Perpetual War for Perpetual War

 by James Ostrowski

"Throughout history, force appears as the arbiter of the moment. . . Reason, organically slow – reacting against force only when the ill effects of the latter become so general as to be inevitably obvious – finally confirms or annuls its judgement."  (Bunford Samuel, 1920)

War is a good thing.  Wars solve problems.  Wars improve society.  This is what we are taught and told to believe.  The Civil War, World War I, World War II.  These were the good wars and the Presidents who fought them, and finagled to fight them in the first place, are the great ones.  Those who think that wars are not a good thing and should not be fought except after the most extreme provocations and under the most extreme moral strictures, are considered to be crazy, nuts, oddballs, crackpots, cowards, and traitors.  That’s the background for a bemused look at the phony war in Iraq and the phonies’ non-war in Korea .

“The U. S. won World War II,” right?  That’s what I used to think.  That’s what we are still told.  The U. S. beat Japan .  Japan controlled Korea .  Thus, the U. S. seized Korea .  Not exactly.  The U. S. ’s “ally” Stalin sneaked an army into Korea and set the stage for yet another war, the Korean “police action.”  The hostilities continue and seen realistically, never really ended in 1945.  One minute, U. S. troops were fighting Japanese troops, the next minute they were up against Russian, North Korean and Chinese troops.  When World War II finally ends in Korea , I’ll let you know who won.  It might end the same way the war in Japan ended.  It seems that the one seemingly obvious virtue of war—the definitive resolution of disputes--is illusory.  The only final thing in war is the killing.

Let’s leave the depressing Korean peninsula for a moment and travel to Iraq .  In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait .  Iraq used force to subdue Kuwait .  Kuwait had previously used forced to subdue its subjects.  The United States used force against Iraq to vindicate the principle that force is bad thing to use against people.  After the war, the U. S. used force to reinstall Kuwait ’s dictatorship over its people.   Alas, this war was not big enough to solve the Saddam problem.  That’s what warmongers always say when wars fail: the war was too peaceful.  Just a little more force would have done the trick.  If only the Union army had killed all the Confederates.  If only the Germans had been wiped out the first time.  If only Patton had been unleashed on the Russians after Germany was defeated.  If only the U. S. had invaded North Vietnam .  If only Bush I had sent Norman to bag the dad.  If only Clinton had lobbed more missiles at Osama, there would have been no 9/11.

More force is always the answer.  (What’s the question?)  So the U. S. will go to war again over Iraq (maybe).  It’s because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and may want to use them.  That’s the official reason.  The actual reasons are oil, Israel and imperialism.  How does little old me know this?  The people of the United States and the people of Iraq have no apparent conflicts.  In contrast, the governments of Iraq and Israel have shot each other up from time to time and spoken ill of each other.  Iraq is no real threat to the U. S. , but it can hit Israel with its antique missiles.  All the knee-jerk supporters of Israel are also knee-jerk supporters of invading Iraq .  Is there a major proponent of such an invasion who is not also a knee-jerk supporter of Israel ?  Even Bush impliedly admits it is about Israel : “I do believe the American people understand that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for us and our allies.”  How many countries are U. S. allies, hostile to Iraq and in close proximity to Iraq ?  

As for the oil part, that’s so obvious that no discussion is required.  Let’s remember though that it’s not about the little guy buying gas at the pump.  Any fellow with a 20 dollar bill will be able to buy gas regardless of which scoundrel owns the oil wells.  No, this is about which big corporation gets the right to pump and refine oil by bribing the kleptocrats whose troops stole the oil wells in the first place from their Lockean owners.  That makes no difference to you and me, but billions are at stake for the big oil companies.   

It’s also about the imperial state wanting to be free to intervene in other peoples’ business without facing oil embargos.  You see, the United States doesn’t want to get Japanned.  That is, it doesn’t want done to it what it did to Japan in 1941--cut off its oil supply in response to foreign intervention.  Ironically, to avoid being Japanned, the U. S. is planning to do precisely what Japan did: launch a sneak attack to ensure access to oil.  The U.S has learned well from Japan but apparently forgotten how it all turned out.  Returning to Korea , we are told that North Korea has nukes.  Colin Powell yawns.  North Korea can wait.  That’s bull.  The truth is, North Korea has no oil and North Korea is not a sworn enemy of Israel.  These are among the reasons why the U. S. is about to invade Iraq and is soft-peddling Korea .

Now let’s review the various “good wars won by the right side” which, however, were insufficiently productive of peace, harmony and prosperity to make the impending war unnecessary.  World War I was a “good war” that the U. S. “won.”  It was the war to make the world safe for democracy.  (Don’t for a second think it was a war among colonial and imperial powers and would-be powers for power, wealth and territory.)  World War I took control of the Middle East out of the hands of the bad old Ottoman Empire and put it into the infinitely benevolent and wise hands of those old imperial powers, England , France , and the U.S.   Thank goodness because they have handled that power so well that only a very few Arabs were willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center 82 years later.

World War I wiped out Germany , laying the groundwork for the man on the black horse.  He tried to wipe out the Jews of Europe and killed millions.  This was all solved by another good war—World War II—which “we won.”  Jews no longer felt secure in Europe though—who could blame them?—so many cast their eyes on the Middle East .  They did this with the approval of WW II’s big winner, the U. S.  Thus it was that a European problem was converted into a Middle Eastern problem.  The Arabs were not consulted.  No matter.  Another “good war”—in 1948—would solve that problem.  Fifty-five years later only about 500 million Arabs and Moslems are still angry over the results of that war.  The problems of today are the result of the 1948 war which was the result of the 1939 war which was the result of the 1914 war.

Back to Iraq .  After the war to make the world safe for further wars, the Middle East was divided, in Yugoslavian-fashion into a bunch of artificial entities to suit Euro-American interests.  Iraq was one of those as was Kuwait .  Also, the world wars unleashed communism upon the world.  Communism did not arise out of the internal contradictions of capitalism, but out of the chaos wrought by war in a feudal country— Russia .  After helping communists take over Eastern Europe , the Best and the Brightest decided that they had to immediately fight a Cold War against them.  This was often done using proxy states.  This meant that the U. S. took an unnatural interest in who was running these countries, lest they fall under the influence of the communists. 

The U. S. installed the Shah of Iran and looked the other way as his secret police brutalized the Iranian people.  The Shah was so nasty toward the people that they revolted and installed a fundamentalist regime which Bush now calls part of the Axis of Evil.  To check that regime, the U. S. felt the need to prop up “our man,” Saddam and help his war against Iran by giving him “satellite intelligence and weapons, including precursors for development of biological weapons and the basic ingredients for the chemical agents.”  (See, Chalmers Johnson’s article)  To pay for the war, Saddam borrowed from Kuwait , which in turn allegedly borrowed some of Iraq ’s oil by drilling sideways.  Hence, the invasion of Kuwait , Gulf War I and now Gulf War II is coming to a theater near you.  These are all shock waves of the two grand world wars the U. S. supposedly won and which are supposedly over.

In the end, I am left to wonder whether any war can be a good thing.  Sure, the Confederates were right to fight the Yankee aggressors, but I sure wish they had freed the slaves—which the hypocritical Yanks had yet to do in their own slave states and occupied territories--and together with them had repelled the unlawful invasion.  Preposterous?  Confederate General Patrick Cleburne proposed just that in January, 1864.  That way, generations of white and black Southerners would have been freed from federal tax-slavery, federal world wars, federal conscription and death in foreign wars, and from the hostility that a billion or so people around the world feel towards citizens of a repressive and violent global empire. 

As for the glorious American Revolution, even that is tainted.  We are now told, by our own libertarian brethren, that no war of secession is justified if it involves the “kidnapping of slaves.”  Oh well, so much for the minute men’s heroics.  Tear up those history books.  

These days, the real heroes are those who sit in well-appointed think tank suites and condemn anti-imperial wars of secession while praising past imperialistic wars and urging us into even more wars of invasion and consolidation.  The combined impact of all the prior “good wars” that “we won” utterly failed to bring peace, prosperity and harmony to the world.  Quite the contrary.  Excuse me for thinking that the invasion and occupation of Iraq will likewise fail.

Stay tuned.  When World War I finally ends, I’ll let you know who won—and who lost!

February 4, 2003