2012年9月14日 星期五

The Wars We Didn't Have To Fight


One can make a pretty good case that while the history of the United States reveals great and enduring innovations in business and industry, one could also argue that U.S. history is a history of war. Depending on one's working definition of war, without doing any research I identify thirteen wars involving the U.S. Our government claims that all of these were not only necessary but largely forced on us. From my perspective the first one seems a little "iffy," one was definitely forced on us, and at least eleven were actually of our choosing even though our leaders claimed we had no choice.

I consider the Revolutionary War "iffy," the War of 1812 definitely forced on us, and the Mexican War of 1846-1848, the War Between The States, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, and Afghanistan all wars of choice. I probably missed some, but this list tells the tale.

Almost without doubt, almost all Americans would consider that we had no choice but to revolt against England and form a new country. Certainly the Founders thought so. And perhaps in the long run it was inevitable. But were the "facts" at the time so clear that we had to act how and when we did? We all know our Founders' position on the subject, but is it possible that the political class in England also thought that the "facts" obviously justified their position? What was their position in their own eyes?

First, England believed in and practiced mercantilism at the time. Mercantilism basically assumes that the home country founded colonies for economic or military advantages for the home country, not especially for the colonists. While the American colonists were definitely English citizens, it was a citizenship that in the eyes of England was a sort of "secondary" citizenship, one that definitely placed the full obligations of citizenship on the American, without "really" providing them with all of the benefits in practice. The position of the colonists at that time was very much like that of Negroes in America, especially in the South, between the end of the Civil War and the 1960's. An example will help. The Negroes were indeed citizens, they definitely had to pay taxes, but when it came to voting, attending quality schools, admission to "public" places and so forth, their type of "citizenship" clearly differed from that of whites. England definitely imposed the same duties on the American colonists, but when it came to rights, well, Americans had to realize that they were supposed to provide a net benefit to the home country and not quibble about such things as equal protection of the law and so forth.

The colonists complained about taxes. From England's entirely rational point of view, it had recently spent a great deal of money protecting the colonies during the French and Indian Wars, and considered it totally obvious that the colonies should bear some of the cost, so it enacted taxes to recover part of its war costs. From the colonists' entirely rational point of view, they had fought side by side with the Crown's troops and therefore owed nothing more for their "protection." It was also true that the colonists had no input regarding taxation, or much of anything else, and so complained about taxation without representation. While totally obvious to the colonists, this claimed lack of representation totally perplexed the government. It was, and still is, common practice in England for subjects to be represented in Parliament by Members who did not actually in the districts they represented. Clearly, someone somewhere in England was representing the colonists without residing there, so the colonist's claims of taxation without representation had absolutely no merit. As the Crown's total activities proved more and more costly, it levied more taxes on all its subjects, but not necessarily the same taxes on everyone. Thus, the Americans had to pay a stamp tax, a tax on tea, and so forth while subjects in other parts of the realm may have paid different taxes, but pay they did. There were other problems seldom mentioned such as the law that goods could be carried TO England only on "English" ships. Clearly each side thought its positions on the matters entirely logical and proper, and so they were to the respective sides.

We could continue to investigate claims and counter-claims of the two sides, all such claims totally logical to one side or the other, but it would serve no purpose. The central fact that really mattered much more than bickering over taxes, representation, and so forth is the fact that the needs and desires of the colonists had evolved as the colonies had grown from barely functional outposts of the Empire to self-sustaining, reasonably prosperous enterprises. Their dependence on England had greatly declined in many ways, while their fiscal value to England had finally begun to pay dividends on the investment, time, and even blood the home country had expended on behalf of the colonies. I call the war between the American colonies and England "iffy" because given different attitudes on both sides they could probably reached a solution to the real problems between them, but independence was probably unavoidable over the longer term. The position on the side of the Americans that they were "forced" into rebellion reflected their emotional involvement as well as legal and economic factors. So I'll stick with "iffy."

The War of 1812 is an entirely different matter. There is nothing "iffy" about it. The British clearly exceeded the traditional rights of nations with regards to other nations. The British stopped American warships and impressed supposed "British subjects" into their navy. The British had unilaterally imposed trade restrictions that affected American commerce. The Americans claimed that the British were supporting Indian attacks on American settlements, probably with justification. Also, both countries habitually attacked warships of the other.

While the Napoleonic Wars preoccupied Britain, American had encroached into Canadian lands, still owned by Britain. At the war's end, Britain became more active in reclaiming its Canadian holdings, reigniting hostilities between the two countries. In the end, it appears that both countries just tired of the constant conflict, which importantly interfered with trade, and just called it a draw. Relatively soon after the cessation of hostilities, they entered into a period of joint prosperity through trade, and eventually began to share common interests, often working together. I count this as a war we had to fight.

The Mexican War of 1846-1848 used to be a straight forward matter of the Mexicans under Santa Anna attacking American territory subsequent to the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845, which Mexico still considered its territory, meaning the war was forced on us. More recent scholarship by Eisenhower and others suggests that the Americans actually faked an attack on themselves in supposedly U.S. territory, demanding an invasion into Mexico in return. President Polk favored American expansionism, and approved of the war. Seemingly the only member of the American government who smelled a rat was Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who repeatedly demanded explicit information on "exactly" where the supposed attack took place, all of which the government ignored.

Mexico was in no condition militarily to repulse the American invasions. General Scott sent one force south through the middle of the country, capturing towns and cities with little problem. Scott sent another force by sea to a landing area near Mexico City, and mounted an amphibious assault on lightly defended territory. The Americans captured Mexico City with little trouble. But they soon came to realize that they could not possibly govern all the territory they had overrun. The southern areas of Mexico did not interest the Americans, but they offered the Mexican president 30 million dollars for the territory they wanted. When he refused, they made an offer of 15 million dollars to a lesser Mexican official, which was accepted. The United States wound up with parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California. Since the most recent portrayal of the episode seems more realistic, I will consider this a "voluntary" war.

The Civil War may seem to have been inevitable, but the two sections nearly reached an accommodation except for Lincoln's refusal to budge on the tariff issue. We have been taught that the war was about slavery for so long it is almost impossible to see it in any other light. In truth, however, the practice of slavery itself was virtually a non-issue except for the relatively minor issue of the extension of the practice into new states. Lincoln has been considered the "Great Emancipator" for so long the label is rarely challenged. However, Lincoln said repeatedly from his first foray into politics that he was not against slavery and would never free the slaves but nobody seems to have taken him seriously. When elected President he repeated his promise, but the South was beyond listening. As strange as it seems to many people after a century and a half of hearing how Lincoln freed the slaves, Lincoln never did free a single slave. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in territory occupied by the Confederates. Lincoln never freed even freed one slave in the North where he could have. In fact, Lincoln never even mentioned slavery for the first two years of the war, and seems to have done so only to placate England which he feared would throw its support behind the South. We are also told that the war was about the concern over states' rights on the part of the South, primarily the right to leave the Union but it seems very unlikely that it would secede if other key issues could have been settled. As unpatriotic as it may seem, the only major issue that could not be resolved was money, and on that subject Lincoln was totally unmovable.

The only source of income to the Federal government at that time was the tariff. The Industrial Revolution was still in its infancy in the North and it produced only enough goods to satisfy its own needs, and had no surplus to trade to the South. Therefore the South supplied cotton and tobacco to England in return for quality manufactured goods. Accordingly, the strongest bonds existed between the South and England, not between the South and the North. This created an intractable problem because the South collected 85% of the tariff from its trade with England, but due to its political clout compared to the South, 85% of the money collected was spent in the North, mainly on public improvements such as roads, bridges, harbor development, and so forth. This was a critical problem to the South, because it was clear to everyone, including the North, that the days of slavery were numbered despite anything the South could do. The British Navy, as well as the Union's, maintained slavery patrols along the slave coast of Africa ever since the Constitutional provision against slavery took effect in 1805. While daring slavers got through the patrols, the volume of slaves reaching America fell drastically which, of course, increased their price. Compounding that problem, the birth rate among slaves fell below the replacement rate, mainly from a lack of understanding about the sources of disease, which also tended to increase the cost of smuggled slaves. The North, except for a few fanatics such as Harriet Bleacher Stowe, completely understood this and the more level headed leaders were not about to go to war just to accelerate the inevitable. But for the South, this inevitably lead to the need for more money to develop new sources of income, meaning it needed a larger share of the national tariff income.

In negotiations with Lincoln shortly before the actual outbreak of war, he was agreeable to allow the South to come back into the Union on the same terms existing when it left including the practice of slavery. This was somewhat agreeable to the South, but its representatives explained that the South needed a greater share of the tariff to reorient its economy. Lincoln was as immovable as a rock, and would make absolutely no concessions on that point. When word of the failure of negotiations reached President Davis, he gave the order to fire on Fort Sumpter.

I personally believe that Lincoln was as opposed to needless bloodshed as anyone else, but he could not let the South depart with the access to tariff collection, and would not reduce the North's share of the national income. My private opinion is that had the South been willing to allow the Union to maintain tariff collection in southern ports, Lincoln would have agreed, but that would have left the South penniless except for its profits from trade with England. But the South didn't offer, and the last opportunity for compromise passed. I consider the Civil War a war of choice because it seems reasonable that some sort of compromise could have been achieved had the two sides any idea of the terrible carnage that was to follow. To believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery is to believe that over 600,000 men were willing to give their lives over the fate of slaves that only about 15% of the Southerners owned anyway, while slavery persisted in the North.

The Spanish-American War is beyond doubt a "voluntary" war, inaugurated by the United States using evidence known to be falsified. The American battleship USS Maine was moored in Havana harbor on a "good will visit," when it exploded and promptly sank. The captain determined within an hour that the sinking was almost certainly due to a coal gas explosion, a problem at that time. Others saw political potential in the disaster, claimed that the Spanish had sunk the ship with a torpedo or mine, and pressured McKinley to declare war on Spain. Americans were pre-disposed against Spain for atrocities committed against the Cuban poor. Newspaper tycoons William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer agitated strongly for war, and the U.S. declared war soon after Spain's declaration against the U.S. in 1898. Theodore Roosevelt gained national fame for his charge up San Juan Hill with his Rough Riders, although the attack actually took place on foot. This was obviously a "war of choice."

World War I was totally avoidable, at least for the reasons given for it. Most, but not all, Americans favored the British in the war against Germany although the U.S. had a sizeable German community at the time. The facts are simple and speak for themselves. While the United States was still neutral, the British ship Lusitania loaded passengers in New York, including many Americans and Canadians. Most current accounts state that the ship was secretly carrying munitions and other war materiel, but that fact was clearly known by the public. The German embassy in Washington announced that the Lusitania was, in fact, carrying munitions in violation of her official civilian status, and that German submarines were ordered to sink her. The embassy placed good sized ads in American newspapers warning that the ship would be sunk, and strongly advising (almost begging) Americans not to sail on the ship, The potential passengers were completely informed of this and discussed their apprehensions about sailing on the ship with its captain. The captain assured the passengers that the Lusitania was to fast to be sunk by submarines, and close to two thousand people eventually sailed on her. The American government, expressly including President Wilson, was completely aware of the situation, including the fact that the Germans had made strenuous efforts to convince civilians not to sail on the ship. Apparently the U.S. government made no effort to restrain its citizens from sailing on the ship.

A German submarine spotted the Lusitania near Ireland. The British Admiralty had informed the captain of the ship that U-Boats were in the area and to alter course. The submarine fired its last torpedo at the Lusitania which caused enormous damage and the ship sank in fifteen minutes. Previously German submarines had allowed ships' passengers and crew to enter lifeboats before sinking their ship, but the attacking submarine's captain claimed he could not communicate with the ship due to dense fog in the area. The sinking caused a huge commotion in England and the U.S., although both governments and the potential passengers were more than adequately informed that the Lusitania was definitely carrying arms, which made her subject to sinking under international law and that the Germans fully intended to sink her.

In what would seem to be an extremely disingenuous act in view of the extreme efforts the Germans had made to keep civilians from sailing on the ship, President Wilson cited the sinking of the Lusitania in his speech declaring war against Germany. There is not the slightest doubt that for the U.S., World War I was a war of choice.

According to the public record, there is not the slightest doubt that Franklin Roosevelt desperately wanted to join the British in World War II, and for two years tried to convince the American people that American participation was essential. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, however, by far the greater part of the American people was strongly against joining the war in view of the huge losses of men in World War I with absolutely no gain for the United States. While numerous people did favor supporting England, and initiated a "Bundles For Britain" campaign, they were far outnumbered by "America Firsters," who strongly opposed entry into the war.

Despite the strong resistance of the American people to entering the war, Roosevelt persisted by both legal and illegal means to do everything possible to support the British. He drew the public ire by "giving" England fifty World War I destroyers in return for some Caribbean islands of little use to us. The ships were admittedly well past their prime, but they were dearly welcomed by the British. Also, as secretly as possible, he ordered "surplus" military aircraft gathered from bases all over the United States and provided to England. "Surplus" had a strange meaning in a country wracked by depression and which had been unable to spare much funding on the military for several years. In fact, Army tank units actually maneuvered trucks marked "Tank" in training exercises.

The British badly needed military equipment from this country, but couldn't provide naval escorts for convoys to the U.K. Roosevelt enraged many people in this country by ordering the Navy to carry on "exercises" around British convoys to England, in fact replacing the missing Royal Navy escorts and exposing our sailors to German submarines.

Most Americans with any interest in military history have known for some time that Roosevelt devised a plan to lure Japan into attacking us. We were net exporters of oil and steel at the time and Japan obtained their needs for each from us. On Roosevelt's orders a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy prepared a list of actions we could take to draw Japan into war. The key to the plan was to cut off Japan's supply of oil and steel. The only alternative to meet their petroleum needs lay far south in the Pacific on the Dutch islands of Java and Sumatra. However, Japan could not access this source of supply while the U.S. Navy commanded the Pacific Ocean.

Shutting off Japan's access to oil in the U.S. would force Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in the hope of eliminating the American's fleet's ability to keep Japan from accessing the Dutch islands. The plan's author told Roosevelt that such a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would most likely cause the deaths of two to three thousand American sailors. Roosevelt considered that acceptable. The attack occurred on December 7, 1941, "A day that will live in infamy," said Roosevelt.

We were forced to retaliate by declaring war on Japan. Since Japan and Germany were allies, Germany also declared war on the U.S., exactly what Roosevelt really wanted. Once Congress declared war on Germany, Roosevelt virtually ignored the war with Japan. Throughout the war, the Pacific Campaign suffered from the lack of sufficient troops, ships, supplies, and in general all manner of necessary war supplies since the bulk of our support went to the war with Germany. Due to Roosevelt's conniving, although we were actually attacked by Japan, joining England against Hitler definitely made WW II a war of choice.

The Korean War is rather peculiar in American military history. Neither our country nor that of an ally was attacked. By the end of WW II the U.S. had 40,000 troops in Korea. It began removing these troops since we had no military interest or obligations in Korea. The status of Korea so far as the United States was concerned was unclear until Secretary of State Dean Acheson defined our intentions for Asia in January of 1950. He declared that the United States would defend militarily Japan, the Rykus Islands, and the Philippines. He made no mention of Korea, and it was not considered within our veil of protection. One source claims that the American presence in Korea when the North attacked was 472 officers and men. Another claims it was zero. What is perfectly clear was that we had no treaty obligations, no promises to defend Korea, in fact no obligation of any kind to defend Korea following Dean Acheson's pronouncements regarding our role in Asia.

Apparently when the North Koreans attacked South Korea in June of 1950 President Truman decided to defend South Korea without any commitment by the U.S. government to do so. Rather than ask Congress for a Declaration of War as is implied as a precondition to war by the Constitution, Truman claimed to be acting on behalf of the United Nations and no permission from Congress was necessary. This was a major departure from past understanding of the conditions under which the U.S. could wage war, and one that has not been corrected. This practice has led to unfortunate military adventures by U.S. presidents ever since. It is totally clear that we had no binding obligations, formal or informal, to fight under any conditions in South Korea, and therefore it was clearly a war of choice.

What is not clear at all is why Truman felt the need to interfere in Korea. The only thing I have found on the matter is that Truman wanted to show the "Commies" that we wouldn't stand by while they absorbed free countries. This would have been consistent with his policy of "containing" communism in Europe, but that would have committed us to constant war, which maybe it has. The only other justification seems to have been to keep the communists from getting closer to Japan because we had taken on the responsibility to protect it. But what real difference would it have made if the communists had advanced a few hundred miles closer to Japan? There were still hundreds of miles of ocean between Korea and Japan.

The decision to enter the conflict in Vietnam was a continuation of the Truman Doctrine of containing communism. Many Americans had problems with the proposition that preventing communists from expanding the territory they governed was worth the lives of the nation's youth. Once heavily involved in South Vietnam, it was clear to high level American officials that they were not necessarily on the side of the angels. Corruption was rife at all levels of the government and the military, and it seemed clear to American realists that they couldn't win a war dependent on such allies. President Kennedy was in the early stages of withdrawing from South Vietnam when he was assassinated. President Johnson had closer ties with the top military commanders and accepted their assessment that victory in Vietnam was achievable. While engaging in the war in Vietnam was consistent with the policy of containment, it was clearly voluntarily on our part. The conflict was not forced on us. We need not have fought that war.

Except for the human suffering involved, the First Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm, resembled a comedy of errors. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was "slant drilling" to steal oil actually in Iraqi territory (Kuwait probably was). After a discussion with the American ambassador, Iraq's leader believed that the United States would not interfere if Iraq invaded Kuwait, so he proceeded to do so. Killing followed by both sides, but Kuwait gained the world's sympathy after releasing a faked story that Iraqi soldiers were killing newborn babies. Iraq's presence so far south also threatened the Saudi Arabia oil fields, strategically important to the U.S. and the first president Bush ordered the American military as much to protect these oil fields as to rescue Kuwait from devastation. After a considerable buildup including allied forces from several countries, General Schworzkopf led a devastating attack on Iraqi forces, pushing them toward Bagdad. Schworzkopf stopped short of entering Bagdad, wanting no part of urban guerrilla warfare. America looked on the event as a huge victory for the U.S., and the operation served as a very strong morale builder for the U.S.

Except for the considerable political aspects of the operation, it normally wouldn't qualify as a "war," but it made General Schwarzkopf and General Colin Powell national heroes. The show of bringing in America's tanks and smashing Iraqi resistance were probably intended to shore up President H.W. Bush's political fortunes, as Iraq would surely have backed off at the mere threat of serious U.S. involvement. It definitely seems to fall into the war of choice category.

Following the 9/11 attacks on New York, the United States government claimed to have acquired information indicating that the attack had been masterminded by Osama-bin Laden, leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. President G. W. Bush claimed that Osama-bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan, and attacked that country in October, 2001. The U.S.-lead action also included the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada strongly opposed the operation. The scope of the operation expanded to replace the ruling Taliban with a functioning government and elimination of the opium industry. Operations still continue to this day.

A recent book casts suspicion on the stated motive for the invasion because Bush, Chaney, and Rumsfield had acquired information that Islamic terrorists were not involved in the attack, that the planes were remote controlled by stations on the ground, and the story put out by the government was an invention. Several observers have hypothesized that the real motivation behind the invasion was to gain control of oil pipeline opportunities in the country. In any case, Afghanistan itself had not attacked the U.S., so the decision to attack it was made by choice, not in defense.

The Second Iraq War was initiated in 2003 by the G. W. Bush administration to eliminate Iraq as a base for terrorism, destroy weapons of mass destruction, and to free the Iraqi people from the dictatorship Hussein. Revelations over time have established that the U.S. administration had fabricated evidence that Iraq was manufacturing nuclear weapons and undertaking other actions contrary to American interests. The presence of American and allied forces also eliminated the danger of an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields to the south. The decision to invade Iraq at this time was purely voluntary, not in reaction to attack, making the Iraq operation a war of choice, not one we needed to fight.

Almost all of the actions described here were voluntary commitments to war, not defensive operations. By and large, Americans do not look on themselves as a warlike, aggressive people, but the nature of the conflicts described here suggest that the American people, or more correctly their leaders, have shown a remarkable tendency to engage in war freely rather than as a strictly defensive reaction to aggression. My impression from following recent articles on the internet and current books supports the conjecture that World War II was the last "Good War." Few, if any, veterans of the Korean War or the war in Vietnam believe that our involvement was necessary, in a good cause, or effective in furthering American objectives. U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to look on themselves more as mercenaries in operations of no danger to the United States than as defenders of America and its values as in WW II. This attitude will probably give the leaders of the United States even more latitude as to when and who we fight.




Roger McIntyre, PhD., is a senior marketing professor at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.





This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

沒有留言:

張貼留言