You Might as Well Face It, You're Addicted to...

….war.  Well, maybe not you personally, but the modern day United States certainly is. 

Don’t believe me, surf the web for an hour or so.  You’re bound to come across articles calling for the US to intervene in Syria or forecasting a coming conflict with Iran.  You can also find stories about the recently completed war in Iraq or the ongoing war in Afghanistan.  Lastly, if you look hard enough, you can find a statistic like the following: the US accounts for 43% of total world military expenditure.  This is larger than the next 14 countries combined.

Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz once stated that "War is the continuation of policy by other means" and no country in history has embraced this theory like the modern day United States.  This has naturally led to series of literature to be generated for and against the US’s aggressive foreign policy.

The “Against” Perspective:

The “Against” perspective can be represented by author and former US soldier Andrew Bacevich.  In his book “Washington Rules”, Bacevich argues that the US leadership in both parties has come to view war as its solution to every problem.  His chief point is that since the start of World War 2, the US has constantly been engaged in a global struggle against some sort of –ism: first Fascism, then Communism, and now Terrorism.  Bacevich presents multiple examples of how US leadership has used covert operations, threat of nuclear war, direct military intervention, and even trading policies to directly support ongoing wars against global enemies. 

Bacevich’s conclusion is that this policy has led to the US being universally feared and resented.  He also calls for the US to renounce its claims on bases like Ramstein in Germany and Okinawa in Japan and to return its troops home to protect sovereign US territory.  Doing this, he argues, will free up billions of dollars in government funds to address domestic issues, as well as improve the US’s standing in the global community.    

The “For” Perspective:

The alternate view to Bacevich is championed by George Friedman of Stratfor and the books “The Next 100 Years” and “The Next Decade”.  This view is that the US, as the dominant global power, has a great incentive to use war as a tool to disrupt potential competitors.

From this perspective, the US goes to war because it can.  It doesn’t have to win every war.  Instead, it just has to “mess up” the other side enough that they are no longer a challenge to the US.  In this light, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq make perfect sense. 

The Taliban was responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US and was seeking to use its attack to recreate the Islamic Caliphate.  A reborn Caliphate would have united the Middle East and presented a severe threat to the US’s oil interests in that part of the world.  The US intervened and, despite the war dragging on 10 years later with no end in sight, has prevented the creation of the Caliphate.  It has also disrupted the Taliban by eliminating most of its leadership.

The same story applies to Iraq.  Many of the operatives who participated in the 9/11 attacks came from Saudi Arabia and Iraq.  The US therefore invaded Iraq because it is the central hub of the Middle East.  From there, the US could attack Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, or Kuwait.  This served a reminder to these countries of the consequences of crossing the US.  It also prevented them openly supporting the Taliban and its goal of creating a Caliphate.

My Take:

I hate to admit it, but I am torn on this issue.  My heart lies with Bacevich’s perspective while my head sides with Friedman.

I agree with Bacevich because war requires the sacrifice of US soldiers and can often result in their death.  It bothers me that US leadership can sacrifice their lives so easily.  I also dislike the fact that these wars syphon off billions of dollars that could be used to address problems on the domestic front.  Lastly, I dislike the fact that this warmongering has created a negative view of Americans abroad.

I agree with Friedman because his view is logical and appeals to the engineer in me.  The current global system works for the US.  These small wars are therefore a form of preventative maintenance on the global system.  They are aimed at isolating and correcting potential problems before they become too large and disrupt the overall system.  While painful and sometimes expensive, they are nothing compared to the pain and expense of a significant system failure.

Conflicted, with my heart fighting my head, I therefore turn to the creators of South Park for their wisdom.  Paraphrasing the message of the “I’m a Little Bit Country” episode, I believe that both sides are needed.  The Friedman’s of the world are needed to keep the global system working for the US and to prevent catastrophes like WW1’s and 2 from happening again.  The Bacevich’s of the world are needed to act as the country’s public conscience and prevent the country from abusing its power.  They also prevent the rest of the world from hating the US for being openly bloodthirsty and ruthless.

As South Park states, this allows the US to be ruthless in pursuing its goals while not seeming bloodthirsty.   This is called “having your cake and eating it too” and it’s the beauty of the American democratic system.