| 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.
