America's Longest War ... Really?

Having studied logic during my days in college, it breaks my heart when someone attempts to reach a correct conclusion from a false premise. Under the 'Infinite Monkey Theorem', such things are bound to happen, but they often defy the odds.  Oddly enough, Lewis Diuguid actually manages to get to some truth in his piece, "America's Longest War is 10 Years Old And Raging", but his premise that the wars in the Middle East are our longest conflict is in fact a false one.

The longest War that America has been fighting should more accurately be considered to be Korea. Begun on 6/25/1950, it was the first of the US 'undeclared wars' (though some point far earlier to Panama). Though an armistice was signed on 7/27/1953 US troops are never the less still defending South Korean borders, a military budget is expended on their behalf. and shots have been fired (artillery shells, in fact) as recently as last year.

Next on the list of Wars we are still fighting, is that announced on 1/8/1964, LBJ's 'War on Poverty'. This undeclared war was the beginning of the 'Great Society' and is one we have been pouring billions of dollars into for some 47 years with no victory on the horizon and no end in sight. If anything, the goal may be further from achievement now than when begun.

Such things being bi-partisan, the next of the wars we are still fighting was the 'War on Drugs' declared on 6/17/1971 by President Richard Nixon. Nixon even managed to enlist Elvis Presley into government service a second time and awarded him a badge from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; which seems rather ironic, since the subsequent deterioration of Presley's health was largely contributed to by years of drug abuse. The influx of drugs and the number of casualties in this war are far too well documented for me to need to go into (so I won't). Still, this makes the War on Drugs over 40 years old, and in spite of the billions spent, likewise no closer to victory.

Skipping ahead 30 years to 9/11/2001, ostensibly the point of Mr Diuguid's piece, the history of wars might be allowed to begin again (at least for him). Of course, the facts of history become rather confused here. Most would in fact tell you that the war in Iraq was the response of the US to the terrorist-flown airplanes in NYC, Washington, and Pennsylvania; but they would be wrong. In fact the US, in its next undeclared war, began fighting in Afghanistan on 10/7/11 in response to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. We didn't begin fighting in an undeclared war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein until 3/20/2003.

Most recently, we could jump forward to 2/15/2011 and our support of the mission in Libya. Another undeclared conflict and another expenditure of treasure by a nation that now has little or none to spare. And while actual fighting appears to be drawing down, we have as yet no idea what the final cost of this effort will be. 

At least now though, we can talk about the impact of the impending anniversary of 9/11 and a display that is being set up by the Kansas City Interfaith Council. To quote Ira Harritt, its program coordinator: "There is the realization that we cannot afford the wars anymore. People are realizing that $800 billion a year for the military and these wars is not worth the price tag." 

While this is a sentiment with which I would tend to agree; strangely enough, I find it strange that these groups do not find such selective history contradictory or that they can ignore events before 9/11 or outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. No one protests the nature or the budget of the Libyan campaign, or seeks to keep us out of the growing number of 'Arab Spring' uprisings in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain among others. Discounting the rest of the Middle East, they likewise ignore the failure in the strategies of social programs that have been going on far longer and wasting even more time and treasure.  

"We recognize the sacrifice the armed forces made in pursuing the war on terror. We want to remind the public there are alternatives to the challenges we face," Harritt said. "The more we invest in military solutions, the more we are perpetuating the problems we face. I think 10 years has shown us that doesn't work." And Diuguid ends it with, "It's past time for peace to dominate."  

Cheers to Mr Diuguid for managing not to plagiarize John Lennon (and for having a last name that's a palindrome). I fear that his thinking and Mr Harritt's may in fact be too narrow however. While on the right track, they may wish to broaden their perspective to understand that government solutions to problems, military or otherwise, seldom come to a successful conclusion in the wars they fight. If 10 years is too much, what would over 40 be?  If the failure of a military campaign to produce the desired result is reason enough for ending it, how then the failure of social programs?  

Perhaps its time check the facts of history and to declare peace in wars that have been going on far longer.

Stop The Wars!

I am going to post a little early this week, as Saturday is another travel day for me, and I don't expect to feel much like writing after what I anticipate will be 17 hours getting home. Hopefully my life will return to its abnormal level by Monday.  

Yes, I want to stop the wars, but probably not the one that you are thinking of. I will deal with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in another time and another place. Likewise, the sentiment that I am espousing here is not a pacifist one, at least not as you probably understand the term. What I am talking about here is that I want to stop both The War on Drugs and The War on Poverty. 

Now I propose to do this in much the way that the current Democratic Congress would like to stop the current wars in the Middle East. I would like to declare defeat, bring the troops home, and stop spending the money. Wait a minute you say, that’s not the way that it works. Why not? After five years of fighting in Iraq without a final victory, we are ready to call it quits and get the hell out. 

Well we’ve been fighting the War on Poverty since the 60’s and the War on Drugs almost as long and not only have we not won either of these wars, we are probably doing worse today in these fights than when we started. Billions of dollars spent, countless lives wasted, thousands of pages of speeches given and laws passed in fighting the good fight, yet the implacable enemies of drugs and poverty plague our nation. 

Well I say let’s end those wars now and declare a moratorium on such pointless wars of compassion for our fellow man. Nothing fails so utterly or completely like the federal government trying to mandate correct behavior or lend a helping hand. The bureaucratic morass created by such interference is only exceeded by the complete and utter failure of the effort. I say that the only way to win these wars is not to fight them! 

If you really want to end poverty, then stop handing out free money and start handing out a double dose of opportunity and responsibility. Take the money that the government taxes us to pay for these failed efforts and give it back to the people who paid it. Let good old capitalism make use of such capital and opportunities will abound for all to increase their standard of living. Get rid of the mind-numbing amount of regulation preventing people from achieving the American dream and they will. The only ones that will be left in need are the ones too used to sucking at the government teat to help themselves. Take government out of the picture and let entrepreneurs create the jobs they always have. Eliminate government bureaucracy and dependency and substitute self reliance. 

If you really want to stop drug abuse, then make these drugs legal and tax the crap out of them. It may not solve the problem, but it would at least show some consistency from the government and it seems to be working for smoking after all. Even if it didn't convince everyone to get off of drugs, it could finance treatment for those too physically or psychologically addicted to mend their ways. And it would do so without asking everyone to pay for the bad habits of a few. 

Now I'm not sure that government is capable of carrying out this simple a program, but it has the merit of never having been tried (and having failed) before. Prohibiting a substance has never eliminated it from the marketplace, only reduced the control over its distribution and created a criminal network to fill the void in supply (see alcohol,Prohibition, and The Mob). 

I don’t want to seem cruel here people, and I don’t really think that I do. The truth of the matter is that I think that I believe in people more than my government does. I believe that there are times when people need a helping hand, but not that they need to be carried like a child. I believe that given choices and opportunities to act responsibly, that people will do so. If they don't or can't, they need to be prepared to pay for the privilege of acting irresponsibly. 

I believe that our government is doing what it can to keep us ignorant and dependent, conditions which make us easier to control. I believe that the nanny state is keeping us from achieving our potential and human beings and Americans. Let me leave you with the words of President Ronald Reagan, " The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'."