The Perils of War: An American View
George Washington. During troubled times, we may nostalgically yearn for past heroes. Or maybe not. Perhaps it is better to not know history and to not even care to know history or its lessons. That is a tragic, short-sighted, dangerous, and unforgivable neglect of responsibility
As portrayed in PBS 4-part series on the American Revolution, General Washington, undoubtedly a hero, made several significant tactical errors roughly 250 years ago. His personal story is instructive. If not for the fact that King George III would not give him a commission to be an officer, Washington might have been a British loyalist, fighting against the American rebels. Washington left his military career, and marrying into Martha’s wealthy Virginia family, became a land surveyor. He sought to invest in lands west of Virginia, but British restrictions on real estate acquisition by colonists at the expense of the native population drove Washington into the rebel camp. One lesson: The personal stories of our leaders are complex and often non-linear.
Abraham Lincoln, the US President most revered by historians as the greatest American president, nearly went down in history as our worst. Upon his 1860 election, the southern states began to succeed. The primary issue was Negro slavery, with Southerners defending their racist and oppressive institution and the socio-economic system buttressed by it. For nearly four long years, the war was inconclusive; the price: about 700,000 deaths, 2% of the population, and an estimated 1.5 million total in injuries and disease. In the 1864 presidential election General George McClellan, the Washington DC area commander who would not fight, garnered the nomination against Lincoln. By the summer, Lincoln himself acknowledged that he was likely to lose; his resume would have been: a four-year civil war stalemate, mass casualties, destruction, and a ravaged economy. Despite his dedication to the ideals of preserving the union, limiting slavery, and generously welcoming back the rebels to preserve that union, it is hard to argue that he would not have been regarded as the nation’s worst president.
What changed history was General William Tecumsah Sherman, under the command of General US Grant, marching through Georgia in August, just weeks before the election. Sherman severed the south in two, collapsing its resistance. On the heels of victory, Lincoln was re-elected and emerged a historical hero. Lesson two: Contrary to popular belief, wars can actually solve what talk alone cannot do and sometimes wars change history for the better.
World Wars. Even with the noble aims of the Great War, later called WWI, the allies’ post-war solutions set the stage for WWII, the Nazis, and the death of an estimated 70-85 million people. By demanding reparations from Germany, Germans were humiliated and economically suffocated. Their resentment fueled Nazi nationalism and political support; the Nazis then undemocratically seized power. Lesson three: Sometimes in victory we make tragic mistakes and propel more tragedy.
As undesirable as war is for good and kind people, war is not the worst option; it is far worse to leave truly evil people and ideologies intact — whether slavery or the Nazis. Had it not been for the thinking that led to Neville Chamberlain’s hollow claim “Peace in our time” (September 1938) — we would have confronted the Nazis when they were far weaker and saved those tens of millions of lives and treasure. Lesson four.
And wars do not go smoothly. The bad guys adjust and the good guys must readjust. And there is always a price — the risk and loss of life, the disruption of life, the worries and anxieties, and the price of goods. But the price to not fight is often far higher — in lives, and economically. No leader is perfect, because life is imperfect, uncertain, and carries risks. Lesson five.
Some questions are valid — to a point. But when the questions are in effect masks primarily to conceal fears — fears of the costs in lives and economics, or other agendas, they ignore history — and life itself. An unwillingness to pay a price now for our future well-being, fear of securing a better world or pursuing other agendas means we never should have fought 250 years ago, nor to end slavery and preserve our union, and not fight the Nazis.
The Iranian regime has been one of the most evil in modernity. They are psychologically unable to compromise and preserve human life and dignity, because they are fanatically ideologically driven; even death does not frighten them, in fact they embrace it, run to it as martyrs. For 47 years since they seized control of Iran, the Ayatollahs and their supporters have murdered and oppressed their own Iranian people, intimidated every other Arab nation in the region, repeatedly attacked and killed and maimed American soldiers and civilians, and murdered Jews in Argentina (twice), elsewhere, and in Israel directly and indirectly through Hamas and Hizbollah, etc.
Those who think that Iran’s regime would have come to a diplomatic agreement are afraid to confront evil seriously or misguidedly place a priority on other agendas; the Iranian gangsters, like the Nazis, and the regime in North Korea, know it and exploit it.
If you think otherwise, consider the recent history with North Korea. Over several administrations we thought we could prevent a nuclear Korea. We offered to feed their starving people in exchange for abandoning their nuclear ambitions. But North Korea’s leaders didn’t care about starvation — they chose nuclear weapons instead. Endless diplomacy did not change attitudes, but to the contrary, North Korea exploited it. Today, North Korea has nuclear weapons. Yet, it has not done anything comparable to what Iran has done and repeatedly vowed to do.
Iran’s regime built a militaristic arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones to protect its nuclear and terroristic ambitions. To leave it so, the cost would have been much higher — in lives and economically. If it succeeded, every other Arab nation would seek nuclear arms to defend itself. A nuclear middle east threatens the entire world.
The opposition is multi-leveled: At its core, the opposition ranges from skeptical to pacifistic, in part a peculiar and flawed version of morality, in part due to personalities driven by fear and anxiety. The next layer is anti-Trump; under a Democrat, the core would still be present, but a bit muted, some even supportive. Add to this, even among Republicans, are antisemites, who twist their minds into pretzels to oppose, if Israel / Jews benefit.
This phenomenon is reflected by feminists, LGBTQ+ and other supporters, those who advocate for freedom of speech and a free press, voting rights, and other issues vital to modern democracy. These and others portray Israel as the villain, a country in which each of these groups people and ideals is vigilantly safeguarded. By contrast Israel’s haters openly align with Israel’s enemies which have no regard for any of these. Each was silent about Hamas’ October 7, 2023 massacre, abduction, and prolonged torture and rape. After all, it was only Jews. Now, it is only Iranians. But Israel benefits.
Those who support need to be scrutinized; but opponents must be also be challenged with equivalent scrutiny. Anti-war activists remind us that war is costly, but they create a mindset that war is the worst thing we can do. They create a mindset that any loss and any setback is a sign that we are on the wrong track. They create false equivalences — we are bad. Indeed, they raise questions — but many begin with a premise — no war — at any cost, not this president, not with Israel or Jews. Or they set naive bars which lead to inaction, and inaction leads to death, torture, repression. The lessons of history prove it.