. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Showing posts with label War is not the Answer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War is not the Answer. Show all posts
“I didn’t think we could just sit here idly and say, ‘Let those people die.’ We wouldn’t want the rest of the world to say that about us if we were in the same situation. Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”
-- Iowa’s Governor Robert D. Ray, welcoming Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian immigrants, 1975 (post Viet Nam War)
In March, 2011, Syria’s President Assad fired on peaceful Syrian, Arab Spring demonstrators. By July the demonstrators were joined by defectors from Assad’s army, renamed themselves the Free Syrian Army, and were engaged in a civil war. Soon Iran was supporting Assad; Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States came to the aid of the rebels.
Five years later, it has become a regional version of a World War III. In addition to Syria, it involves the countries of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey – and now Russia and the United States, among others. Other state-like groups include al Qaeda in Syria, Hezbollah, ISIS, Kurds, the anti-Assad rebels – plus another 100 factions – all of which switch sides and membership from time to time. Then there is the Islamic division, with Sunnis supporting the rebels and Shiites supporting Assad.
Nearly a quarter-million Syrians have been killed – most of whom were innocent civilians neither wishing for nor participating in this war. There are uncounted millions who have been injured, deprived of food or health care, and are missing family members. Homes and businesses have been destroyed, as have entire cities, leaving many without shelter or access to supplies.
The UN estimates 7.6 million Syrians (out of a pre-war population of 23 million) are now displaced within Syria, in addition to the 4 million Syrian refugees who have been able to leave.
Few if any of us have ever experienced anything remotely like what they have been through, and continue to experience.
But as we try to imagine what it must be like, one cannot watch the news of their lives, whether in Syria, or on their way elsewhere, and not be emotionally moved. What can we Iowans do to help from halfway around the world?
Iowans, like Americans in the other 49 states, have been, and continue to be, enriched by the diversity and skills of our new arrivals. The UI alone has students from 112 countries. And as the opening quote from former Governor Robert Ray reveals, Iowa has a proud history of welcoming those in need of a new home during Iowa’s recent, as well as its early years.
So it’s pretty clear what those of us within the Gazette’s circulation area can, and should do. We need to encourage our public officials to continue Iowa’s tradition – the presidential candidates, our Governor, legislators, county supervisors, and city council members. We need to work from within our churches, social service agencies, civic clubs and other organizations to build consensus – and collaboration – encouraging and preparing for their arrival.
That’s today’s job one in this crisis.
But job two still looms: trying to learn from this experience what America has apparently been unable to learn from our unwelcome military incursions into Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq – among many other countries.
The West created the Middle East. In May 1916, Mark Sykes (British), and Francois Georges-Picot (French), with Russia’s knowledge, came to a secret understanding to demolish the Ottoman Empire and draw new boundaries for French and British-administered areas.
World War III is not World War II. “Terrorism” is not a nation. If we wanted to treat it as such after 9/11 we should have been bombing and invading Saudi Arabia rather than Afghanistan and Iraq – since that’s where the money and airline hijackers came from. Our incursions have created more terrorists than have been killed.
The computer WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) in the movie “War Games” ultimately called off a thermo-nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia after being frustrated by its inability to win at tic-tack-toe. As it concluded, “the only winning move is not to play.” We have not been as wise as that computer.
The answer? It can fit on a bumper sticker: “Whatever is the question, war is not the answer.”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, a native of Iowa City and former FCC commissioner, maintains http://nicholasjohnson.org and http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org
In the "Why Are We in Afghanistan?" blog entry, linked above, I wrote about an Amy Goodman "Democracy Now!" program I had just watched:
There is also a clip from Robert McNamera, explaining what was wrong with our analysis of Vietnam as a place for "war" -- insights that are almost perfectly applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I offered President Johnson a similar perspective regarding our Vietnam catastrophe -- but before rather than after that war. While the fate that my message produced was neither as severe nor public as what General McChrystal has recently experienced (nor was my confidential report as ad hominem or public as McChrystal's), I always believed it did have something to do with LBJ's deciding that his young Maritime Administrator, handling sealift to Vietnam, would make a really terrific FCC Commissioner.
And I then went on to quote from the August 31, 2009, blog entry, also linked above:
The top thinkers in the military, many of whom do make their way to the top of their service, or the Joint Chiefs' staff, are well educated, bright, analytical and rational.
When left to their own independent judgment and opinions they are the ones likely to ask questions like those I [ask].
What, exactly, is it you are trying to do in this country? How are our national interests involved? In what ways do you think a military presence could be helpful in reaching that goal (as distinguished from, e.g., Peace Corps presence and building infrastructure; cultural exchanges; or bringing their best students to our universities)? How would you describe that military mission? With what metrics would you measure our military's progress? How many troops will it take to accomplish that mission? How long will it take? What is your basis for thinking the American people, and their elected representatives, will support the cost in human life and taxes over that time? (Support for the Afghan war has now dropped below 50%.) What support is there in the international community for this action? Does that support include financial support and troops? Once in, how do we get out; that is, what is our "exit strategy"? On the assumption the military mission produces the outcome desired, why is it reasonable to assume that progress will be sustained after we leave?
Note what General McChrystal is said to be talking about. Our military efforts "have not made their lives better;" security must be provided by locals "but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police;" and a jobs program would be more effective than continuing to shoot Afghans ("60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs").
The bumper sticker says it all: "War is Not the Answer." Otherwise put, in more words than can fit on a bumper sticker, there are some places, times and circumstances in which war is simply not a feasible strategy. Afghanistan is one of those places; the last nine years have been one of those times. In such times, places and circumstances, "Whatever is the question, war is not the answer."
My son, Sherman, brought The Guardian story to my attention. And my son, Gregory, in this context reminded me of the concluding line in one of my favorite movies, "War Games." (As he emailed: "What!!!!??? So after years of analysis, and super computers playing war games, we've finally arrived at an answer? And the answer is: 'There is no military solution.'")
["WarGames is a 1983 American thriller film written by Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes and directed by John Badham. The film starred Matthew Broderick in his second major film role, and featured Ally Sheedy, Dabney Coleman, John Wood, and Barry Corbin." "WarGames," wikipedia.com. Amazon has the DVD; as presumably would Netflix.]
As you've just seen, if you watched that concluding clip, the premise of the film is that a computer genius has created software that enables the military to "take the human out of the loop" -- leaving it to a computer to decide when to launch missiles against the Soviet Union. A young hacker manages to get into the program and starts the computer down a road leading to World War III. Ultimately the program's creator and the kid are able to save us all, by forcing the computer to play tic-tac-toe, and thus to learn, as the computer-generated voice ultimately observes:
"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
That's Afghanistan. A strange game. Because our only winning move would have been "not to play," to have kept our military out of there from the beginning. In that place, under those conditions, at this time, war never was the answer. Because, as the British and Russians long ago discovered, and at least some in the Obama Administration are now, at long last, acknowledging: there is "no military solution." _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
