War Path

We owe God a death
--Henry IV, Part 2

Not even God can change the past
--The Betrayal of America,
Vincent Bugliosi

Hence we can have no standing armies for defense,
because we have no paupers to furnish the materials
--Thomas Jefferson

Fascism will come to America
in the name of anti-fascism.
I'm afraid, based on my own long experience,
that fascism will come to America
in the name of national security
--Sen. Huey Long
________________

Our endless "Long Wars" pose the question: "What does America stand for?" Who are we, and what are out core values? Are our domestic and foreign policies in accord?

Why do we fight wars?

1914 saw the start of a Big War which grew out of an assassination which kicked into play interlocking treaties and alliances. The United States was neutral at the inception, having no treaty obligations to any of the belligerents. Up until World War I the United States only fought declared wars with England, Mexico and Spain, unilaterally in today's parlance. These wars were for sovereignty and land grabs.

Before 1914 there was 1813 and the Battle of Leipzig, the "Battle of Nations". The countries of Europe countered the great General Napoleon on the battlefield. The U.S. was fighting the Battle of New Orleans, and was interested only in territory and our nation's survival. The War of 1812 insured U.S. survival, and the nation stayed out of foreign entanglements, instead fighting its war against each other and against the Native Americans.

During the U.S.'s inner-focused period, Europe had Leipzig (Napoleon), the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War, The Russo-Jap War and various local flare ups. The U.S. kept its hands off. But then came 1914.

The Europeans continued their 500 year+ dance of death, but the U.S. had transmuted this war into a democratic endeavor. Being a beacon of democracy seemed to mandate our entrance (sound familiar?)

Entrance into WWI was a point of fracture in U.S. policy: the isolationists had lost out to the interventionists. But the transition was not to be seamless; the U.S. entered the war but failed to follow through, the isolationists defeating the U.S. entry into the League of Nations. This ambivalence of national definition has continued through to today.

In World War II the U.S. allied with Communism to defeat Fascism, yet then adopted fascist tactics to defeat Communism. The post war years saw the U.S. join the United Nations, even signing on to their manifesto declaring the Rights of Man. However, now we roamed the world in a military posture. It was an existential dichotomy which allowed the U.S. to lose sight of its lodestar.

Does the U.S. trust the UN, or is the lone swaggering sheriff of the world? Many U.S. presidential wars and regime change invasions have come and gone, and the issue of national definition goes undiscussed. We have entered today new territory in which our political parties favor tax cuts for their base, but also the maintenance of a strong military.

If the taxpaying voters oppose this practice, they have not made that clear. There has been no groundswell against the Long Wars favored by both parties, the people instead happily ensconcing themselves in their niche issues: gun control, gay marriage, reproductive rights -- things they can understand, and which make them feel moral.

It's 2012 and the same question remains to be addressed as in 1917, 1941, 1950, 1964-72, etc., namely, what does the country gain from intervening militarily in foreign wars? How does a democratic nation become a Warrior nation, when its roots were otherwise?

Where is our once-fear of standing Armies? How have we become so comfortable with preemptive invasions and attendant regime change? As Bugliosi wrote, even God can't change the past, but we seem comfortable re-writing history and reinterpreting the facts. We can even forget that we once hung people as war criminals when they conducted wars of aggression.

1813 - 1914 - 2012?

Take your pick, but rest assured that this topic will not be addressed in the entertainment we call the 2012 presidential election. It hardly even qualifies as infotainment.

Would you like a Ginzu knife with that candidate?