If We Send Them, Let Them Fight

It is not a politically correct position to take these days. I can think of no one, including myself, who wishes indiscriminate harm against another human being. This is true with our family and friends, neighbors and communities, states and nations. We demand that when our armed forces go into another country that all precautions be taken to keep civilians safe and to only attack known hostiles. While I believe it to be the moral position to take, our armed forces are also bound by another moral position: protect your homeland from the forces that threaten it. These two positions seem contradictory to me, especially when we cry “foul” when civilians are caught in the crossfire. I am reminded of an article from Counterpunch.org (a website I highly recommend) back in January that sarcastically discussed how the military is trying to kill civilians carefully. Let’s fact it, civilians die in war. We should expect nothing less. Yes, we should cry out against it, yes we should do what we can to minimize it, but not at the expense of putting our own troops in danger. How can we expect our armed forces to do the very job the enlisted for if they are scared of making a mistake, kill innocent civilians and then have the specter of a court martial over their head, not to mention the media frenzy that is sure to ensue?

In his book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq, Michael Scheuer, a gentleman who worked both at the CIA and the Counterterrorism Center, points out that we are harming our military when we demand impossible actions. Our leaders in Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, politicize an organization that should not be politicized. In a fantastic article, The Nation points out the results of this political tight wire the military must perform in the Middle East, and how even those in the know are being used as sound bytes rather than counsel. Granted, the military should not ever act independently- no government entity should. But the military knows its job and understands war like no other. We demand that all wars be like the Gulf War in the 90s. We want phenomenal force, expedited action and virtually no civilian casualties. This is not what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan in most people’s eyes. Reuters reports today that a battle in Afghanistan led to the killing of possibly an entire family of eight. A tragic waste of life, to say the very least.

War is indeed hell. I agree with former President Jimmy Carter when he states that at times war may be necessary but never just. How is this possible? Because a people has the right to protect themselves from harm, and when that happens, there will be casualties. War is war! We have to accept the fact that when we mobilize individuals with guns, tanks, warships and technology to harm and, yes, kill the enemy, killing is what will happen. It is ridiculous to think that people will not be killed. And yes, I thank the heavens that Americans do not have a taste for blood. But we do have a taste for security and we are fighting an enemy that exists to destroy that security. How can we possibly have no harm?

Pundits point to Vietnam as the example of a military exercise gone wrong. Countless civilians were killed. We forget that the same occurred during World War II. Of course, we won WWII. I am fascinated at our hubris. We can ignore, even forgive the killings of WWII, a war where we could claim victory, but not Vietnam, a war we were forced to flee.

This is why we should demand that any military conflict we engage we should be VERY sure of our mission and our goal. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have little to none of either of these measures. Americans wouldn’t be so polarized if we knew the why so that the military could follow through with the how. If people don’t like civilians being killed, which they shouldn’t, then lets make very sure that our leaders think before they act, gather people around them they trust and our knowledgeable, and most importantly, take counsel from those they disagree with. Putting people in harms way demands we be rational and honest. Our next president ought to be sure of the necessities of war before tying the hands of those who will fight that war.