A fitting memorial: Which wars were worth fighting?

[MindMatter]

On this day when we memorialize our veterans, I believe one of the most important things we can do to honor those who serve and served in uniform is to make sure we never ask them to fight and die in an unnecessary war. With that in mind, I am curious how people look upon the various wars throughout our history. Which were necessary and just? Which were unjust or unnecessary?

I assume just about everybody agrees that the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII and WWI were necessary and just. I'd certainly be interested in arguments to the contrary, but I doubt there is much disagreement on those.

I also assume almost everybody here believes the second Iraq war is wrong and dishonors our commitment to our veterans, and likewise for Vietnam. Again, I'd be interested in arguments on both sides there.

But those are the more or less clear cut cases. It may be a little more interesting to discuss the ones that are more in the middle. How would you rank these modern wars in terms of justness and necessity:

- The 1992 Iraq war
- Afghanistan
- Korea

and any other wards in American history for that matter. (For a "peace loving people" we sure seem to have a lot of wars.)

Here is my ranking from most just & necessary to least:
Revolutionary War
WWII
Civil War
WWI
Afghanistan
1992 Iraq war
(All of the above are justifiable on some level, IMHO)

Korea
Vietnam
Iraq II

[annabanana]

1. The Spanish American war = complete for profit boondoggle. . n/t

[qijackie]

2. Ghengiz Khan believed in war as a great form of population control.

[Crazy Dave]

3. I can't make that call

Every and all wars have been for two things no matter what excuse (to gain the church and the public's support) they were started for.

1. Religious and political differences

2. Acquiring or controlling another nation's land and/or territories and to get their resources

[arcadian]

6. You are close.

Wars are fought for your reason #2 using your reason #1 as pretext.

[Crazy Dave]

13. Not all the time

Purely creating envy and hate towards another nation, saying everything bad in your nation is because of their nation, has been used very effectively before and is still used today. The "They have it, we don't but we should therefore...", "it's their fault we don't have it", etc. reasons.

[qijackie]

14. I agree completely.

[Casandra]

4. In my humble opinion

There are NO wars that are EVER worth fighting! ..for anyone...at anytime...for any reason..

[NJSecularist]

9. World War I and World War II weren't worth fighting?

The Civil Wars weren't worth fighting?

You have an awfully naive view of the world.

[MikeNearMcChord]

15. WWI was not a necessary war, it was basically Great Britian and France

trying to keep Germany from becoming a world power. The war in the Balkans and Austria-Hungary's troubles there was a pretense. The US really had no dog in that fight, we got in because of Wall Street's investments in Europe.
The only thing WWI did was lay the path for the even more destructive WWII.

[Wilber_Stool]

20. WWII

American and British industrialists and bankers bank roll Hitler to do away with communism once and for all. If their coup against FDR would have succeeded, we would never have even entered the war. Probably would have invaded South America.

[izquierdista]

10. On the contrary

Wars against fascism are ALWAYS worth fighting....and winning. One is not allowed the possibility to opt out of fighting, for the fascist will push his crusade of subjugation until he encounters someone who can push back harder. The Confederacy, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, they ALL pushed and pushed and pushed until finally they bit off more than they could chew.

Other fascist regimes, like Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile languish in isolation until they collapse of their own accord, but not without a terrible toll on their average citizens (for the benefit of the wealthy few). While it is not possible to defeat them in war, the struggle against their repressive ideology must not be abandoned.

[supernova]

5. Iraq hasn't been necessary either time

otherwise I agree with your list.

Iraq has been our whipping boy when really we should have gone after the Saudis.

[MindMatter]

21. There is persistent talk that GHWBush duped Saddam

into invading Kuwait, sending him messages that we would not object to his taking over Kuwait. I'm not sure I understand:

a) why Saddam would have believed that

and

b) How we benefited by tricking him in and then pushing him back.

Was the idea that Saddam's regime would then crumble and we'd be there to pick up the pieces? Or maybe that a newly chastened Saddam would give Bush's buddies preferred access to the oil?

I don't think the real story has been told on that one.

[klyon]

24. I don't think G. H. W. Bush gave an official OK

I think some bureaucrat in State dept. blew the call. Saddam would have gone in without the "OK", he coveted that oil and believed he had an historical right to it, so he took it. Or tried anyway. Not to stand up for someone I don't think very much of, it is just the way I honestly remember it going down. We should NOT invade counties that are not imminently threatening us and we should not let other countries attack innocent people. The U.N. should be funded and equipped to handle these situations. The world needs to speak, we should not take matters into our own hands. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan was completely over the top. It was wrong when Saddam invaded Kuwait or Iran, it was wrong when Germany, Japan, Italy did it, it was wrong when USSR invaded Afghanistan, it was wrong when Reagan did it in Granada (and all the other South American mischief), it was wrong when Clinton bombed Afghanistan and it was wrong for G.W. Bush also. We must hold our leaders the highest standards or we are just like Saddam.

[Beausoleil]

26. Gulf War I was a Bush provocation

"In 1990, however, the U.S. was on good terms with Iraq: Assistant Secretary of State John Kelley called Saddam a “force of moderation” in the Mideast. And U.S. Ambassador April Glasbie, on orders from officials in Washington, told him America “has no opinion on inter-Arab disputes such as your border dispute with Kuwait.”

Saddam not illogically took that as a green light and began his invasion on 2 August 1990; Bush initially wavered but was given a pep talk by British P.M. Margaret Thatcher and he decided that “this will not stand.” Saddam, one of America’s best friends in 1980s, had become the New Hitler, but clearly was a dictator who could proudly wear the “Made in the USA” label."

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/14191.php


"a) why Saddam would have believed that"

We backed Saddam against Iran even providing chemical weapons and other military and intelligence support. He assumed that we would back him against Kuwait as well since he thought the Kuwaitis were slant-drilling under Iraqi territory.

"Leading up to the invasion, Iraq complained to the United States Department of State about Kuwaiti slant drilling. This had been ongoing for years, but now Iraq needed oil revenues to pay off its debts from the Iran-Iraq War and avert an economic crisis. Saddam ordered troops to the Kuwaiti border, creating alarm over the prospect of an invasion. April Glasbie, the United States ambassador to Iraq, met with Saddam in an emergency meeting, where the Iraqi president stated his intention to continue talks. Iraq and Kuwait then met for a final negotiation session, which failed. Saddam then sent his troops into Kuwait."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1988-present)

"On Wednesday July 25, 1990, the American Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have misled Saddam into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

"b) How we benefited by tricking him in and then pushing him back."

My opinion is that "we" didn't benefit, GHWB though he would benefit because of the perception that he was a "wimp", although it didn't help him win the election of '92. The MIC benefitted for obvious reasons. Vietnam apologists thought we would benefit by correcting for the mistakes of Vietnam.

[MindMatter]

27. You seem to be saying it was a misunderstanding, not a provocation

[Beausoleil]

29. I don't believe it was a misunderstanding on GHWB's part

I believe he (the administration) provoked Saddam because he (GHWB) did not want to be perceived as a wimp with the '92 election coming up.

I seriously believe that both Bushes used Saddam for their own electoral purposes. Demonize Saddam (easy to do), fight an unprovoked war, be perceived as a "war president", get a bunch of "political capital" along with all the other benefits to be derived from wars for their war profiteering buddies.

The misunderstanding was definitely Saddam's.

[dubeskin]

7. I think you could easily argue both ways for all

Each war certainly had it's pros and cons for America. I think in the long run all were worth fighting, because in each one, we learned something about ourselves and our country.

Take Vietnam, for example. We learned just how our government functions - under the table to try to make itself look strong. I think even the worst wars the US has participated in, something good has come out of all of them. Spanish-American War, I think, was really one of the first times the US really became a Superpower. It was around the turn of the century during this war that the world began to unite as one, and event in the Philippines actually affected what happened in New York. As a result, the Spanish American War certainly had its benefits, but had it's downfalls, as it showed that America would stop at nothing to advance it's own "democratic" beliefs.

Likewise, I think Korea was worth fighting because it gave the public a false sense of security. Now, the Soviet threat of the 50s-70s is debatable, but the public knew that their government was taking steps to combat the "Evils of Communism" and the nuclear threat.

I guess in the end all wars are worth fighting. I think that even from Iraq we learned of the atrocities committed by our soldiers and officials, and that the public should constantly be questioning and investigation the actions of those in power.

[maxsolomon]

8. there was no need for the US to be involved in WW1

we were not threatened in any way, we didn't get involved until very late in the game.

war is a racket.

you forgot the genocidal Indian Wars of the 19th century.

[Bob Dobbs]

16. Every war is fought for elites benefit.

Mainly theft of resources, and to enrich the elites and further concentrate capital wealth in the hands of a smaller elite.

There would have been no World War II if not for the American elite's profiteering by re-arming Hitler, (see Prescott Bush et al).

Nationalism and religion are just the mind control techniques the elites use to manipulate the sheeple into fighting wars.

Refer to Post #11.

[nichomachus]

11. War is a racket

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm">War is a Racket

By Major General Smedley Butler
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War I a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce , their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

[GA_ArmyVet]

12. Not bad

However the first Iraq war was in 1991, I know, I was there. Got married when I got back so the year is easy for me to remember.

This is the list I have for one from most just & necessary to least: Please do not confuse this with one that conducted morally or efficiently managed.

1. Revolutionary War
2. War of 1812
2. WW1 and 2 (Much like the IRAQ one and two, the second would not have been needed if the end of the first was done right and is therefore just an extension of the each other)
3 Civil War
4. Korea (Not sure how you can not justify Korea under a war conducted under UN mandate since an UN member was invaded)
5. Afghanistan
6. Gulf War 1
7. Spanish American War
8. Indian Wars
9. Vietnam
10. Gulf War 2



As far as justifiable....Well hell, everyone single one of them was justifiable to the vast majority of the country when they started, except surprisingly the Civil War. The Union had massive riots over the draft and it was a very unpopular war. Interestingly enough it probably was the most important struggle of this country and by far had the most just cause or end result anyway, in ending slavery.

[qijackie]

17. The Civil War was an economic war - slavery was economics - abolition a rallying cry only.

[MindMatter]

22. Thank you for your service.

And for your perspective.

[Jack Bone]

18. As a vet..I dunno how to reply..

Every time a Commander in Chief deploys forces, there's an element for loss. On Memorial Day, I find it "odd" to sit here and rank wars based on necessity. Many brave soldiers, sailors, airmen & marines have lost their lives in occurrences that were not, at the time, wars. I believe that today is meant for honoring all that have lost their lives in the service of our nation, not just in the time of war.

[MindMatter]

23. Yes, of course that is right.

And thank you for your service.

[PsN2Wind]

19. Korea was a UN police action mounted

to repel the army of North Korea which had invaded South Korea. As I stated in another thread, I had an older brother killed there in an action that prevented what is now one of the worlds most oppressive regimes from taking over what is now one of the worlds more vibrant nations.

[Finn Polke]

25. The question is flawed

The OP asks: Which (wars) were necessary and just? Which were unjust or unnecessary? I could say that they were ALL unnecessary, and in a certain sense I would be right. But, if I am a citizen in a country that is visited by war, whether the leaders of my country wanted it or not, it become necessary to fight the "enemy" who will attack me and try to conquer me whether I fight back or not. And, I would be justified in fighting out of self-defense, and possibly for more reasons.

Please understand that I do get what MindMatter is driving at here, I am just not sure how to address each war without writing a pretty lengthy explaination about my position on each one. And, how interesting is it for me to simply say, oh yes, The Revolutionary War and Civil War were necessary and just, maybe WWII, the others, not really.

I want to say that any war fought for economic power among the ruling elite wasn't necessary or just for me, a working-class person, but without explaining that in detail it almost seems as worthless as when people say thanks to all military persons for having "served". Who did they serve, and why? The answers aren't simple.

[MindMatter]

28. I give every serviceman and women the benefit of the doubt

That their service, while possibly abused by the elite who use the power, was inspired for honorable, patriotic reasons. I know that isn't true in every case, but I believe the exceptions are few.

One thing that is interesting to me in this discussion is that if the threshold for justification is self-defense, then perhaps WWII would be the only just war in out history. One could argue a connection with Afghanistan and 911 making this a just self-defense war.

I'm not sure that is the right threshold. I do buy the theory that stopping an oppressive regime, especially a murderous one, could be justification for war. But that is a very slippery slope that allows our leaders to pick and choose their boogeymen. It allows us to find that Manuel Noriega is a heinous figure worthy of a war, yet we do nothing about Darfor or Rwanda.