ask: how can a country that's been fighting wars for 229 years have no widely known rules of engagement on which the nation's citizens can all agree? Is it because we can't all agree on a few core principles concerning war? Certainly not. We can all agree, for example, that no one likes going to war...except for those who profit greatly from it. In truth, I believe the reason America has no nationally recognized process by which we go to war, is so that our establishment never has to fear reprisal. Without rules, our leaders don't have to worry about breaking them and then having us to hold them accountable. And we have no such rules...or do we?
In his book "Plan of Attack", Bob Woodward reports that in March of 2001, just two months after he accepted George W. Bush's invitation to become the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld crafted a document on the use of war. That document, which he submitted to the President, was called "Guidelines to be Considered When Committing U.S. Forces." and it asks some fundamental questions concerning war:
Is the proposed action truly necessary?
Is the proposed action achievable?
Is it worth it?
Rumsfeld ends the essay with a section on honesty: "U.S. leadership must be brutally honest with itself, the Congress, the public and coalition partners. We must not make the effort sound even marginally easier or less costly than it could become. Preserving U.S. credibility requires that we promise less, or no more, than we are sure we can deliver. It is a great deal easier to get into something than it is to get out of it!"
While I'm unabashedly progressive when it comes to politics, I'm not an idealist: I understand that there are occasions when using violence against an enemy becomes a necessity. But what are those occasions, specifically? What are the actions we need to first attempt taking in order to avoid war? Is there, for example, a set amount of time that we must wait before we use force? And when we do commit to using force, how much force should we use? Further, what type of force is best suited so that we use as little as possible to accomplish our task? I was comforted to see Rumsfeld asking similar questions in his document.
But even by his own standards, our current military actions in Iraq have failed to meet Rumsfeld's handcrafted guidelines. And that's because what's been missing from "The War on Terror" and "Operation Enduring Freedom" is what's been missing in America for 229 years: an open conversation between America's leaders and its citizens about the use of force to achieve our means. But until that conversation occurs, radical Conservatives will continue to be intolerant towards Liberals who openly criticize the position of the sitting administration. And radical Liberals will continue to insist that war is never necessary.
Without that conversation, without a national consensus on when, why and how we use violence, we will continue to remain a house divided, giving up our power to make decisions to those who we continue to not hold accountable.
June 16, 2005
At the Crossroads...
In America, we've largely given up on politics.
On an average election day, less than one half of all eligible Americans show up to vote, nearly the lowest voter turn out of any industrialized nation in the world. Then, for those of us who do vote, we go home and simply leave it at that. We trust those who got elected to do what's best for us. We don't follow up, we don't watch how our officials vote on substantive issues and we usually don't call or write to them with our concerns.
The cultural problem this highlights, is that in America, we either give our power and voice away or we forget that we have those things in the first place. Unfortunately, our political, educational and cultural systems reinforce this. How many of us were taught in school that our politicians are actually supposed to serve us? That we can and should passionately speak out about important issues regardless of our age? That our democratic responsibility is to practice and refine the art of Freedom of Speech? I wasn't taught those things in school. Or by watching MTV or CNN. Or by reading the New York Times. Or by my folks.
Is fact, so far removed are we from our own political processes, that we now scorn those who actually do pay attention to government and make comments. Being a political writer, I frequently get e-mails from otherwise intelligent people asking me, "Why should I listen to you? What qualifications do you have?!?" The answer: I'm an American. And in America, one doesn't need a special degree, license or title in order to make political observations and then share them with the community. One only needs to be able and willing to communicate.
But requiring qualifications from others instead of listening for the relevance in their message, is one of the ways that individuals, political organizations and the media marginalize opposition and diversity of thought. Phrases like "He's not an expert so what could he know...?" or "She's a Washington outsider..." or "Hollywood actors shouldn't be political..." undermine our democracy because they avoid acknowledging our simple, shared origins. We're all humans and each of us has something important to say. Further, each of us is an expert at doing at least one thing: perhaps it's being a mother, perhaps it's driving a cab, perhaps it's fixing computers. At the very least, each of us knows exactly what we feel better than anyone else. No one -- not the President, not the media, not the high school principal -- is more qualified than you are to understand and describe what it is that you're feeling.
This, ultimately, means that the biggest problem isn't the system: it's us. We've become lazy and unwilling to work for what we want politically. If just one out of every ten people in this country picked up the phone to tell their Senator that they didn't support a political action -- say, a never-ending war with Iraq -- then that's almost 30,000,000 people making phone calls, an unprecedented form of political action made up, simply, of regular folks like you and me.
But, often, we don't act because our brains lie to us by saying that one person can't make a difference. In reality, by working together, we become the next super power. 30,000,000 united voices becomes a true mandate of the people. And if this country is to steer itself towards a brighter future of equal rights for all citizens, fighting and punishing corporate crime, respecting the environment, caring for those less fortunate than ourselves, then we all need to be willing to RAISE OUR VOICES UP RIGHT NOW AND DEMAND IT. You want your wake up call, here it is: your country needs you and your democracy depends on you.
Raise your voice. Disrupt the calm. Talk about how you feel. And then, for heaven's sake, do something about it. Find out who your Congressional Representatives are. Then see how they've voted on the issues...all of them. It takes ten minutes a day. That's it. Then tell your friends. And then pick up the phone and remind your representatives that you're watching and discussing what they do. Don't be rude. Just let them know when you agree or disagree. They are there, afterall, to do your bidding and to represent you.
We are at a crossroads historically and politically. The time for ordinary people to remain as spectators has passed. I'm convinced that the next phase of our evolution as a country won't come from our leadership and trickle down to us, it will come from The People and rise up, ensuring that our representatives follow the will of The People.
Science tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If we're not happy with the current set of actions, than our job is to become that equal and opposite reaction. We can't do this by complaining. Rather, we must stand up and speak up for what we believe to be right and moral and just, even in the face of great darkness and despair.
I, for one, look forward to being a part of that equal and opposite reaction.
On an average election day, less than one half of all eligible Americans show up to vote, nearly the lowest voter turn out of any industrialized nation in the world. Then, for those of us who do vote, we go home and simply leave it at that. We trust those who got elected to do what's best for us. We don't follow up, we don't watch how our officials vote on substantive issues and we usually don't call or write to them with our concerns.
The cultural problem this highlights, is that in America, we either give our power and voice away or we forget that we have those things in the first place. Unfortunately, our political, educational and cultural systems reinforce this. How many of us were taught in school that our politicians are actually supposed to serve us? That we can and should passionately speak out about important issues regardless of our age? That our democratic responsibility is to practice and refine the art of Freedom of Speech? I wasn't taught those things in school. Or by watching MTV or CNN. Or by reading the New York Times. Or by my folks.
Is fact, so far removed are we from our own political processes, that we now scorn those who actually do pay attention to government and make comments. Being a political writer, I frequently get e-mails from otherwise intelligent people asking me, "Why should I listen to you? What qualifications do you have?!?" The answer: I'm an American. And in America, one doesn't need a special degree, license or title in order to make political observations and then share them with the community. One only needs to be able and willing to communicate.
But requiring qualifications from others instead of listening for the relevance in their message, is one of the ways that individuals, political organizations and the media marginalize opposition and diversity of thought. Phrases like "He's not an expert so what could he know...?" or "She's a Washington outsider..." or "Hollywood actors shouldn't be political..." undermine our democracy because they avoid acknowledging our simple, shared origins. We're all humans and each of us has something important to say. Further, each of us is an expert at doing at least one thing: perhaps it's being a mother, perhaps it's driving a cab, perhaps it's fixing computers. At the very least, each of us knows exactly what we feel better than anyone else. No one -- not the President, not the media, not the high school principal -- is more qualified than you are to understand and describe what it is that you're feeling.
This, ultimately, means that the biggest problem isn't the system: it's us. We've become lazy and unwilling to work for what we want politically. If just one out of every ten people in this country picked up the phone to tell their Senator that they didn't support a political action -- say, a never-ending war with Iraq -- then that's almost 30,000,000 people making phone calls, an unprecedented form of political action made up, simply, of regular folks like you and me.
But, often, we don't act because our brains lie to us by saying that one person can't make a difference. In reality, by working together, we become the next super power. 30,000,000 united voices becomes a true mandate of the people. And if this country is to steer itself towards a brighter future of equal rights for all citizens, fighting and punishing corporate crime, respecting the environment, caring for those less fortunate than ourselves, then we all need to be willing to RAISE OUR VOICES UP RIGHT NOW AND DEMAND IT. You want your wake up call, here it is: your country needs you and your democracy depends on you.
Raise your voice. Disrupt the calm. Talk about how you feel. And then, for heaven's sake, do something about it. Find out who your Congressional Representatives are. Then see how they've voted on the issues...all of them. It takes ten minutes a day. That's it. Then tell your friends. And then pick up the phone and remind your representatives that you're watching and discussing what they do. Don't be rude. Just let them know when you agree or disagree. They are there, afterall, to do your bidding and to represent you.
We are at a crossroads historically and politically. The time for ordinary people to remain as spectators has passed. I'm convinced that the next phase of our evolution as a country won't come from our leadership and trickle down to us, it will come from The People and rise up, ensuring that our representatives follow the will of The People.
Science tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If we're not happy with the current set of actions, than our job is to become that equal and opposite reaction. We can't do this by complaining. Rather, we must stand up and speak up for what we believe to be right and moral and just, even in the face of great darkness and despair.
I, for one, look forward to being a part of that equal and opposite reaction.
