This War Won't Cost Much - I'm Already Against the Next One by Robert S. Swiatek - HTML preview

THIS I beheld, or dreamed it in a dream.

There spread a cloud of dust along a plain; And underneath the cloud, or in it, raged
A furious battle, and men yelled, and swords Shocked upon swords and shields. A prince’s banner Wavered, then staggered backward, hemmed by foes. A craven hung along the battle’s edge,
And thought, “Had I a sword of keener steel–– That blue blade that the king’s son bears, –– but this Blunt thing––!" He snapt and flung it from his hand, And lowering crept away and left the field. Then came the king’s son, wounded, sore bestead, And weaponless, and saw the broken sword, Hilt-buried in the dry and trodden sand,
And ran and snatched it, and with battle-shout Lifted afresh he hewed his enemy down,
And saved a great cause that heroic day.
– Edward Rowland Sill

The name of the above poem is Opportunity, one that I was introduced to in elementary school. Most of the lines I could have written down by heart, but I included the correct words by doing an easy search on the Internet. We memorized it and the poem may not have bothered me then, but it certainly is not one of my favorites. If I could forget it, it wouldn’t pain me in the least because it’s a poem about war. There was also a song that the nuns taught us dealing with “An army of youth fighting for Christ the Lord.” I remember even less of that and am quite thankful.

I mentioned oxymorons earlier and those two words, “religious wars,” comprise another one. Are we talking here about killing for peace? The proper term is irreligious wars, although that appears to be a pleonasm. Unfortunately these events did not start with the war on terrorism in the 21st century. You may have heard about the Crusades.

In his short public life on earth, Jesus Christ preached brotherhood and non-violence. You may recall the bible admonition, “turn the other cheek.” The God above isn’t at all happy with all the invoking of His name in times of battle. Had He been a God of war and not of love, his divine Son would have changed into a Superman costume and raised hell with those about to crucify Him on Calvary. But that didn’t happen.

You may be familiar with the Ten Commandments, specifically the one that says, “Thou shall not kill.” It doesn’t say “Thou shall not kill unless you work for the CIA and are out to kill Fidel Castro with an exploding cigar.” It also does not grant an exception if you are in Vietnam spreading napalm on everything in sight, with no regard for the environment or any human being. The commandment does not say, “Thou shall not kill under most circumstances.” In 1986, the world saw the death of more than five million people from ethnic and religious conflicts.

A few days before George Herbert Walker Bush decided to invade Iraq in retaliation for the Iraqi action against Kuwait, I was at Mass in a church in New Canaan, Connecticut, close to the town where I was living. What surprised me was that the priest appeared as though he knew the war had already started. In his prayers, he appeared to be accepting the fact of war rather than preaching against it. Maybe he owned stock in Halliburton.

Unfortunately there are many religious who feel that same way or come across in their feelings as this clergyman. The actual opinion of that individual might be different, but if the congregation feels the same way I felt that day, this priest wasn’t following the teachings of Christ. Of course, things could be worse if the sermon turned political rather than teaching about the gospel.

On numerous occasions before he died, Pope John Paul II preached strongly against war and violence and instead urged negotiation and peaceful reconciliation. He had never rallied for war and for him that was never an option. His leadership role extended to all nations. Each individual on earth is a child of God, and every one of us is not without faults, given that we are human.

I studied at a Catholic college and spent many hours taking theology and philosophy courses. There was never a time in any of these classes that the teacher advocated war, as far as I can recall. I can’t say the same about those dreaded courses in ROTC. However, my cohorts and I didn’t take much stock in what those military men said anyway. They had their own agenda.

It really doesn’t matter whether you are Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Muslim or Buddhist; no war is condoned by the Supreme Being. He would be a great deal happier if people settled their differences by peaceful means. Negotiation isn’t a bad idea.

You may have seen the bumper sticker that says, The religious right is neither. Their vigorous support of war indicates that they can’t be too “religious” and certainly not “right.” Perhaps a better name for this group is The Irreligious Wrong. I have already argued why neither the war in Afghanistan in 2001 nor the attack on Iraq in 2003 were right. And yet there seems to be very little difference in the religious right’s approach to war than that of the terrorists. The correct word that applies here is hypocrisy.

There have and will continue to be arguments about the separation of Church and State. Somehow, people in power not only want to unite the two, they use religion as an excuse for fighting a war. If they are so overwhelmed by religion, they should just remember what is found in the Bible, “Rend to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” If you believe in the Bible, you should follow it. Also, if you want to bring religion into government, you are going to have to eliminate war. There’s no two ways about that.

As far as the rewards of heaven and that group of virgins ready to welcome suicide bombers, I doubt that these terrorists will be welcome with open arms at the pearly gates. If one of these people winds up in front of St. Peter, he could be asked, “What was the last thing you did on earth?” The response might be, “I flew a planeload of passengers into the World Trade Center.” St. Peter will then say, “Come right in.” That just won’t happen. There might be a place for this person, but it probably will be awfully hot and the visitor will be a bit disappointed at not coming into contact with any virgins.

The Bible tells the story of Gideon’s Army in chapters 6 through 8 of the Book of Judges. Gideon, a young farmer in Israel, was called by the Lord to lead a revolt against the Midianites in the twelfth century, B.C. Some 32,000 men answered his call, but 22,000 left when he asked only the fearless to stay. The remaining force of 10,000 was pared to 300, when an angel of the Lord told Gideon to observe which of the men kept alert while drinking from a stream.

Gideon equipped his little army with trumpets and jars containing torches. At night they surrounded the Midianites’ camp and terrified them with the sound of the trumpets, the breaking of vessels, and light from the lamps. The Midianites fled, and Gideon became Israel’s ruler.

Not that long ago, it seems that this same tactic was used in Central America. The song “Highway to Hell” by AC/DC was used when the United States invaded Panama in January 1989. It was played at full volume to force Manuel Noriega to surrender. He was hiding in the Vatican Embassy there. Using music by Perry Como or Jerry Vale probably wouldn’t have worked. Without a doubt, you don’t need guns and bullets to overcome the enemy.

In the early part of 2005, I watched a documentary film by Terry L. Benedict called, The Conscientious Objector. It’s a movie about the atrocities and horror of war. During some of the battles, the machine gun fire was so intense that men were cut in half. One of the soldiers interviewed said, “This ain’t war, this is hell.” Another, on returning to Okinawa years later, found it difficult to be at Hacksaw Ridge, aka “The Escarpment.”

The movie is the story of a hero. It relates the war experience of a young soldier, Desmond T. Doss. He was born on February 7, 1919 in Lynchburg, Virginia and throughout his life, because of his religious beliefs, could never kill anyone. He refused a deferment but joined the 77th division of the Army at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina. He refused to carry a gun, being categorized as a conscientious objector and not forced to bear arms. Because of his faith, he rested on the Sabbath, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Even when his commander refused to give him the time off, he stood his ground.

These beliefs and his action brought resentment and ill treatment from the others in his group. He was soft spoken but his fellow soldiers regarded him as a pest and made fun of him. He was a target for ridicule and branded with a scarlet letter. After being off duty and returning, he was given the worst assignments on Sunday. The Army tried to have him removed, but they never gave him the boot. Instead, they eventually gave him the Medal of Honor.

Even without a rifle, he said to one of his commanding officers, “I’ll be just as good as you, Colonel.” It turns out, he was better than this leader. He was willing to save and not take life. Sent overseas to Okinawa, he was a medic who took care of the wounded. Even in battle, he never touched a gun. He helped anyone who needed it, even the dying enemy. Despite how he had been initially treated, he had no animosity for anyone. He treated a soldier who had lost both legs in combat and was left for dead. This soldier lived to be 72. Desmond’s feelings were that as long as there’s life, there’s always hope.

At Hacksaw Ridge, the fighting was intense and bullets were flying like bees, but miraculously they missed him. It was as if God had His hand on Desmond. Doss treated others and brought them to safety and had nothing to do with the war. On one occasion he could have dropped a grenade down a Japanese foxhole but refused. He could not kill even at the risk of death to himself and his men. Eventually, he did receive some wounds from gunfire. His courage was remarkable as he climbed off his litter to help his wounded comrades. He was devastated when he lost his Bible, the main source of his strength. Nevertheless, the men of his regiment searched until they found it.

Some of the men interviewed in Conscientious Objector were the same soldiers who had derided him. They would not be alive thirty years later were it not for Desmond, as he helped them make it through the war. He was a skinny little kid, but one of the bravest people alive. He was courageous, inspirational and humble and had no worry about what was going to happen to him. His only concern was for helping his fellow man. A Bible is much more effective than a gun.
14. The Costs Of War

“The Second Iraq War wouldn’t be overly expensive for American taxpayers.” – Paul Wolfowicz, March 27, 2003

“It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.”

“War is a racket. War is largely a matter of money. Bankers lend money to foreign countries and when they cannot pay, the President sends Marines to get it.” – Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler, writing in the 1930s

“We are spending all of this money for death and destruction, and not nearly enough money for life and constructive development…when the guns of war become a national obsession, social needs inevitably suffer.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I don’t think the whole of Southeast Asia, as related to the present and future safety and freedom of the people of this country, is worth the life or limb of a single American.” – General David Shoup, 1966

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold, and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists and the hopes of its children.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

The costs of any war are beyond comprehension. Years ago it may have been different, but today major conflicts cost trillions of dollars. You may argue that adjusting for inflation would make the Revolutionary War and Civil War a huge pinch on any government’s budget. I won’t argue that, but currently there are a few factors that add immensely to expenses incurred by countries that attack other nations.

Consider the estimate of dollars to be spent on the Iraq War that began in 2003. It’s said to be costing one billion dollars per week. The total cost is difficult to assess, because even if there were a number, by tomorrow it will be different. Even if it ended today, the total cost of the war would still only be an undetermined number. You just can’t come up with a meaningful amount. Whatever it is, the money could have been used for more important things.

There are all those hidden costs, such as paying off a country to use its airspace to launch your bombers. Then there may need to be a payoff to assure that some country doesn’t get involved at all in the fighting. This happens all too often. If you think that this cost is unlikely, you probably have been watching the network news too much.

In Take Back the Earth, I spent a chapter on building of the bomb, which involved unimaginable expense. The outlay for weapons, tanks, supplies, transporting troops and material to the scene of the fight are something for which citizens wind up paying. I’m sure most would have chosen to have their taxes spent on something more beneficial. I’m certainly not happy with this exorbitant waste of money.

The costs of resources that are wasted to wage war are incomprehensible. Think of the fuel that it takes to run tanks, trucks, ships and planes that have anything to do with the battles. The gas guzzlers may be lucky to get a single digit for the miles per gallon. An email that a friend of mine sent indicated that the M1 Abrams travels 2000 feet per gallon of fuel. This calculates out to over two-and-a-half gallons per mile. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other vehicles with lousier mileage than that. This gasoline could have been used back home and it would have helped to lessen the dependence on the Middle East for oil, one of the very reasons for this war. Of course, maybe the administration had in its sights seizing the oil wells in the very country they were attacking. Consider all the expensive technology that was developed, only to be destroyed by enemy combatants. Don’t forget the time in creating it.

Besides the costs of war material, consider how the environment suffers. The chapter on Rocky Flats in Take Back the Earth points out how the earth was ravaged in developing the bomb, but the planet will suffer even more with the contamination wreaked through the launching of bombs. The radiation spewed out by the depleted-uranium munitions used during the Iraq War begun in 2003 has resulted in abnormally high cancer rates. Some individuals have more than one type of cancer, caused by the bombing in the Iraq War of 1991. This includes the doctors, many of whom have died or are dying.

What about the homes, hospitals, water facilities and power plants that are leveled when two countries tangle? Do you think the air is fine to breathe and the water safe to drink in areas where bombs have reduced everything to rubble? I rather doubt it.

What will it cost to rebuild the country when the fighting is over? Don’t forget about the expense of cleaning up the air, land and water as well. You could spend millions of dollars and the land may still be uninhabitable. Perhaps some of the buildings needed replacing and reconstruction could be a good time for making them better. But what about all the buildings that have existed for centuries as national treasures that no longer can be seen? The costs might be just too large for all this damage in order to remove a single leader from power, no matter how ruthless he is.

What about the post-war costs needed for helping soldiers cope after returning home? After the Vietnam debacle, the soldiers expected their government to help them out, but that assistance didn’t come easy, if at all. You’ve heard those stories, but the government seems to be ignoring those who laid their lives on the line in Iraq as well. The least a government that sends people into harm’s way can do is to take care of the needs of those individuals after the conflict is over.

Besides the loss of life and the injuries to the wounded as well as the psychological harm done to soldiers, what about the damage from drugs taken by our men and women before heading off to foreign lands. Mefloquine, also known as Lariam, is among the drugs recommended by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to combat malaria. It has been administered to the “volunteers,” but few of the recipients were warned of the side effects, such as paranoia, severe anxiety, hallucinations, brain disorders, disturbing and dangerous behavior. Some families have blamed Lariam for the suicides of their loved ones who served in the Iraq War. To make matters worse, military officials now concede that mefloquine wasn’t even necessary in that country.

A truly alarming study by the Rand Corporation indicated that approximately 300,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This is about one in five men and women. In addition, the rate of suicide among veterans of those wars is one thousand veterans per month. The numbers don’t get any better for other wars.

Another consideration in wars past and present is the harm done to the animal kingdom. I am not just referring to the killing of these beasts due to collateral damage. Wars involved horses for the cavalry, many of which perished. They aren’t used today but what about the dogs that are utilized to sniff out mines or whatever is sought relative to the enemy. How many canines have died in the effort? The SPCA should be really upset with this situation. I know I am not thrilled with the idea.

If you add up all the costs of war that I have already mentioned, you should realize that it would be impossible to get an accurate figure. All these numbers are estimates and when those are being calculated, what value do you place on one human life? I read somewhere that those numbers vary depending on who the person is and where he or she lives. There are probably other criteria as well, but they’re all meaningless because a company president isn’t any better than a janitor. Any death because of war is a huge loss. This is another reason why war is such a great waste.

In the 1980s, an administration would advocate a project that came to be known as Star Wars. It was to be a missile defense system to stop incoming attackers. It never materialized but nonetheless thirty billion dollars were wasted on the research for the endeavor which weapons scientists today describe as a “fraud” and “impossible to accomplish.” Despite that assessment by those who know better, some form of the project may be resurrected in the fight against terrorism.

Death in Iraq has a face…it’s a sweet, young face, smiling, looking adoringly toward the beautiful bride on his arm. Chris was 24. Lavinia is too young to be a widow.” – Margaret Reimer, whose student Christopher Gelineau was killed in Mosul
15. The Necessity of War

“Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.” – John Adams

“War, on the smallest scale, is not without its horrors; and even in this byeplace of the earth, many a suffering female and helpless orphan live to call down the vengeance of heaven upon the heads of profligate statesmen who involve nations in useless and unnecessary wars.” – General Henry W. Halleck

Frank was walking down Elm Street one evening when he ran into Andy.
“What are doing here, Andy,” said Frank.
“I’m looking for my ring.”
“I thought you lost it on Oak Street,” Frank replied.
“I did, but it’s lighter here.”
As illogical as this scenario is, it is not much different from the twenty-first century wars waged by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you agree that the response was wrong because of the nature of terrorism, you will agree that both wars were unnecessary. If you still feel otherwise, look at conditions in each country. Afghanistan may be better off now than before the attacks in 2001, although that seems unlikely. There is still a great deal of conflict and the warlords seem to be in charge of the country. There has been no decline in the drug trade – it’s probably more booming than before the war – and Osama Bin Laden has not been captured. Not only that, the chief executive has stated that he wasn’t really concerned about him. But I was under the impression that his capture was one of the main reasons for the war.
Even if you still feel the war in Iraq was a given – though I have shown it to be quite illogical – I think you have to concede that there was no link established between Saddam Hussein and the hijackings and no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, unless they discovered them yesterday. You can only believe those lies if your name is Rip Van Winkle and you just emerged from a sleep of twenty years. If Saddam had those weapons that have yet to be found, don’t you think he would have used them on the attacking troops? Maybe he was saving them for some other invasion. By now you should be convinced that at least one of these wars was unnecessary, although I hope I have convinced you that both were.
Wars need not last very long and still be disastrous and unnecessary. Consider the late twentieth century skirmishes in Granada, Panama, the Falkland Islands and Somalia. Most of these conflicts had no redeeming value except to show that one country could bully another smaller nation after the superpower suffered a humiliating defeat. The first three encounters may have been judged to be successes. Of course, if you had a relative who died or was injured in any of these battles or happened to be living in the country under attack, you felt differently. Mogadishu was something else, as related by Mark Bowden in his hard-tostomach book, Black Hawk Down. Perhaps you saw the gory movie of the same name. There really was no reason for a single person to die in any of these instances.
If we discuss the Gulf War of 1991, which was a reaction to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, you may feel that the response was warranted and that the war was just and necessary. However, returning to the Iraq / Iran War of the 1980s, which I discussed earlier and which resulted in the death of 350,000 people, it is indeed possible that Saddam Hussein would never be in the position he was in 1990 to attack his neighbor, without the support of the United States. Had his forces not been built up in the decade before, who is to say if that leader would even be in power in 1990?
Even allowing for what occurred in the summer of 1990, war was not the only possibility. Sanctions and other actions could have been effective had patience been applied. Moreover, since it may have appeared that the restrictions weren’t working, some other approach should have been tried. Don’t tell me that the nations of the region as well as those in Europe couldn’t have devised a plan to put Saddam in his place without resorting to war. Actually, had the Arab countries nearby exerted a bit more control in the late 1980s, Iraq would never have even thought about taking action against one of its neighbors.
If you are still not convinced of the lunacy of the Iraq War begun in 2003, you should listen to some of the soldiers’ comments about it. If these men and women don’t have a clear picture of what is going on there, no one does. You will find writings dealing with the war in the already referred to book by Michael Moore, Will They Ever Trust Us Again?
No sane, reasonable person will say that the Vietnam War made any sense. In the years before the United States stuck their nose into that country, the French withdrew from the conflict in Southeast Asia, realizing the futility of their involvement. It is often said that people who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it. America had to enter the fray in order to realize that they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
That disaster cost over 55,000 American lives and at least five times that number of injuries. This does not count the damage done to once sane men and women, tormented by war as well as the strife and division it created here in this country. The devastation of the environment by the bombs and utter lack of concern for the earth or its inhabitants resulted in a million deaths of the Vietnamese men, women and children. This number does not include injuries. The tonnage of the bombs dropped on Hanoi during the Christmas bombing in 1972 was greater than in all of World War II. It is no wonder that this catastrophe has not been forgotten and probably never will.
I have already mentioned the Korean War and the fact that it wasn’t even a declared war. The results at the end of that encounter were no different than at the start, except for the casualties. Nothing was accomplished except for the destruction and the ill feelings afterwards.
War is so mind boggling that sometimes we get confused as to some of the labels of the conflicts. The two World Wars have been called “The great war” and “The war to end all wars,” but I am not sure which label applies to which. At one time I thought I had the correlation, but then upon reading some book, I thought I had it reversed. It really doesn’t matter as there is no such thing a good war let alone a great one. Then again the other label is way off base as there has been plenty of fighting and killing all over the world since the end of that war.
As of 2002, since the end of World War II, up to thirty-five million people have died in approximately 170 wars. Of this number, ninety percent are civilians. Generally speaking, the combat always results in the death of the men, women and children trying to avoid the bombing; it is a war against the people, those who want no part of the conflict and are innocent victims. If the military uses “precision bombing,” why do we have “collateral damage?”
On a few occasions, war is begun not by an aggressor but rather by the aggressed. It just doesn’t appear that way. Consider an instance where country A wants to get into a war with country B but wants to make it look as though country A was attacked first. Something is done to provoke country B into attacking country A. It could even be more underhanded when country A appears to be attacked by its neighbor when in reality country A staged the attack. What some countries won’t do to get into a war.
There have been instances of just these scenarios in the past and World War II may well have been just such an example with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. At the time, the American people were not too enthusiastic about being involved in that war. I am not saying that the United States attacked Pearl Harbor but rather that the Japanese were provoked into attacking in order to win over the people of the United States for entry into World War II. Rather than try to convince you of this possibility, you can read about it in Robert Stinnett’s Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. If the author’s contention is true, it would only indicate that the Second World War was unnecessary, at least for the United States.
The problem of Adolf Hitler needs further consideration. There is no doubt that his actions warranted some kind of response while at the same time it must be considered how he rose to where he was at that time. Once again, support and funding play a key role in coming to power. To begin with, people have a decided advantage, if they work together. As much influence as Hitler had, there would have been more power in the hands of the German people had they been united against him and his ideals. Actually, all it would have taken was one or two people to do something to bring him down. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.
Hitler did receive support from rich individuals in the United States. Big Blue, better known as the corporate giant IBM, had much to do with the success of the Fuhrer. You can read all about this in a very informative and intriguing book by Christian Parenti, The Soft Cage. Had money and technology not been shipped to Germany in the 1930s, there may never have been a Second World War.
Another insistence by many people – historians as well as those who fought in the war or objected to fighting any war – is that at the end of the First World War, had there been a more generous policy towards the Germans regarding concessions, Hitler may never have been the force he turned out to be. This again implies that World War II may not have become a part of history.
There were people in Europe who didn’t fight Hitler but did stand up to him. They let him know that they would not allow what he was doing elsewhere to take place in their country. This strategy fails at times but there are many instances where you can succeed without the use of violence. I’m sure you are aware of many cases where peace and control can be achieved without fighting.
The next question involves why Hitler had so much support. Were there other organizations or countries that enabled him to become such a force through financial contributions? Naturally, there were people that provided help in the form of cash and materials so that his campaign could succeed. Some of this even came from individuals in the United States. But then again, this wasn’t the first instance, and you are all aware that this would play out again and again in the years following WWII.
So it looks as though, had certain events not taken place, World War II would not have occurred. This makes it completely unnecessary despite the fact that people “in the know” have always felt that it really couldn’t have bee