A US History of War- 'Moral & Just'?

~ Spanish American War (1898) veteran in 1948

This posting is a little different that normal in that the focus isn't so much on economics and finance as is it the military and the US history of being at war.

I was watching a documentary last night on the Vietnam War made in 1972 where servicemen stationed at various military bases who had been deployed previously and returned, and those about to be sent off, were speaking honestly about the conflict.  Many spoke of feeling that Vietnam was not a 'moral and just' war.

And that got me thinking.. In the entire history of the US military from Revolutionary War until the present conflicts, how many wars have we truly fought that were 'moral and just'? Or was the situation in Vietnam something new?  So I decided to break down each war the US has been involved in militarily to see if it can fit as 'moral and just'.  No judgments are made on those who serve or have served.  This exercise was meant to look at government's decision making processes and rationales.

Revolutionary War (1775-1781) -  Obviously Americans feel it was a moral and just war because it brought about independence and a new nation.  But let's get beyond that Civics 101 nonsense- What provoked the war to take place?  Merchants in New England did not want to pay increased taxes by the British govt' to fund a past war (French & Indian War) that city-dwelling colonists did not get any direct benefit from.

So the masses were riled up into a lather by cheap merchants, and from Boston Tea Party to Boston  'Massacre', the rebellion drum was beaten harder and harder until eventually shots were fired. And if the colonists' cause was so just and moral, why was it that the British offered full freedom to any black man who took up arms to help crush the rebellion?  Wouldn't emancipation have been something we ourselves would offer since we were supposedly fighting for it?

Much more I could write but for brevity sake, I won't...

War of 1812 (1812-1814)-  This was the second fight with the British and our 2nd economic fight.  This was a war over free trade, control of the seas, impressement  (opposing nations coming on board and taking sailors to commandeer to serve as sailor in that nation's fleet).  The war essentially ended in a draw though the Battle of New Orleans was fought months after the Treaty of Ghent had officially ended the war in 1814. The Battle was a rout, a great achievement by General (and future President) Andrew Jackson.  Nonetheless, the conflict was not a 'moral and just' one.

Indian Wars (1810s- 1840s)- There were many small wars between US military and the Native American population during this period. Collectively, the goal was to push the various tribes west from the Appalacians, Ohio Valley and still recently new Louisiana Purchase territory.  Some US successes, some failures but nothing moral about the "Trail of Tears", Seminole Wars and other military actions around this time.

Mexican War (1846-1848)-  Some will say the war was fought to liberate Texas and make it a US state. The US was also big on a concept called 'manifest destiny' which is a way of saying it is the US' destiny to expand its empire as far as eye could see and westward to the Pacific.  The US won and acquired a lot of land- future states of TX, OK, NM, AZ, CA, CO and NV.  The war was a great success for America; just not a moral and just one.

US Civil War (1861-1865)- Now at this point you're going 'Aha!' But let's really understand what happened and not what your history teacher/asst. football coach taught you in HS.   The Civil War was not fought over slavery in terms of human bondage, rather the economics of the institution.   Slavery meant free labor which undercut northern businesses. They used mostly immigrant labor who were treated to horrible working conditions by northern owners.  But they still received a wage and that meant greater profits for Southerners who paid none. In addition, Southern cotton was exported across the Atlantic to Liverpool England to be milled because it was more economically cost-effective than to send the cotton to northern mills. Many Northern industrialists wanted to stop this practice.

By the time the war began in April, 1861, the fight had nothing to do with slavery on a human level and the Union had zero concerns on the institution or curtailing it.  To paraphrase Lincoln, if he could unite the Union by freeing some of the slaves in some of the states or all of them or none of them, the focus was preserving one nation.  The Emancipation Proclamation came about in early-mid 1862 as a means to motivate Union soldiers to re-enlist at years' end by making the war a 'moral' one.  It turned out to be good propaganda because the ruse worked nd re-enlistment soared by New Years, 1863 even though Lincoln held off releasing it for months until there was a Union victory as not to appear 'weak' and it only freed slaves in states it had no jurisdiction--the Confederacy itself.  Border states that aligned with the Union were allowed to keep slavery.

Indian Wars (1860's- 1890's)-  A continuation of first series of Native American wars upon various tribes. Some American setback, some victories and ultimately pushed millions of people into territories then 'Americanized' them by giving them Christian names and clothing to attempt to take away all sense of heritage identity and pride.  All this done so railroads could expand and connect to California.

Spanish American War (1898)- Not much moral about it.. we wanted ownership of Cuba and Philippines so the US provoked armed conflict by rigging an explosion upon the USS Maine (Remember the Maine!) and blaming it on Spanish provocateurs.  The conflict ended rather quickly.

Military involvement in Central & South America (early 1900s)- Marines sent to numerous places (Haiti, Nicaragua, etc) to occupy various nations while assisting US business interests in gaining a foothold in this part of the world.

World War I (1914-1918)- US involvement was only the last 9 months of the war even though official declaration was in 1917.  Most believe we declared war on Germany because of the sinking of the Lusitania and/or the Zimmerman Telegram where Germany's Ambassador to Mexico promised them they would be given back territory lost during the Mexican War if they opened a military front on the Mexican-US border.

Both incidents were part of the overall reason but in 1917 the war was going badly for the Triple Entente (Britain, France & Russia)  When the Russian people rose up and overthrew Czar Nicholas II, that took Russia out of the war.  And had Germany won, American investors who had heavily backed England would have taken a Severe financial beating.  So they pressured Woodrow Wilson to eventually enter a war he had spent years promising he wouldn't involve the US military in.  WWI was not a moral and just war and neither was US' involvement.  After the war, Wilson tried to push through his highly idealistic and naive 14 Points, but neither Europeans or the opposition party at home wanted anything to do with it.

World War II (1939-1945)-  Ok.. This is The Moral War if there ever was one, right? Obviously when you look at the number of lives lost and in particular the millions of innocents exterminated for their religion, ethnicity or outright hate.  But its important to look with objectivity too.  The war began in September, 1939.  It took 27 months for the US to enter.  And what provoked US involvement- some horrific act the Nazis perpetrated upon innocents?  No, it was an attack by Japan.  In fact, in 1940 the US govt sent many boats full of emigres and those escaping persecution from Germany BACK to Germany, the "Spirit of St. Louis" being a famous example (not specifically Charles Lindbergh's plane)

The war ended by dropping 2 nuclear bombs on Japan.  I am not saying it was wrong since many experts on WWII argue had that action not occurred, it would have taken a million US soldiers invading Japan and many more years of fighting to truly end the war.   So one can not discard elements of necessity.  But a moral and just war, by definition does not end with the destruction that 2 atom bombs create.  Nonetheless, this war was the closest the US has come to fighting a truly moral and just war, especially considering the monsterous enemy which was defeated, particularly in Europe.

Cold War (1945-1990)- For time constraints, I incorporated Korean War (1950-53), Vietnam (1964-75) and every other military action we took to try to stop the spread of Communism as the argument went.  If you truly believe communism is an insidious evil, then you believe all the armed conflicts of the period were necessary to protect freedom and democracy.  If you feel that the 'domino theory' and fear of communism spreading and infecting like a virus is a bunch of BS, then you don't look at any part of this period as being moral or just.

Modern War (1991-present)- In this list, I include Operation Desert Storm (1991) with current invasion and occupation of Iraq (2003- present) since I see Desert Storm as a prelude, rather than a conflict distinct in itself.  I also bunch together operations in the Balkans (mid-late 1990s), Afghanistan (2001- present), Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, on 'n on 'n on.... Some say we're fighting terrorism.  Others feel we're being colonists and nation builders to serve our geo-political and varied corporate interests.

American soldiers throughout history have generally speaking, been very moral and honorable men and women. And this posting was not meant to disparage them,  There's always exceptions who do not represent the military in its entirety but overall US soldiers over history have conducted themselves admirably.

But in terms of US government policy specifically, the causes and justifications to go to war, and military involvement with adversaries domestic and abroad, America has a very poor historical track record.  And even when we fight in wars with moralistic aims and goals,  it always seems to take a backseat to the economic interests of special interests and financiers.

The 1999 Osama bin Laden Interview

Most people are not aware of this but in early 1999, about two and a half years before the events of 9/11, Osama bin Laden gave a lengthy interview with Time magazine explaining his ideology, goals and how he saw the world.  Twelve years later and three days after his death, I thought it would be interesting to give readers a clear insight into his mind back then by providing the full transcript of the interview.

This is a very long posting.  Most will find the views abhorrent.  Unfortunately others who read this may agree with what he said..  I can not control what a person thinks or feels and will not censor based on it-- I do believe it is unhealthy for individuals and societies to become ostriches, with heads in the proverbial sand and avoid any realities because it may appear too scary.   But if you prefer to not know Bin Laden's thought processes back in 1999, simply skip this posting.

All the information provided varies from interesting to important, and hopefully will be of some intellectual benefit to the reader.

Note:  This is not a satire or hoax interview-  it is from the January 11, 1999 issue of Time magazine.  I will not be adding any comments so every word in the interview from this point forward is quoted directly word for word from the source, Time Magazine....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Osama bin Laden--the alleged mastermind of attacks on two U.S. embassies--has been in hiding since the U.S. launched missiles against his bases in Afghanistan last August. Yet on Dec. 22, the summons suddenly came: Would Rahimullah Yusufzai, who reports for the News of Pakistan, as well as TIME and ABC, like to interview Bin Laden?

After a car trip through the Afghan desert (and getting stuck in the sand three times), Yusufzai arrived at an encampment of three tents. Polite and given to praising God in nearly every sentence, Bin Laden sipped water from a cup (he was nursing a sore throat) and nestled an AK-47 as he spoke. Eager to deny reports that he has cancer, Bin Laden said he enjoys riding horses and playing soccer, but he used a stick to walk because of a bad back. He also spends time with his three wives and children in Afghanistan. Aides say his contact with the world is limited to newspaper and radio reports. Though he has a sat phone, it sits mostly idle: he fears the U.S. would use the signal to target an attack.

TIME: Are you responsible for the bomb attacks on the two American embassies in Africa?

Osama bin Laden: The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has, by the grace of God, issued a crystal-clear fatwa [decree] calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad [holy war] aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba [Islamic shrines in Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia] is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal. Our job is to instigate and, by the grace of God, we did that, and certain people responded to this instigation.

TIME: Do you know the men who have been arrested for these attacks?

Osama bin Laden: What I know is that those who risked their lives to earn the pleasure of God are real men. They managed to rid the Islamic nation of disgrace. We hold them in the highest esteem.

TIME: But all those arrested are said to have been associated with you.

Osama bin Laden: Wadih el-Hage [an alleged Bin Laden associate who is being held in custody in New York City on charges stemming from the attacks on the embassies] was one of our brothers whom God was kind enough to steer to the path of relief work for Afghan refugees. I still remember him, though I have not seen him or heard from him for many years. He has nothing to do with the U.S. allegations. As for Mohamed Rashed al-'Owhali [another suspect in the bombings], we were informed that he is a Saudi from the province of Najd. The fact of the matter is that America, and in particular the CIA, wanted to cover up its failure in the aftermath of the events that took place in Riyadh, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Capetown, Kampala--and other places, God willing, in the future--by arresting any person who had participated in the Islamic jihad in Afghanistan. We pray to God to end the plight [of the arrested men], and we are confident they will be exonerated.

TIME: How do you react to the December attack on Iraq by U.S. and British forces?

Osama bin Laden: There is no doubt that the treacherous attack has confirmed that Britain and America are acting on behalf of Israel and the Jews, paving the way for the Jews to divide the Muslim world once again, enslave it and loot the rest of its wealth. A great part of the force that carried out the attack came from certain gulf countries that have lost their sovereignty. Now infidels walk everywhere on the land where Muhammad was born and where the Koran was revealed to him. The situation is serious. The rulers have become powerless. Muslims should carry out their obligations, since the rulers of the region have accepted the invasion of their countries. These countries belong to Islam and not the rulers.

TIME: What can the U.S. expect from you now?

Osama bin Laden: Any thief or criminal or robber who enters another country in order to steal should expect to be exposed to murder at any time. For the American forces to expect anything from me personally reflects a very narrow perception. Thousands of millions of Muslims are angry. The Americans should expect reactions from the Muslim world that are proportionate to the injustice they inflict.

TIME: The U.S. says you are trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons.

Osama bin Laden: Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.

TIME: The U.S. is trying to stop the flow of funds to your organization. Has it been able to do so?

Osama bin Laden: The U.S. knows that I have attacked it, by the grace of God, for more than 10 years now. The U.S. alleges that I am fully responsible for the killing of its soldiers in Somalia. God knows that we have been pleased at the killing of American soldiers. This was achieved by the grace of God and the efforts of the mujahedin from among the Somali brothers and other Arab mujahedin who had been in Afghanistan before that. America has been trying ever since to tighten its economic blockade against us and to arrest me. It has failed. This blockade does not hurt us much. We expect to be rewarded by God.

TIME: Is your Islamic message having an impact?

Osama bin Laden: Winds of change have blown in order to lift the injustice to which the world is subjected by America and its supporters and the Jews who are collaborating with them. Look at what is happening these days in Indonesia, where Suharto, a despot who ruled for 30 years, was overthrown. The time will come, sooner rather than later, when criminal despots who betrayed God and his Prophet, and betrayed their trust and their nation, will face the same fate.

TIME: But there are many Muslims who do not agree with your kind of violence.

Osama bin Laden: We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Shari'a [an Islamic legal code]. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam. Those who sympathize with the infidels-such as the PLO in Palestine or the so-called Palestinian Authority--have been trying for tens of years to get back some of their rights. They laid down arms and abandoned what is called violence and tried peaceful bargaining. What did the Jews give them? They did not give them even 1% of their rights.

TIME: America, the world's only superpower, has called you Public Enemy No. 1. Are you worried?

Osama bin Laden: Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God. To call us Enemy No. 1 or 2 does not hurt us. Osama bin Laden is confident that the Islamic nation will carry out its duty. I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.