Below is my draft letter to the editor of the WPost article summarized earlier. It's response to the 'conservative' analysis RE what has kept our nation (and the world) in an endless war against a tactic -- that can never be defeated.
Dear Editor, (this is long…but extremely important).
Endless Wars: A Suicide Pact for Superpowers
Response to Douglas J. Feith and Lewis Libby,
"Endless wars is a catchy phrase, not a reason to shift policy," The
Washington Post, November 10, 2026. (print edition 11-12-26)
Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby argue that "endless
wars" is a catchy political slogan, but not a legitimate reason to change
American foreign policy. They invoke Lincoln, Churchill, Eisenhower and Reagan
to suggest that perseverance in prolonged conflicts can ultimately produce
security. It cannot! Their historical comparisons overlook a
fundamental difference: Those leaders confronted identifiable political and
military objectives. The so-called ‘Global War Against Terrorism’ has no
comparable endpoint. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy that can surrender.
How can we declare victory over a tactic that can be used by virtually anyone,
anywhere, indefinitely. Especially with
the evolution of weaponry…with almost anything being weaponized?
The most important voice missing from their argument is Osama bin Laden's.
Bin Laden studied the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and
concluded that even a superpower could be weakened through prolonged conflict.
In 2004, he explicitly described al-Qaeda's strategy: "bleeding America to
the point of bankruptcy."
He also explained that al-Qaeda wanted to create a wedge between the American people and their government by emphasizing financial and human casualties. These were not retrospective interpretations of his intentions. They were his stated objectives, documented in a 2006 White House compilation of terrorist statements. Consider the results.
Brown University's Costs of War Project estimates that America's post-September 11 wars have cost approximately $8 trillion. At least 940,000 people have died directly from war violence, with millions more dying indirectly. The estimated future costs of caring for post-9/11 veterans alone reach $2.2 trillion to $2.5 trillion through 2050. The consequences will continue as started his costly war with Iran. An Associated Press report this fall described more than $37.5 billion in U.S. costs, 18 American service members killed, many injured, disrupted global energy supplies, and no clear path out.
Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office projects publicly
held federal debt reaching 120 percent of GDP by 2036. Interest payments alone
are projected to exceed $2 trillion annually by then.
The problem isn’t America’s lacking will to fight. We repeatedly confuse the capacity to wage
war with the ability to create lasting security. This isn’t exclusively an
American problem. Religious and
political movements have repeatedly justified violence through claims of divine
authority, historical entitlement, and territorial destiny. The Crusades,
current religious nationalism with competing claims to sacred land. These demonstrate the danger of treating
religious texts as political or territorial mandates. No religious tradition
has a monopoly on this problem, and no civilian population should be held
responsible for its ruthless leaders.
All this is compounded by the continuing evolution of
weaponry. Every competing military and political system develops new ways to
overcome their adversaries’ capabilities. Nuclear, biological, autonomous
weapons now using artificial intelligence are accelerating the lethality of
competition. We’re building increasingly sophisticated means of destroying
civilization without demonstrating comparable sophistication in preventing
conflict.
Even without AI, humankind has the capacity to destroy
itself. AI makes that danger considerably worse.
Feith and Libby say the right question is whether achievable
objectives justify the costs and risks. I agree. But that standard must apply
to every war, including those already underway. We must ask not simply whether
we can continue fighting, but whether continued fighting makes us safer.
National security requires more than military strength.
Functional strength is a rapid capacity to adapt. This requires economic resilience, public
health, education, functioning institutions, and most important-- international
cooperation and prevention of the conditions generating violence.
The 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals offer a
framework for addressing these interdependent sources of insecurity. Prevention
is not surrender. Diplomacy is not weakness. And recognizing the limits of
military power is not a lack of resolve.
Endless wars -can be a suicide pact for superpowers. We
cannot bomb, borrow or technologically out-weapon our way to a healthy, secure
and sustainable world.
cw
No comments:
Post a Comment