War Wary

The attacks keep coming and we keep doing next to nothing.  Radical Islam would like to destroy us, and our lifestyle, but many politicians cannot even bring themselves to say its name.  Indeed, they must be coaxed into calling its fighters terrorists.

One of the reasons we are told that we have not reacted more vigorously is that the American people are war weary.  A decade of combat in faraway lands has left them tired battle; thus they wish to bring the troops home.

This is not true!  We aren’t war weary; we are war wary.  We Americans haven’t been worn down by war; we never favored it in the first place.  General Patton was mistaken.  Americans do not love war.  We tolerate it.  We like to win, but we don’t like to fight.

Consider the evidence.  About seven times as many people die in highway accidents per year than have perished in a decade of combat.  This is less than one hundredth the body count from World War II.  Nor have our defenders been drafted.  They volunteered.  As a consequence, only the willing have been exposed to death.

Nor has the war been particularly costly.  Barack Obama wasted more on ineffectual domestic outlays in a single year than was expended in ten years on Iraq and Afghanistan.  We have not had to choose between guns and butter.  We got both.

So why the complaining?  We can begin by noting that the carping began shortly after we took Bagdad.  Once Bush stood before a banner proclaiming “mission accomplished,” voices were raised insisting that this had been a fool’s errand.  And besides, Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.

Democrats, who voted to authorize the war, suddenly transmuted into doves.  The reason was two-fold—and obvious.  First, they could not allow a Republican president too much glory.  If he was permitted to bask in victory, he might later be difficult to beat at the polls.

Second, ever since Viet Nam Democrats have been isolationists.  They insist on concentrating on domestic policies, while withdrawing from foreign entanglements.  Why, they wonder, should we waste our time and treasure on other people’s troubles?

Barak Obama is definitely of this opinion.  Like any orthodox liberal, he assumes that if we are nice to others, they will be nice to us.  This includes, the Russians, the Chinese, the Cubans, the Iranians—and the radical Islamists.  Everyone wants peace; hence if we are peaceful, they will be too.

No matter how much goes wrong, this article of faith remains intact.  The Crimea can be attacked, ISIS can chop off heads, and French journalists can be massacred, but all we get are a few sanctimonious words.  Then, when the fuss dies down, it is business as usual.

Obama treats the Islamists as if they were a few flies buzzing around his head.  Thus, all he needs to do is shoo them away.  This, however, could not be more wrongheaded.  We are at war.  We are immersed in World War III.

Our enemy is not a nation state.  It is an international movement.  The armies we face are not conventional, but they are deeply committed.  Although the damage they inflict may seem trivial, it is not.  Our city centers haven’t been gutted, but our way of life, including freedom of speech and travel, is under assault.

The only sensible way to respond is to seek out and destroy the enemy.  Half-measures (or more accurately one-fiftieth measures) only prolong the agony.  Why don’t we go into Yemen and wipe out its nest of vipers?  We could if we so chose.

And why don’t we destroy ISIS?  We got to Bagdad in three weeks, why should a less capable foe take three years?  The way to defeat an enemy is to defeat that enemy—not to play patty fingers.  If we don’t crush them, it is we, and not they, who are to blame.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University