Fighting 1% Wars: Why Our Wars of Choice May Prove Fatal

[marmar]

from TomDispatch:



Fighting 1% Wars
Why Our Wars of Choice May Prove Fatal

By William J. Astore


America’s wars are remote. They’re remote from us geographically, remote from us emotionally (unless you’re serving in the military or have a close relative or friend who serves), and remote from our major media outlets, which have given us no compelling narrative about them, except that they’re being fought by “America’s heroes” against foreign terrorists and evil-doers. They’re even being fought, in significant part, by remote control -- by robotic drones “piloted” by ground-based operators from a secret network of bases located hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from the danger of the battlefield.

Their remoteness, which breeds detachment if not complacency at home, is no accident. Indeed, it’s a product of the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of choice, not wars of necessity. It’s a product of the fact that we’ve chosen to create a “warrior” or “war fighter” caste in this country, which we send with few concerns and fewer qualms to prosecute Washington’s foreign wars of choice.

The results have been predictable, as in predictably bad. The troops suffer. Iraqi and Afghan innocents suffer even more. And yet we don’t suffer, at least not in ways that are easily noticeable, because of that very remoteness. We’ve chosen -- or let others do the choosing -- to remove ourselves from all the pain and horror of the wars being waged in our name. And that’s a choice we’ve made at our peril, since a state of permanent remote war has weakened our military, drained our treasury, and eroded our rights and freedoms.

Wars of Necessity vs. Wars of Choice

World War II was a war of necessity. In such a war, all Americans had a stake. Adolf Hitler and Nazism had to be defeated; so too did Japanese militarism. Indeed, war goals were that clear, that simple, to state. For that war, we relied uncontroversially on an equitable draft of citizen-soldiers to share the burdens of defense. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175477/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_the_remoteness_of_1%25_wars/ (follows a brief intro)

[meow2u3]

1. War of choice, my pig's behind!

I hate that euphemism "war of choice." Call it what it is: a war of aggression, a.k.a., a crime against peace. :grr:

For that reason, Bush, Cheney, and the other gangsters still on the loose ought to be turned over to the country willing to punish them the most severely, making an example of them and whomever else may have the folly to start a war just for the perverse sake of killing people and making a fast billion in the process.

[raouldukelives]

2. Pure war for profit

It's no secret. Wall St demands resources to exploit and if a few people live in the area God help them.

[xchrom]

3. recommend