Letter from Paul Martz
War on Terrorism – August 2002 – Colorado Central Magazine
Martha,
There is no honor in war, it is always a dirty business. The object is to kill people, hopefully more combatants who are theoretically able to fight back, than non-combatants. You kill them by any means possible and fair or “honorable” doesn’t enter into it. You’ve seen too many John Wayne movies.
Secret, “dirty” wars if you want to call them that, actually cost fewer non-combatant lives than unrestricted warfare.
Afghanistan today is a prime example. If you want a dissertation on this war, I’ll write you one, but it won’t say anything about honorable. It would, however, mention the long-term danger to democracy of our current all-professional military, with support from “citizen” soldiers of the Guard. It would also point out the fact that the level of skills necessary to conduct the kind of operations that drove al Quieda out can only be conducted by the kind of forces, professional soldiers (SEALS, RECON and Ranger units), we actually had ready to employ.
Paul Martz
Poncha Springs
Paul,
I don’t really understand your point. I was objecting to our government’s tendency to participate clandestinely — without the knowledge of its citizens or congress. The U.S. surreptitiously trained and armed combatants in the Iran-Contra fiasco who rampaged and murdered for their own purposes, and we’ve been mucking about in Afghani politics for quite some time.
Due to our persistent involvement in Afghanistan — and America’s position as a primary target of terrorists headquartered inside of Afghanistan — I think it was inevitable that we would send U.S. troops there.
And apparently you don’t. But are you also saying that the President and U.S. armed forces should be able to do whatever they think is advantageous — including sending in covert troops, death squads, and/or assassins — without informing anyone? And if so, don’t you think that policy will pose some “long-term dangers to democracy,” too?
Actually, I’d bet that wasn’t what you were saying, but I wish you had said a little more about your objections to “our current all-professional military” so I could understand your reasoning. Most of the arguments I’ve heard in response to my letters are about how deluded I am or how odious the U.S. is, but I’ve heard very little about what people think the U.S. should do today, tomorrow, or next month. Where do we go from here?
Just yesterday on NPR, Daniel Shore said Americans are still very pleased with Bush’s stand on the war even if he’s dropping in the polls due to the Enron scandal, but I don’t believe that. I think most Americans — whether they’re for the war, against the war, or ready to emigrate — are somewhat dubious about Bush’s agenda.
Not too surprisingly, though, people seem inclined to focus more on their disagreements than their agreements. At this point, however, I think it’s important that people who are dubious about current policy find their common ground — because if pro-war, anti-war and uncertain voters don’t build some kind of consensus, the next time around we may be arguing about what those “professional soldiers” are doing in Iraq.
