The Illogicality of Perpetual Wars

Written by: Elizabeth Cable on Feb 4, 2008 3:30 AM EST

Throughout human history, humankind has been fond of waging perpetual wars, the meaning of which being a war waged upon an enemy that can never be definitively defeated. We likely do this because we are rather illogical creatures, creatures whose passions and prejudices can easily trump logic. In modern times, one place in the world where this illogicality of perpetual war has fully taken root is the United States of America. Given, all countries behave illogically to some extent (as they are all governed by fallible human beings), but America is the one that I know the most about. This illogicality is illustrated perfectly by two “wars”, one military and one not, that America currently is waging: the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.

Firstly, the War on Terror. We have carried on a “War on Terror” in this country ever since George W. Bush declared it to be so after the 2001 Terrorist attack. It is, as John Edwards stated, a bumper sticker slogan. The nature of humankind is such that there have been acts of terrorism for the entire length of our existence, and there will be acts of terror for the remainder of the time that humankind resides on the earth. I doubt that this element of our nature will be eradicated simply because a President of the United States has declared “war” on it. It is as Noam Chomsky said, “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.” Terrorism will never disappear unless people discontinue participating in it, and they never will. We are fighting a foe that will exist perpetually, so, indeed, if we declare it to be so, then we are trying to defeat what can never truly be defeated: a part of our Selves. But, of course, now I see the logic in George W. Bush wanting to start up a World War III. Blasting the human race off the face of the earth with nukes is the only way that we can win the War on Terror.

That seems to be extraordinarily illogical on our part. Why would we have hundreds of thousands of human beings die and spend trillions of dollars over this, to try to change human nature? More likely millions have died as a direct result of our declaration of a “War on Terror”, and, ironically, I doubt that many of them were actually terrorists. Nearly a million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of America’s invasion of their country (although Iraq really had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or 9/11, we did attack them as a result of George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”).

Wouldn’t it be better if we just improved our intelligence services and intervened in planned terrorist attacks which our improved intelligence system would have detected? That would be the ideal (and the most effective) solution, I think, because, with our current policy of fighting wars all over the world, we are actually incurring more hatred and inspiring more terrorism. We are creating more terrorists than we are killing with our flawed policies. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that these kinds of ridiculous policies just don’t work. And, in addition to an improved intelligence system, we need to fundamentally alter our approach to foreign policy. 

What we need to do is to stop engaging in threats and imperialism. We need to stop policing the world. We need to stop invading other countries preemptively and illegally. We need to stop bombing other countries unnecesarily and secretly; if the politicians don’t want the public to know that they are doing something, then we probably should not be doing it. We need to treat all of the other countries of the world as equals, be less arrogant, stop bullying them, and treat them with respect. That way, we will incur less hatred around the world and be less vulnerable to terrorism as a result. Terrorism towards the United States feeds off of and lives off of hatred towards the United States. We make our own enemies, and we need to stop continuing these policies that inspire hate towards us. The main reason that Osama bin Laden attacked us on September 11th was because we intervened militarily in the Middle East, killed many Middle Easterners, and incurred hatred there in pre-9/11 policy. That’s called blowback. Bin Laden attacked us as a direct result of our foreign policy of destruction. And, now, we’re intervening even more in the Middle East, and killing even more Middle-Easterners, and incurring even more hatred there. Is that supposed to solve the problem? If something doesn’t work, try it again? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” said Albert Einstein, in his accurate definition of insanity. Evidently, our leaders meet the criteria and are officially insane.

Here, on a related but unrelated note, I would like to say that it is ironic that the government (the Bush Administration and the Congress) claims to be fighting terrorism abroad, while at that same time, they are instilling terror in their own people as a method of maintaining power. James Madison predicted this development, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” Why have we not listened to and heeded the message of our Founding Fathers that liberty requires eternal vigilance to maintain? It’s not too late to heed their warning across the centuries.

Now, of course, the second illogical, perpetual war that I am planning to be espousing my views on: the War on Drugs. We have carried on this War on Drugs for decades, particularly ever since Richard Nixon declared an official “War on Drugs” in the 1970s. This policy is utterly ineffective, and we are spending billions of dollars on it each year, taking precious funds away from more deserving outlets, such as Education or Healthcare. It is a policy reminiscent of Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s, which we all know from history actually caused more crime and conflict and didn’t stop people from drinking alcohol anyway. FDR had the good sense to end this policy as soon as he got into office in 1933. And the next President of the United States, Democrat or Republican, should sensibly end the War on Drugs.

The Drug War has been ineffective and will be ineffective, and perpetual, because drugs are substances that can never be eradicated; more of them can always be grown and made. Human nature, of course, plays a part in this one too. As long as people want to use drugs and as long as people want to make profits off of selling drugs, drugs-dealers and drug-users will exist, and the Drug War will go on. This Drug War which is ravaging our cities and putting thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of our citizens in jails. We currently have 2.3 million people total in jail in the United States, which is the most out of all of the countries in the world. We are #1 in the number of people that we have in prison, now that’s an accomplishment.

Throwing drug addicts in jail doesn’t solve their addiction problem. The fact of the matter is that drugs (particularly marijuana) should be a public health problem, not a criminal problem, and certainly not a “war”. We need to legalize marijuana, and make it so that the harder drugs will be provided by doctors. I said before that as long as people want to and can sell drugs for a profit, the drug war will go on. Well, making it so that certified doctors can provide the drugs will get rid of the drug market, and people will no longer have to go to drug dealers on the streets to buy drugs. This will greatly lessen crime, which is certainly desirable. And, of course, once drugs are made legal and are provided by a doctor, people may be able to muster up the ability to get off of the drugs. Increased stability in their supplies of drugs can help people to stop worrying about where they are going to get their next fix, and once that uncertainty disappears, they can begin to collect their thoughts and develop a will to get off of the drugs.

These two “wars”, the “War on Terror” and the “War on Drugs”, are just plain foolish. Can’t we deal with our problems any more effectively than by declaring a “war” on them? If we’re going to do this kind of thing, why don’t we declare a war on backseat drivers, or pittbulls, or dust, as well? Why do we fight these illogical Wars of Perpetuity? Of course, you know, I have an answer. But even if you don’t have an answer, you should still ask the questions. Oftentimes, the questions are insurmountably more important than the answers anyway. But, it is my belief that our country fights these so-called “wars” because the people who can wage them, the people in power, benefit. That is why the United States has many of the policies that it does; politicians set policies according to their own self-interest first, ascertaining what option would be the one most likely to maintain their power. We could fight these problems more effectively than with a “war”, but, no, our leaders refuse to do so. These perpetual wars, they’re just politics. They’s just another way to frighten and pacify the masses, and they’re just another way to please the special interests. Politics as Usual.

I’ll specifically address how the people in power benefit from both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. Firstly, the War on Terror. Of course, the first benefit of this is that it serves as the political tool of manipulation of the American people. The politicians use the issue of terrorism to scare people into accepting policies and decisions that they absolutely would not accept if they were not under the influence of Fear. Fear has the power to cause all of our powers of logic and reasoning to be drowned out by a consuming panic which overwhelms the senses. Such policies that the people would not accept unless they were under the influence of fear are things like the Iraq War invasion, the Patriot Act, and the destruction of our civil liberties. We will willingly lay down all of our rights when under the influence of Fear, believing the compromise of these rights essential to preserve our safety, with the panicked hope that we may yet remain safe. In this situation, we are undeserving of either liberty or safety, as Benjamin Franklin so accutely observed, “Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both.” Exploiting the people’s fears have led to the creation of a veritable monarchy of an Executive branch within the United States government, because it has allowed the Branch to take so many of our rights from us.

These perpetual wars are not only designed to scare the population into accepting policies that they would not accept otherwise: also, the fear created as a result of these wars can manipulate people in order to make them vote for one political party or the other. It is not only a political tool, it is a partisan tool. It can be used to either enact change (usually negative), or to preserve the status quo, it depends on how it is utilized.

Additionally, it seems to me that the “War on Terror” serves an even more sinister purpose than the ones that I have above described, if that is possible. Having a perpetual war against an indestructible entity means that the military-industrial complex and its corporate beneficiaries (who are an enormous influence in our government, country, politics, and culture) will continue to benefit financially, as long as we are always fighting or always preparing to fight the “terrorists”. I believe that the long arm of the military-industrial complex has played a part in starting every single military venture (large and small) that we have been engaged in ever since the 1950s, when Dwight D. Eisenhow first warned of “the acquisition of unwarranted influence” by the military-industrial complex. It is no coincidence that the beneficiaries of the military-industrial complex contribute greatly to the political campaigns of the politicians who get us into military conflicts like this. The “War on Terror” is a creative and perpetual way for politicians to please the special interests related to the military-industrial complex. Our “War on Terror”, if continued, would ensure that the defense industry has steady profits for years to come. You might be in disbelief that politicians would actually sacrifice innocent lives in order to please the special interests and maintain power. But, let me tell you, political calculations and the desire to maintain one’s power often trumps morality. The desire for power can be dehumanizing.

But, now, of course, I’ll dedicate a little time to how the politicians benefit from the perpetual war of the War on Drugs. Throughout our history as a nation and throughout the history of humankind, leaders have inspired fears and prejudices of those who are just different. Leaders use this inspiration of fears (fear of drug addicts, for example) in order to control and manipulate the masses of the People. It is exactly as Noam Chomsky said, “The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.” The War on Drugs helps the people in power to manipulate us all by way of fear (as, of course, is also the case with the “War on Terror”), and that is certainly desirable to them. It is deplorable that We the People are so ignorant as to be so easily manipulated. I don’t understand why we can’t see through the shroud.

It seemed apparent to me that both of these “wars” cause all of our powers of logical thought and critical analysis to be completely obscured by one devouring passion: fear. These perpetual wars, just like the current airport security system, are designed to scare the population into submission. This fear causes us to accept the illogical perpetual wars and other policies. It is a sad cycle that these perpetual wars cause fear in the population, and so we cannot stop them for that very reason, and so they go on.

Perhaps perpetual wars are not really so illogical after all, from the perspective of those in power. In fact, from their point of view, it seems to me that perpetual wars would be extraordinarily logical and desirable. Maybe if I ever get into office, I’ll start up a War on Raisins. I don’t like those very much.

But in the end, honestly, all I can do is agree with Bertrand Russell: “It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” We are not behaving rationally. We are being herded around like a flock of sheep by our “handlers”, the politicians. We allow them to control and manipulate us using, among other things, the tool of perpetual war. We do not control the politicians, as we believe that we do; rather, the politicians control us. We fail to realize that fact. And you can’t fix a problem without being aware of it first.

Tags: