Many argue that the United States should not have gotten involved in the war in Ukraine. For some it is a matter of national interest, for others it is simply too expensive.
There are also those who fear that US involvement in the Middle East will put Washington back into a dangerous situation that is none of its business, and will be costly in both human lives and money.
These are not frivolous arguments, but they miss other dimensions of war. The first is that war is not always a choice. The second is that avoiding war is sometimes even more costly than entering into conflict.
From World War I Since then, the United States has been forced to consider both dimensions in various conflicts, with some arguing that we have no interest, that the financial and human toll would outweigh the significance of the war, or that the war would be unprofitable.
The reason this election is so important is because the US is the dominant power in the world. Economically and militarily, it is everywhere, and all other countries know that getting the United States into a war on their side would dramatically increase their chances of success. Like other empires before it, the US has a pervasive presence around the world and is therefore constantly faced with military threats and military opportunities.
The question is not whether the world looks dangerous for the US, but what to do about this situation.
There are always choices: some save the country, others trap it, others call for caution, and still others demand action. The US is always on the brink of making another decision, with great debate about what it should be.
This is worth thinking about for his selection in World War II. There was debate as to whether to enter the conflict at all. The America First Committee argued that this was not the United States’ war and that the US, still in the Great Depression, should spend its money at home.
Although many disagreed with it, the choice was made by the US when Japan, a country with which it had friction but whose military threat was rejected by most, struck Pearl Harbor. Very soon after, Germany declared war on the United States. Washington was embroiled in a war that engulfed the entire world. The choice to withdraw turned out to be the wrong one.
There are many reasons why this was the wrong decision, but chief among them was the associated failure to invest in an army capable of waging such a war. We have confused our desire not to engage in war with the limited need to arm ourselves.
Actually, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise. The US had placed a radar there and it picked up a mass of planes heading for Hawaii. The radar system lacked a mechanism to communicate with the fighters stationed in significant numbers in Hawaii. In this case, the decision not to go to war led to cost containment, signaled to the military that they did not need to see war as inevitable, and created a sense of peacetime.
If the US had entered the war in 1940, it could have rushed troops into France. British reinforcements were not enough, but the US had more resources. If the Germans had not been able to take France, the war would have been very different. At the very least, it would not have reached the casualties in Normandy.
Now look at Vietnam. The decision to enter the war was almost accidental. The assumption was that the presence of American troops would be so embarrassing to North Vietnam that it would abandon its dream of reunification. It was arrogance rather than a refusal to see the threat that led to a massive defeat for the United States and massive casualties.
Of course, simplistic confidence doesn’t work, and a lack of understanding of the dangers doesn’t limit casualties, or at least not in a reasonable time frame. After Vietnam, the US adopted a pacifist stance combined with a readiness to wage war, including possible nuclear war. The Cold War was a time of extreme tension, but that tension was the main reason there was no war.
We face the conflict in Ukraine on the same basis. We are separated. Some believe there is no risk, others that it is an existential threat.
But the US adopted the strategy of arming local forces rather than deploying American forces. It came from the understanding of what happened in Vietnam and also from the fears generated by the Cold War.
Similarly in Middle East we are trying to determine what interest we have that justifies war.
None of this is a suggestion of how to approach war, but it is meant to address the potential consequences of bad decisions.
Both going to war and refusing to go to war can end in failuregiven that the best possible preparation for war allows for choice without having to commit to military action.
But it is the details that contain the truth and the clear understanding of the reasons for starting or abandoning war. These details must be considered at all times because the enemy may approach, and not making a decision is also a decision.
According to BGNES
