Aren't two American wars more than enough?

Iranian President Ahmadinejad at a ceremony at the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, Iran (Majid Saeedi/Getty)

Iranian President Ahmadinejad at a ceremony at the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, Iran (Majid Saeedi/Getty)

As he listened to the building drumbeat to send more troops to Afghanistan, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert recently observed: “Watching the American escalation … is like watching helplessly as someone you love climbs into a car while intoxicated and drives off toward a busy highway. No good can come of it.”

Eight years in and weeks after witnessing the Afghan election follies, the American public has begun losing its appetite for the war there. Yet President Obama just yesterday signaled that he has no intention of significantly reducing the scope of our commitment. The question remaining is whether he’ll commit the 40,000 more troops his military commanders want.

What has drawn far less attention is a new poll by the Pew Center for the People and the Press suggesting that the American public seems poised to endorse yet another war, even as our sons and daughters keep coming home in body bags and even as our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to bankrupt our national treasury and exhaust our overextended military.

The poll reports that a “strong majority of Americans” – 61 percent – support military action against Iran if it’s needed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I can understand this as the public’s gut reaction. Iran’s president,  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a man who denies the history of the Holocaust. He’s seen by some as a budding mini-Hitler himself.

But let’s take a deep breath here before starting another round of saber-rattling  in earnest. Eight other countries are believed to have nuclear weapons, including Pakistan, the new home base of Al Qaeda.  Should we bomb them, too? How about North Korea?  How often can we wage “pre-emptive wars” in the name of a safer and more moral world before we bankrupt our souls as well as our country’s coffers?

Public opinion polls, of course, don’t always translate into presidential policy. But the rumblings of war against Iran surfaced in the final days of the Bush administration and could resurface again if fueled by strong, if uninformed, public support.

Perhaps Americans need to be reminded that Iran’s population is larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. or that its gross domestic product, according to the CIA World Factbook, is nearly eight times that of both countries combined.

I’ll leave it to the foreign policy experts to quantify the risks of such a war, but they’re not hard to imagine — magnified hatred of what’s perceived as American expansionism, increased attacks against American interests worldwide, quite possibly widespread terrorism on American soil with an accompanying erosion of civil liberties. And that’s just at the beginning.

In a recent Sunday “Week In Review” piece in The New York Times about the Afghanistan debate, James Traub recalled the words of diplomat and scholar George Kennan, spoken 60 years ago:

“The problems of this world are deeper, more involved and more stubborn than many of us realize,” Kennan said.

That is why, Kennan argued, American power must be applied selectively and with restraint.

President John F.Kennedy drew a line during the Cuban Missle Crisis, but he never crossed it. The standoff was solved through diplomacy. Ronald Reagan may have dubbed the then Soviet Union “the Evil Empire,” but he didn’t attempt, to borrow the words of Vietnam-era Gen. Curtis LeMay to bomb it “back to the Stone Age.”

Neither president launched a pre-emptive war because one would likely have incinerated mankind.  That risk has not disappeared today.  It is just one reason why the public should be pushing President Obama to extricate himself and this country from the wars we’re in, rather than imagining the next one we might fight.


About jerrylanson

I teach, write, coach and sing, though you're not required to listen to the latter. I'm a journalism professor at Emerson College in Boston. My third book, "Writing for Others, Writing for Ourselves," was published in November by Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. You can read a sample chapter at My passions are politics (generally liberal in outlook), music, mountains, golden retrievers and my grandchildren, though not in that order. Please stop by and mix it up with me. I always answer those who post.
This entry was posted in Afghanistan, American wars, Iran, World and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Aren't two American wars more than enough?

  1. michaelquinones says:

    You’ve left something pretty major out of the equation, Israel. Time and again, our administration has had to hold them back. And if this escalates into a war with Iran, Israel would be the front line. Did the poll specify American military action? I bet 75 percent would support Israeli action.

    But this is the problem with these mini-stories based around polls, they are overly simplified just as the cherry-picked poll results used in them are.

    And how can this poll number come as any kind of surprise when we went into Iraq with much less valid reasons than the argument to strike at nuclear Iran and BUSH WAS RE-ELECTED.

    And besides, if there’s no draft, the gov’t-military complex can concoct any reason to go to war with anyone and they don’t need 61 percent of the people to give a shit either way.


    ‘increased attacks against American interests worldwide, quite possibly widespread terrorism on American soil with an accompanying erosion of civil liberties’

    Why would this happen if we went to war with Iran? For the most part it isn’t what happened when we went to war in Iraq: We just killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s, lost 4,600 soldiers, and lost some credibility. Of course it also led to a much stronger Iran and Obama.

  2. Jerry Lanson says:

    Thanks for your comments. A few thoughts. Israel is indeed a big factor but Israel should not dictate when this country goes to war or why. Teddy Roosevelt said speak softly but carry a big stick. I think we should do just that and probably can do a better job as Israel’s ally by not pushing direct confrontation. We’ve lived in a nuclear world now for 65 years or so. We’ve managed to survive that. If the new model is to take out any country developing nukes I believe we’re more likely to have a nuclear disaster if not all out war. Why? Because there are plenty of loose nukes around the world. Much has been written about the dangers of these materials falling into the hands of terrorists. Let’s focus on preventing that. And yes, Iran is more dangerous than Iraq. That too has been written about. It’s a larger, better armed and wealthier country. Americans — even those against war — delude themselves if they think we can throw our muscle around with impunity. The costs — in death, debt, damaged lives and stripped civil liberties — already are well-evident from our two ongoing wars. Alas, because so much of it falls on the families of our volunteer Army, plenty of Americans walk around oblivious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s