A veteran responds: We have wars because there is evil in the world
This is a response to a letter sent by Arnold Stieber, “A day for dialogue” (May 29, AnnArbor.com). Mr. Stieber states that he’d like to see Memorial Day be a day that we sit down and discuss issues that “really matter” for the future of our children and our country as a whole.
Mr. Stieber then goes on to pose a number of rhetorical questions that are obviously troubling to him. Mr. Stieber, maybe I can answer a few of these questions for you.
You ask, “why do we have war”? Mr. Stieber, because there is evil in the world.
“Why do we so proudly send our children to kill other children”? You pose that question in an ugly fashion. The answer is that there is something called service to your country. You said you were in the Army. I would hope that somewhere inside resides a little pride in regards to your service. (By the way Mr. Stieber, I was in the Marine Corps., infantry, 1967/68, 1 Corps area).
“Why do we have more than 700 military bases in more than 140 countries”? I’d like to see something to back that one up. Assuming that your figures are correct Mr. Stieber, the fact is, like it or not, the United States is the world’s policeman. Imagine the world without a U.S. Do you really think that peace, love and harmony would prevail without us as a guardian.
Richard S. Burskey
Brighton
Comments
Roadman
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 6:02 a.m.
For those of us who disparage the American servicemen who fought in Indochina, let us remember that following the collapse of the pro-Western regime in Cambodia in 1975, the Marxist Khmer Rouge government murdered one million of its own people. Let us also remember the North Korean people who live in near starvation conditions eating tree bark while their Communist government has spent billions of dollars in attempting to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to fire at America. It was the U.S. Armed Forces and U.N. that assisted R.O.K. troops in securing the southern half of the Korean Peninsula from the Communist Chinese and Korean forces to enable the tens of millions in the south to live free. American military, air, and naval personnel fought the Cold War after a young missionary named John Birch was killed by Maoists immediately following WWII and have largely been successful, leaving only a handful of nations in the Far East under Communist control. The key enemies of world peace remains Communist regimes led by Red China and Americans need to support our troops and government in focusing upon these enemies. America's greatest accomplishment was winning the Cold War.
Roadman
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 5:45 p.m.
The decision to commit tropps is a political one - and one which I may agree or disagree with. However the sacrifice of American servicemen and the evil of communist regimes cannot be understated and the accomplishments of these servicemen substantial. I believe that America needs to - due to economics and protection of American lives - wind down the Iraqi and Afghan interventions ASAP.
Townie
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.
'winning the Cold War' - wasn't it more like the Soviet Union ran out of money before we did? So you are in favor of keeping 100k+ troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other nations until they have corporation controlled governments like ours? That should totally bankrupt us in just a couple of more years.
David Briegel
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
One might just as easily deduce that China has won the Cold War. I saw nobody disparage the American serviceman.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:39 a.m.
Ahh yes. The United States: The policeman of the world, an exemplar of all that is good. But to be done while cutting taxes. Note to the hyper patriots out there: Secretary of Defense Gates has proposed cutting health care benefits fro military retirees, both through the VA system and through Tri-Care. I guess we value our military personnel and their sacrifices ONLY when it doesn't cause our taxes to go up. Good Night and Good Luck
Bear
Wed, Jun 15, 2011 : 3:35 a.m.
You got that one right.
1bit
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 2:56 a.m.
At the risk of agreeing with you too often, I do not understand why we would not tax ourselves more to pay for wars and for servicemen/servicewomen's healthcare if we really believe in those wars. Over the past decade we have added nearly a trillion dollars of debt for the wars (not counting future obligations). Perhaps some Mr. Smith someday will propose legislation that any new war would require "pay-as-you-go" rules involving mandatory tax increases, spending cuts, war bonds or all of these.
AAFish
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 11:17 p.m.
@bedrog -- I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that David Breigel, or sh1, is "OK with a Taliban-type society." A bit more evidence, please? And just what does picketing synagogues have to do with it?
John B.
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 9:24 p.m.
Anyone that doesn't believe that war is big business is foolish. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars per year's worth (just in our case...).
bedrog
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:06 a.m.
Glad you asked.. for as long as I've been looking at this site.briegel has incessantly harped on his ( mostly) one note 'american empire' riff , while ignoring the existential realities of the areas in which we are militarily engaged, which are breeding grounds for those who have attacked us ( and regularly savage their own ) and clearly want to keep doing so. Ditto the small cult that has been picketing a local synagogue for nearly 8 years in open and explicit support ( via their signage , postings on this and other sites, and assorted obnoxiousness in other settings, including those which got them 'trespassed' at the UM) of terrorist groups like hamas and hizbollah. To my knowledge ( which is considerable on this bunch) Briegel is not an active member of that group... but the overlap of Briegels most recurrent point ( and i have agreed with him on the few occasions he addresses othe rissues) with their mindless rhetoric is, at the least, deeply annoying to me in its willful disregard of realities of geopolitics. And I for one refuse to give such " tunnel visionaries" an unqualified 'pass' in the intersts of politeness. At the least its good for my blood pressure to do so... if they have free speech, so do i ( and mine is actually data based, as a retired academic specialist on the main regions of current conflict....
fremdfirma
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 6:30 p.m.
Not only Eisenhower, but also former US Army General Smedley Butler, who having witnessed that whole dynamic from point blank range for his entire career penned the commentary "War is a Racket", which is every bit or more valid today than it was when he originally wrote it. Our so-called "defense" budget is a black hole, impoverishing us to feed a monster we MUST leash, before it consumes us all.
toadsan
Sat, Jun 18, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
Smedley Butler was actually a Marine General. He's the greatest General in the history of the Marines, but they teach you he was great because of the war he fought, not because of his standing up against the establishment. He was also asked to lead a coup against FDR by the largest businesses in the world at the time. He said no and not much was ever made of it. It is a very important history lesson nonetheless.
Bear
Wed, Jun 15, 2011 : 3:33 a.m.
excuse me, I stand corrected, Major General Smedley Butler, The fighting quaker. A true American Hero & Patriot.
Bear
Wed, Jun 15, 2011 : 3:31 a.m.
USMC Brigadier General Smedley Butler, 2x winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor & at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in Marine history. He received 16 medals and was the only person to ever receive the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions. I see both sides of this argument & both have merit. But tread lightly, Butler named names, times & dates, where he knew he was nothing but a strongarm for American Corporations & business interests.
Robert J
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:35 a.m.
U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Butler
Townie
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.
One need only look to the words of former President and General Dwight Eisenhower: Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." We now spend more money on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined and it's largely now on credit. And, as one would expect, with this large force we tend to always find a military solution to any world issue. When the only tool you have (or want to see) is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Will Warner
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.
There is a lot of cynicism on display in these responses to Mr. Burskey's letter: "we are protecting or empire"…" "there is a lot of profit in war"…. "evil is often …the US picking fights with smaller countries"… "so many in the U.S. are easily manipulated into supporting unjust wars." My own view, after two enlistments in the Army and some travel beyond our shores, is that America is a very great force for good in the world, notwithstanding the bad things that happen when force most be used. America always needs two reasons to go to war. The first is hardcore, geo-political, realpolitik, if you will. This justification is for those who require that our national interests be served whenever we send our citizens into battle. The second reason is humanitarian; it is for those who require that something more than our national interests be served. The majority of our soldiers believe they are doing both: serving the national interest and doing good. So you are going to find a self-interested dimension to America's use of military power. A certain segment of our population -- the more pragmatic, less idealistic segment -- will demand it. But that other justification for war making—the humanitarian impulse—is just as important in America, and, while probably not unique in history, still pretty remarkable. Think of the risks we ran in the Balkans in the 90's. Our reward? Stability in the region (national interest) and an end to genocide there (humanitarian). America (with the Allies) conquered Japan and Germany, gave them or restored democracy, put them on a path to prosperity and gave them back their sovereignty. This is not standard procedure for an empire. Following the humanitarian impulse, I believed in 2003, and I believe today, that solidarity with the people of Iraq required support of the invasion, not opposition to it. The fate of the women of Afghanistan does not bear thinking about if the Taliban come back into power—we should prevent that if we can.
Will Warner
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 12:29 a.m.
"The beautiful thing about the internet is that you never know who you might be talking to. I happen to know much more about Iraq than you presume and particularly Saddam's regime." You know, I may have heard of you. You're not "1bit of Arabia" are you? "I can tell you as a fact that although there were less 'freedoms' under Saddam, you didn't worry about food, power, kidnappings, roving packs of wild dogs, or your safety when you went on the streets." Except for those kidnappings by the secret police. Or maybe the kidnapping that occurred when your daughter caught the fancy of Uday or Qusay? But, yes, the streets of Berlin also became very "safe" beginning around 1933. Let's go back to January 30th, 2005, in Iraq. Eight million Iraqis marched to the polls, grimly determined to cast a vote, the fundamental act of a free person. They did this even though others had credibly promised to kill them if they dared, promised to make the streets run with the blood of anyone who took part in the infidel institution of democracy. Suicide bombers and mortar attacks cut down voters as they stood on line. Each time, when the smoke cleared, those still standing stepped forward to fill the gap left by the fallen, and the voting continued, hour after hour after hour. I was moved to tears by these events and especially by the unbelievable bravery of the poll workers. The insurgency, in its depraved desperation, had turned to murdering election officials in an attempt to prevent the voting. But to no avail. The poll workers took up their posts and did their duty. In exit interviews with reporters, Iraqis expressed their resolve. Some in wheelchairs or on crutches said they would have crawled to the polls if necessary. Voters displayed their ink-stained fingers and said that they were proud to defy the insurgents. America gave Iraq this opportunity for self-determination. No Arab spring was coming to Iraq, not with Saddam in power. America did this for them. America.
1bit
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 5:14 p.m.
"In 2001 no one knew the Arab spring was coming." That is, of course, if you ignored history and had no understanding of the regimes, their past and their people. There was no imminent threat from Iraq. What's done is done. The beautiful thing about the internet is that you never know who you might be talking to. I happen to know much more about Iraq than you presume and particularly Saddam's regime. I can tell you as a fact that although there were less "freedoms" under Saddam, you didn't worry about food, power, kidnappings, roving packs of wild dogs, or your safety when you went on the streets. Christians had no fear of being murdered in their Churches. The myth you perpetuate of our grand liberation of Iraq is absurd. The civil war was foreseeable and, as the "liberators" or "occupiers", it was our obligation to stay. It was also our obligation to insure some basic features necessary for living - food, power, safety - and we have only had marginal success. What you are basically saying is that "the surgery was a success, but the patient died."
Will Warner
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 5:19 a.m.
In 2001 no one knew the Arab spring was coming. Further, if we think Assad and Qaddafi are brutal, Saddam would have slaughtered his entire (Shia) population to stay in power. Every administration in Iraq since the liberation has thanked America for doing for the Iraqi people what they had tried and failed to do: free themselves. The Iraqis have suffered greatly, but my reading of history is that people everywhere will risk everything and endure anything for freedom. Others, born into freedom, seem easily able to imagine the horrors of war and its aftermath but not so the horrors of living under the boot of a murderous dictator. To quote Elie Wiesle, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and supporter of the invasion: "I came to America from where I came from and therefore I am more sensitive to America's idealism than those who were born here. For them it is a granted condition to be free, for me it was not. To be free is important, but to bring freedom to those who are not free is even more important." Our soldiers entering Iraq were greeted as liberators in many places. A New York Times correspondent, present at the toppling of Saddam's statue, quoted an elderly, weeping, Iraqi: "Touch me, touch me, tell me that it is real, tell me that the nightmare is over." Following liberation, of course, the Iraqis embarked on a civil war. We could have walked away, but we stayed, and sacrificed, to keep a lid on it. In hindsight, the violence was not surprising when you recall that in the years following the liberation of France in 1944, thousands of Frenchmen died in reprisal killings, murdered by other Frenchmen.
1bit
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 2:41 a.m.
"that solidarity with the people of Iraq required support of the invasion" Will, I agree with much you wrote but the people of Iraq did not ask for nearly a decade of de facto civil war, for rolling blackouts and power surges, for occupation and a "green zone", for IEDs, for suicide bombers, or for massacres of Christians in their Churches. No, the lesson of Iraq is humility. The lesson is that although our military can easily conquer weaker regimes, we must have the humanitarian plan in place beforehand. The lesson is that the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. The lesson is patience - Saddam's regime would've crumbled under its own unsustainable weight this Arabic spring. The lesson is that democratic values arise from the people and not from a blue finger provided from a circus masquerading as an election. The lesson is that we make mistakes sometimes in spite of our intentions and it is not a sin to admit that we can be wrong.
bedrog
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
yeah,!!,,afghanistan- that treasure trove of resources being utilized by the crowd of foreign investors clamoring to go there, with their families picking out the wonderful schools in the neighborhood.. Get real!! Have you never heard of '9/11' or 'al qaeda'?? No doubt you were one of those blaming the u.s for 'abandoning' afghanistan after the Russians were kicked out.
sh1
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.
The biggest reason to go to war is profits, pure and simple. I don't believe much of what we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan has a humanitarian basis.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Burskey is very wise. There are naive people in our country, including in Congress, who believe that the US is the cause of wars in the world and if we would just lay down our weapons that all wars would cease. There are others who believe that, in all cases, we can afford to wait until we are attacked before doing anything. Those who understand history know better, and know that both of those beliefs, even though they lead to nice, flowery feelings not unlike a sixties song, are contrary to our survival. Good Night and Good Grief.
northside
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
Richard if your letter is a parody of simplistic, pro-war thinking than it's brilliant and very funny. If this letter is sincere it's sad and scary, a reminder of why so many in the U.S. are easily manipulated into supporting unjust wars. Oh, and the U.S. does have 140 military bases worldwide. That you and so few in the U.S. are aware of that also goes on the sad and scary list.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
If certain countries take the necessary steps to be prepared to defend themselves, we would not need to help them. This is the basis for the humorous-but-accurate joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Nobody knows, it's never been attempted." Other countries, some of which are friends of ours, are simply too small to defend themselves. What do we do with them? Allow the Darwinian process to determine their fate? If you want to see pain and suffering, just stop having the US police the world.
northside
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
Oops - my mistake. I know there are 700 bases but mistakenly typed the number of nations in which they're located.
snark12
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
The most recent report from the DoD lists 662 installations in foreign countries (see page 9 of this PDF: <a href="http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/bsr2010baseline.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/bsr2010baseline.pdf</a> The number was over 700 a few years ago.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.
Oh, and legally, the United States is not allowed to call those missions "bases". It is actually a touchy subject and term that gives the diplomatic corps facial tics.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
Actually, he didn't say 140 military bases worldwide, he said bases in 140 countries. But base is just his term. In many of the 140 countries a base is actually just a presence of a small cadre that make up a military mission. They have no war making capability.
diagbum
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.
It's called the great game, and Americans had better be up for it, unless we all can do without our luxury's. There a reason that the largest US embassy in the world is in Iraq (The Carter Doctrine), and for perpetual war in Afghanistan (Central Asian natural gas). I disagree with the statement: "war exists because there is evil in the world", warlike tendencies are found in many species, from epic battles between ant colonies, to the territorial conflicts of lion prides, to the raiding parties of chimps.. War is Competition for resources, territories, and cultural ideas - it is part of our nature as a species and maybe a catalyst for evolution. "Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato
diagbum
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
I am aware of the origin of the term, and I stand by its use in this context. According to former CIA case officer, Robert Baer the "great game" is alive and well and continues to this day. Check out his book "Sleeping with the Devil", here is a link to it online in .PDF format: <a href="http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/Robert-Baer-Sleeping-With-the-Devil/RB-SlepinDev.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/Robert-Baer-Sleeping-With-the-Devil/RB-SlepinDev.pdf</a>
bedrog
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 2:43 p.m.
Anthropologically / historically/biologically youre right in the big picture.... but re the "great game'...a term specifically coined in the 19th century to refer to british/russian competition over central and south asia... we are there now less because of resources than because it was staging ground for ongoing attacks ( some successful...others thankfully preempted) on us..... and so the game will ( and should) go on.. and we better win it unless a taliban -type society is o.k. with you ( as it seems to be with briegel , sh1 and the types who picket local synagogues.)
sh1
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
Yes, we have war because there is evil in the world, but that evil is often a much larger country such as the US picking fights with smaller, easy-to-beat countries over invented offenses such as imaginary WMDs.
1bit
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 3:08 a.m.
Should the U.S. stand by idly when a madman promises ruthless murder of the populace he controls? Libya is a mess. The measured response thus far is about the best we can do. Don't count on an invasion or a victory, we are playing for a stalemate. And that may just be good enough.
shepard145
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 2:09 a.m.
I am surprised how many big names in news are confused about why we go into Libya but pass on "saving" less strategic countries. The answer is of course that American foreign policy is a fiasco. Few understand that American diplomacy is not about human rights (world police), but protecting the global economy, which = Our Interests = Our Jobs and Economy. Obama had no idea of this when running for president and was slapped in the face with reality after he moved into the White House. Obama and his cronies can never state the truth because that would sound an awful lot like he suddenly sports "blood for oil" to the simpleton leftists in his "base". ....we told you so in 2008 but you didn't listen - now we all pay.
bedrog
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:50 a.m.
shepard...its not a democrat-republican thing. Its a 'pollyanna' ( or brain -dead) vs. 'realist' thing... Im a democrat and so is Obama...and we both support intervention in places that have rogue regimes that have either attacked us ,or played cutsie-poo around obtaining nukes, and have unquestionably been horrible to both their own citizens and their neighbors.... ( and yemen, somalia, iran , syria, sudan and our own duplicitous ally Pakistan will get no second guessing or apologetics from this democrat if our relations toward them go even more 'south' than they already are.
shepard145
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:09 a.m.
Who said there were WMD's in Iraq - Bush or 11 years of UN weapons inspectors routinely thrown out of the country? Who were the other 39 countries who joined the WMD related liberation of Iraq? How many bipartisan votes of support came from both houses? Focus more on reality and less on democrat bumper stickers.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:15 p.m.
Yeah, kinda like Libya....
sh1
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
The US commits evil acts as all countries do. It is naive to think otherwise. I used the example of the Iraq was because in hindsight it is clear we had no good reason to invade a country that was not threatening us.
bedrog
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.
Why are we in libya?? Aside from the fact that qaddafi is ( and always has been ) a madman, at this particular moment we are trying...although who knows how itll work out... to jump on, (although a bit cautiously and belatedly) this particular 'arab spring ' event.. although i, as one who knows the region and its history quite well, am extemely dubious about the whole "spring' concept...but I give Obama and other allies there credit for taking a credible stab at ameliorating a very complicated, uncertain and ' rat's nest' sort of situation.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 4:39 p.m.
Why are we in Libya?
stunhsif
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
feel free to leave this evil country , I would be happy to help pack the bags !
bedrog
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
If the taliban, al-qaeda were "easy to beat' we'd be gone...and if they wern't so aggressively evil to other religions we'd never be there....
David Briegel
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Burksey, we are protecting our empire. There's a lot of profit in war. Our last few wars haven't been very successful. Unless you were making the profits. In a time when we are cutting back on education, we can no longer afford the failed military and intelligence complex we now have. I believe our true priority has become much worse than Eisenhower warned. Ike never dreamed we could fall victim to Perpetual War Profiteering.
Mike K
Wed, Jun 15, 2011 : 1:32 a.m.
A2citizen, bedrog... Well said. I've never read such ugly cynicism here on this site. This individual will only become satisfied when all of us contribute our paychecks to a fund that allocates all the collective funds equally amongst all citizens. Until then, expect the same old liberal talking points.........
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:12 p.m.
Sorry, bedrog....I stand corrected.
bedrog
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.
'naive ' implies wide-eyed innocence....that's different than willful unwillingness to grasp any ohter other than bumper-sticker sloganeering of a particular skewed sort.
a2citizen
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 2:53 p.m.
Bedrog, you left out naive.
bedrog
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
simplistic, historically vacuuous, blitheringly unaware of current events and .other cultures which are not benign to us or to themselves.....as usual .
sh1
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
Amen.