In their book How to
Stop a War; Lessons of Two Hundred Years of War and Peace, James Dunnigan
and William Martel (1987) listed a number of trends nations fall into as they
decide to go to war. Some of these are:
1. Wars frequently start by accident—leaders
miscalculate, politicians swagger and events spiral out of control. This week,
a nuclear scientist was openly assassinated in Iran—a clear indication of
hubris, most likely Israeli. While one could say the Israeli
are deliberately setting the stage for war, it is debatable whether they
comprehend the regional and global implications of their imbecilic choices.
2. The military usually recommends against a military solution—Military
professionals understand the devastation caused by armed conflict, and are not
in a rush to engage the perceived enemy. While the US command has signaled its
preparedness should the President give the word, General Dempsey (CJCS) has
characterized a potential conflict with Iran as a “tragedy for the region and
the world (Telegraph UK 1/12/12)
3. Ignorance of “the enemy” is usually a prime
basis for war—Aggressors rarely defeat their victims. “Usually,” Dunnigan
and Martel (1987) asserted, “aggressors miscalculate their own combat power,
that of their victim, or both.” The history of the United States is replete
with examples of miscalculations based upon poor intelligence, lack of
knowledge, and willful ignorance (refusing to listen to expert assessments).
The just completed invasion and occupation of Iraq stands out as a prime
example of US miscalculations based upon ignorance of Islam and sectarian
violence, and the administration’s fantasy-based concept of being welcomed with
open arms as they plotted to entrench US interests in that oil-rich nation. Iran is not a small, weak country that
can be simply bombed into submission. Americans still think their technology is
the ultimate solution to winning a war with relatively few casualties. While
Iran has nowhere near the American capability, they do have a formidable army
and will call upon their Shi'a allies in the region to support their defense (
see the 1/2009 issue of Military Technology for a relatively recent appraisal
of their capabilities). Attacking Iran will be a bloody, drawn out quagmire,
make no mistake about it—if it remains a regional conflict. Should Russian and
China intervene, it could start World War III.
4. American ignorance of war is feared by
allies and enemies alike. It appears that other nations perceive our
military to be “massive and amateurish” and Americans as simplistic in their
outlook. The fact that we export our
aggression to other nations is telling—we would be much less eager to start
these conflicts if we were suffering the consequences at home.
5. An important part of large wars is faulty memory. Especially if
your leaders are crowing and strutting about “winning” wars and “mission
accomplished,” when no such thing happened. We did not ‘win” in Iraq, we were
outmaneuvered and essentially thrown out by the Iraqis who refused to allow us
to establish permanent bases on their soil—which was the original intent for
the invasion.
The role of propaganda in starting wars must also be
critically examined. Nations are not generally eager to start fights—they remember
the lost loved ones, the economic downturns, the fear. Governments must inflate perceived threats,
and begin a steady drum roll of lies, distortions and imagined grievances to garner
popular support. As Dunnigan and Martel (1987) explained:
Governments
entering a war voluntarily will attempt to prepare the population through
propaganda and patriotic cheerleading....When a war begins, heroes quickly
appear, even if some of them have to be invented. Many nations often designate
every dead soldier a hero. After all, who’s to protest? Hope, often without
much basis in fact, becomes a common currency of the government and the
population....When the initial flush of patriotism has worn off, warring
governments must take measures to keep the population in a properly warlike
mood. The government and the mass media will hammer away repeatedly that the
war was the right decision, that “we” are on the right side of the issues and
that retribution must be made for wrongs committed by the enemy.
What exactly has Iran done that would provoke our attack,
and the beginning of a regional conflict inevitably resulting in thousands of
innocent victims, the demolishing of critical infrastructure, and the
possibility of a world war? They are refining uranium and “might” decide to
develop a nuclear bomb. Leon Panetta just last week declared that they do not
have a bomb nor are they close to having one. Iran is surrounded by nuclear
powers, including Israel. Their motivation for acquiring the bomb seems
obvious. That we would envision attacking them to deprive them of what everyone
else already has is the height of hypocrisy and a clear indicator of more
sinister motives. Think big oil. This situation is being created by entities
whose profits will skyrocket should they achieve hegemony in the Middle East,
and control of world oil supplies.
Let’s all remember that these are people telling us these lies, these are people sitting around meeting room tables discussing options and
how to get our support for their ventures. These are people who stand to profit from our sacrifice. The government is
made up of American men and women with agendas and ideologies. They are our employees, on our payroll. If
we surrender our well being to these people,
whose intentions are dubious, and who have demonstrated a complete, callous
indifference to the consequences of their poorly thought out choices, we, in a
way, deserve the suffering we will endure.
Dunnigan, J. & Martel, W. (1987) How to Stop a War: The Lessons of Two Hundred Years of War and Peace.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
No comments:
Post a Comment