Bold Statements: Current Theories of War in Practice
War is only a vice of third world countries, and unworthy of economic powerhouse first world countries.
A long time ago, the United States was in the same position of today's third world countries. It was rich in resources and land. Limitless resources in the eyes of many people, and a prize to be won. The isolation of living in North America, as opposed to the immediacy of living in Europe or Northern Africa, was a calling card to the desperate and persecuted. Not that the citizens of the United States didn't persecute the unwanted, but they fancied themselves as an enlightened people, even if enlightenment was only available to a relative few. This is the mind set of third world countries. The leaders understand that protecting a way of life is much more important than actual freedom for the masses. Freedom, however, is the calling card of the third world: Freedom from the oppressive leaders of the First World.
The U.S. got that freedom sometime in the late 18th century, and we've been chugging along the front lines ever since. After a bunch of small wars the United States became a First World country. No longer were we fighting for our sovereignty, we were fighting for our dominance. Our lapse into Civil War was needed to correct (or at least begin to correct) our oppressive Third World society, and start the country at least acting like a leader of the world. We tried to dally in the self-indulgentness of Third War society much longer than necessary, but we had all of that land to settle (claim)--so there were other priorities.
The U.S. tried to stay out of both World Wars as long as possible. The fights didn't concern us much until there was a hint of possibly fighting on our own soil (Pearl Harbor). And U.S. businesses, already making money off the war by selling to the European nations at war, wanted to be a bit more patriotic in their capitalism. The U.S. government indulged this need, and U.S. citizens applauded our entry into both wars when they eventually occurred.
And then something bad happened. The companies in the business of making war products needed to keep making money--even after the need for war had passed. It was reasoned that the businesses would have a much easier time if they didn't have to change their production output, so we began small skirmishes to stamp down a perceived threat of ideological differences. Korea went off pretty well, even though we didn't have the balls to mess with China (Patton's words). And then came Vietnam. The battle plan was a lot like our concept of victory in Korea. We've got all of these patriotic kids and a shitload of patriotic weapons, so we might as well use our patriotic resources the best we can.
The results, as many of you might remember, were not quite the same as Korea. Suddenly we were the big bad oppressor trying to keep down insurgent little tykes. A mere 200 years after our own development into a third world upstart, we were acting just like the United Kingdom of yesteryear. War wasn't fun anymore. Young men were dying for land and positions we, as a people, really didn't care about. We didn't have the killer instinct anymore because we had color TV. Who needs a war to dwell on when the antics of the Brady Bunch are much nicer to think and laugh about?
Today we've got new enemies to think about. China, of course, is the billion pound gorilla. The largest single economic market in the world, and it's communist! Of course, that merely means the government controls all business in its borders, not that China is devoid of consumers. But the strange thing about China is they don't want to rule the world, China just wants to rule China. So much for that enemy.
The U.S. has to delve deeper into the evil country pool to find enemies these days. Our favorite for the last decade or so is Iraq. A small, oil rich third world country run by a madman. Think about it, though. Saddam isn't the devil, he's just the biggest fish in a waterless pond called Iraq. Third world countries have lots of problems to figure out internally (Just as the U.S. did way back when it was only 13 or so states--we couldn't even decide on a common currency!), but the easiest way to rally a troubled people is to give them a target to shoot at. And we're the biggest target around.
This is part of the Nanny Nanny Boo Boo Theory of War. A smaller upstart country nips at the heels of a larger country, hoping to piss off the big country just enough to turn the heads of its citizens away from their problems. Iraq needs someone to blame for all the crappy living conditions, oppression and lack of a native land version of Friends. The U.S., with all of its crass consumerism and pay-per-view porno is a great heel to take a small bite out of.
Are there similarities to the U.S. in the late 1700s and Iraq today? Sure. Are we being just a little bit hypocritical? Of course. But Saddam needs us way more than we need him. He is in power as long as his people perceive they need him in power. Every time he gives the finger to the ugly and mighty United States, his power grip gets tighter. Citizens of Iraq don't want to be Americans, they want to be themselves. And Saddam Hussein is the ultimate in Iraqi-ness right now.
The U.S. government doesn't understand the Iraqi adherence to the Nanny Nanny Boo Boo Theory, as it is mired in the Parent/Child Theory of War. The U.S. feels it has won the War of Ideology (case in point: Baywatch is still an international phenomenon), and thus must teach the world to sing its tune of "Don't think, just buy."
It has been intimated that all the U.S. wants is Saddam Hussein out of power, and we, as a government, will forgive the Iraqi people and raise the economic sanctions against the country. This won't change anything unless the U.S. feels it can control whoever the future ruler of Iraq might be. This is asinine. Instead of being benevolent and nurturing parent, the U.S. is trying to be a strict and oppressive parent. Many would say this is in the name of business, and they would be correct to an extent. Businesses don't like to deal with unstable governments. In turn, parents don't like to deal with unstable and wild children. But unstable governments are also cheap deals. They need cash to support their causes, and will deal down as long as they can keep their citizens' minds on war and off of their appalling living conditions.
I know this will be an unpopular solution, but why don't we stop messing with civil wars and border fights halfway around the world? The countries will either obliterate each other (ending the war) or figure out they can make money without killing each other (also ending the war). Sure, it might take a little bit more time than it takes to carpet bomb Iraq a couple days every other year, but at least the U.S. won't be called ugly and boorish anymore, and we won't have to sit through countless 60 Minutes programs with the veterans of Gulf War II bitching about chemical poisoning.
return to Slanderer Business Page.
return to Slanderer Front Page.