War-talk has filled the air-waves and the halls of power for several months. Some of it has merely deplored and denounced Russia�s movement of troops and heavy weapons into Ukraine. But a significant portion of the war-talk has been in the �let�s-get-into-it� vein. Evidently a vocal faction of unknown size wants the USA to �assist� Ukraine by direct military action against Russia. (My pop used to call it the �let�s you and him go fight� crowd.)
I�ve lived long enough to have seen the tail-end of World War II. I was vaguely aware (as a boy) of the Korean �Conflict� and was fully aware of: the 8-year Vietnam War; Ronald Reagan�s two-month war in Grenada; George W. Bush�s war against Iraq; and our 20-year war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Members of my family, including my pop, my brother, two cousins, and my two sons, have served in various branches of our armed forces. A cousin-in-law in my wife�s family was badly wounded in Vietnam, and two of his brothers died in action over there.
I�m sure I�ve overlooked some small dustups that barely made the news, but the bottom line is that we�ve essentially been at war for most of my lifetime. And now, at this writing, we�re hearing new calls for �War! War! War!� again. But I don�t want war. Do my readers want war? Do you know anyone who wants us to go to war? Who actually wants war? And why do they want it? Let�s try to answer these questions in this limited space.
Cops of the world.
These are the people who believe it�s the job of the United States to police the globe and stamp out aggression and other wrongs wherever (and whenever) we find them. Of course, the �whenever� is constantly, and the �wherever� is all over. There�s always something going on, somewhere, that needs correction by force of arms. Our work is never done, as has pretty much been the case since 1941.
Who believes we should be doing this? To be as charitable as possible, I�ll suggest that some of them might be genuine �world patriots:� folks who believe � with a kind of �holy zeal� � that God has equipped us to get our hands dirty doing His work here on earth.
Maybe God has given us this task, and maybe there are people who really believe it, but I�m not one of them. Moreover, I (darkly) suspect that those pushing the �world cops� role have a tangible reason � mostly money � for doing so. As my brother and I have often observed: when somebody claims �it�s not the money,� the one thing you can be sure of is that it is certainly the money.
Long before ordinary guys like us had a clue, General (and then President) Ike warned us about �the military-industrial complex� � a powerful cabal of moneyed interests who benefit from having us in a continual state of readiness that lets us intervene in one situation after another, anywhere in the world. It doesn�t necessarily have to produce a �win.� We just need to be involved: using up old weapons, testing new weapons, chewing up manpower and spending money at a rate that no drunken sailor could dream of.
Politicians.
In earlier articles I have described how war is often the tool-of-choice for politicians whose policies, directives and legislation have wrecked the nation�s economy and/or social order. War is a wonderful way to distract the people from whatever has gone wrong on the domestic front. In the case of a president whose approval is in the toilet, a Nice Little War can make him look all commander-in-chiefy � posing as a �great unifier� who has �brought us together� in a common, heroic purpose.
The war-strategy is (and has been) very tempting for presidents whose domestic programs have put them (and the country) in deep doo-doo, but sometimes its use has been politically disastrous. LBJ got us into Vietnam in 1965, but he followed the advice of Robert MacNamara�s Whiz Kids, who counseled a limited war that would keep the Russians and the Chinese on the sidelines, while letting the people have both �guns and butter.� Those aims were certainly achieved, but the Whiz Kids forgot (or didn�t understand) that the American people�s maximum patience-span for war is about four years, and their patience with wars that don�t produce victory is zero. By 1968 a Democrat anti-war movement, led by Senator Bobby Kennedy, was in full cry, forcing LBJ to abandon his hopes for a second full term and throwing his party into political turmoil.
The Nice Little War strategy�s fundamental problem is that it�s unpredictable and often uncontrollable. Everything depends on things going well and staying small. But if things go wrong the results can be disastrous. The Nice Little War can turn into a messy defeat or stalemate; or it can become a Big War � even a World War.
In 1914, Austro-Hungarian leaders were certain that Serbian agents had assassinated their Archduke, so they decided to punish Serbia with (you guessed it) a Nice Little War. Their German ally, Kaiser Bill, gave his blessing, so the Austros kicked things off on July 28th. But Franz Josef and his merry mustachioed band had forgotten about their giant neighbor, Russia, whose autocratic leader, Tsar Nick, considered himself the protector of all Slavic peoples (including Serbia). The Tsar ordered mobilization which, in those days, was an unmistakable precursor of war.
Tsar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm and English King George V were all first cousins, since they shared the same grandma: England�s Queen Victoria. This relational bond produced the celebrated Cousins Telegraph-blitz of 1914, with Cousin Willy begging Dear Cousin Nicky to call off the mobilization, and Cousin Nicky assuring Dear Willy that he was doing everything possible to stop the march to war. The telegrams flew thick and fast, but it was no use. Russia did not stand down; Germany declared war on Russia on August 2nd; and the multi-treaty House of Cards started to collapse. As my Great-uncle Sam � a veteran of the Great War � said later, �In a few weeks the whole thing went to hell in a hand-cart.�
France had a military treaty with Russia, so Germany�s declaration on Russia prompted France to declare war on Germany. This gave France the chance to implement their Plan 17 operation, to regain the Alsace and Lorraine provinces that were lost in the 1870-�71 war with Prussia. (Another Nice Little War.)
But Germany had its own plans for France. The French declaration caused Germany to launch a gigantic right hook offensive � consisting of seven armies and 1.5 million men � through Belgium and into northern France to encircle Paris and the French Armies. The plan was designed in 1905 by German Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen, who reputedly died murmuring, �Keep the right flank strong.�
Germany asked Belgium for �free passage� through its territory, but Belgian King Albert refused and ordered his armies to oppose German troops. This aroused the attention of Britain, which so far had not been attacked or even threatened. But Britain had signed a �protective� treaty with Belgium as part of the establishment of Belgium in 1830. British leaders tried to persuade Germany to withdraw from Belgium, but when those attempts failed the Brits declared war on August 4th.
By war�s end, in 1918, the five principal allied powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the USA) had been joined by twenty-five �associated� allied members. They were opposed by the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and Bulgaria. (So much for a Nice Little War.)
In today�s situation, many Democratic pols are in the War bloc, hoping that a Nice Little War (NLW) will pump up Joe Biden into some semblance of a great �war leader� and save them all from disaster in the midterm elections � now just eight months off. Of course, a child could see that the signs and portents are not auspicious with regard to the NLW strategy in this case. I list some of the reasons for this:
- Opponent. This doesn�t involve kicking around some hapless little country (like Serbia). Instead, our would-be adversary is Russia � a dangerous, nuclear-armed country whose unpredictable leader is already doing nuclear saber-rattling � in case we should consider intervening with actual soldiers, planes or tanks. We don�t think Comrade Vlad is crazy enough to drop the bomb, but with the Russkies you never know. He might have calculated that he can get away with using a small, tactical nuclear weapon without triggering a major nuclear-exchange. Do we feel lucky?
- Preparedness. Is our military prepared to put �boots on the ground,� 5,000 miles away, and get into a serious war? Color me �doubtful.� Our military �leaders� have been busy giving over 10,000 experienced soldiers the boot because they wouldn�t get the COVID-shots � thereby making our combat-readiness questionable at best.
- European members of NATO, who are much closer to the Russia-Ukraine situation than we, are not inclined to intervene. They evidently see war as a solution worse than the problem itself.
- Our leadership. Robert Gates, former defense secretary in the Obama administration, once observed that Joe Biden has �been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.� Even Democrats who threw in the kitchen sink to put Joe in the White House are starting to realize that they made a colossal mistake in doing so. The absolute last thing we should do is let this man get us into a war with Russia.
- The American people do not want war. Most of us don�t like what Russia is doing to Ukraine and its people, but we are mature enough to recognize that we can�t solve every global problem.� ��
Big Media.
The cheerleaders of the War Bloc are obviously Big Media reporters and �analysts.� For weeks � months, even � they have been shouting, �War! War! War!� Media-guys (and -gals) not yet dry behind the ears � who wouldn�t know a bazooka weapon from bazooka bubble-gum � are declaiming about war operations and strategies as if they actually knew something about them. Why is that? Did they go crazy like that for us to intervene in Vietnam? Or Iraq? Afghanistan? I don�t recall that.
As I work it out, the media looks (and sounds) different this time for two main reasons. First there is always the media�s principal question. As I have frequently pointed out, that question is not �what�s the truth?� It is �Where�s the conflict?� Reporters and other media-denizens live or die, professionally, in an eternal quest for the Big Story. So a serious war � the bigger the better � is the best of all possible big conflict stories. That we might lose the war, or that many of our people might be hurt or killed, or that whole cities might suffer serious damage are not Big Media�s concerns. If any of that happens, the events and aftermath will be more grist for the media�s eternal conflict-mill.
When my pop slogged through the Belgian snow and mud in 1944, reporters like Ernie Pyle were the GI�s friends and allies. They wanted us to win, and they used their skills to help and encourage our troops. But things are different now. Some of today�s reporters aren�t really fans of America, and they certainly don�t see themselves as �allies� in whatever military actions we�re engaged in. War is just another answer to �where�s the conflict?� Who wins (or loses) is not their concern.
The second reason that media�s attitude toward war is different today � as I see it � is politics. Big Media hated Donald Trump, and did everything possible to disrupt his presidency and defeat him. They were (and are) aligned with Democratic policies and governance. Now they are desperately trying to prop up Joe Biden and save his presidency. And if a war can help Joe � as many in his party believe � then they are all for it. War! War! War!
It�s a different world; a different country; a different time. Some of us can remember how things used to be. Can we go back to that? Maybe. We�re in the Lord�s hands.
If you�re a praying person � and even if you�re not � pray for His grace and mercy. We need all the help we can get.