Letter to a Young Sailor

I received an email in early February from a young U.S. Navy enlistee assigned to the Groton, Connecticut submarine base. In his message, the sailor described a civilian who stood every workday morning at the entrance to the base holding a sign with the message: “War is not the Answer.”

The young sailor wasn’t sure how he felt or how he should react -- if at all. His email suggested that he had transformed the sign-bearer from a lone protestor exercising his freedom to object to war into someone who was telling the world that he was not supporting the troops. The enlistee concluded that the sign-bearer either failed to understand the grave danger confronting the United States, was displaying a lack of patriotism, or even was implicitly accusing the soldiers of complicity in war crimes simply by wearing a uniform.

There are many myths running through the congressional debates, the non-debates about debates, and the sound bites about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most pernicious is that to oppose the administration’s policies is the same as not supporting the troops in the field. Its corollary is that any hint of opposition to the conduct of the Iraq War causes morale to plummet. Soldiers will thus be at greater risk because they will interpret any call to “bring the troops home” as a vote of no confidence in them or their mission.

These suppositions are hotly contested, so much so that they form a running sub-theme within the larger debate over policy and its execution. These myths need to be addressed. As a retired career military officer, I feel compelled to offer my two cents. This is my reply to the sailor and his email.

Why War Is Not the Answer

I can’t say what motivates the sign-bearer at the submarine base. I don’t know whether he doesn’t believe in all wars or any war the current administration has started or just the Iraq War. But I can tell you that after my years in the army -- and the military careers of my three brothers who also saw service in Vietnam -- I have come to the conclusion that warfare is so utterly destructive that, contrary to western religious traditions that go back to the 4th century, no war is “just.” Politically necessary for the survival of what we know as the nation-state, yes. But political leaders in western democracies tell people that each and every war is “just” -- and that includes both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This does not mean that what you do is wrong. The world remains stuck in the present distribution of geopolitical power, unable to achieve agreement on a unified power center that adjudicates disputes and controls the instruments of violence (as countries are supposed to do today). So there is still a political need for security forces (military or police) to uphold the international order -- however imperfect and flawed it may be -- that the nations of the world have struggled for centuries to create and maintain.

Yes, on September 11, 2001, 19 extremists killed nearly 3,000 people, the overwhelming majority of them Americans. They injured thousands more, brought great sorrow to the families of those who perished, and destroyed the World Trade Center. They also severely damaged one side of the Pentagon -- right where some 10-15 years earlier I had worked.

Consider this, however: September 11 was not an act of war as much as it was mass murder confined to a limited number of locations and occurring within a narrow time frame. A small, violent group directed these acts against emblematic buildings that housed civilians in an urban setting in New York and the workplace of military and civilian employees of a government. Nineteen men -- even when only part of an organization like al-Qaida -- do not constitute a party to “war.” But they do, like the Mafia or narco-trafficking cartels, constitute a criminal organization that governments need to stop because governments in the current global scheme still carry, for the most part, the duty to protect their citizens.

September 11 was not the first act of terror directed against U.S. citizens or residents or U.S. interests. That Osama bin Laden and others were bent on diminishing U.S. presence in what they considered part of their world has been known for a number of years. But terror is not war as it is normally defined. Look at the way Europe responded to the terror attacks on transportation systems in London and Madrid. Those governments treated these attacks as violations of law not as violations of the peace.

War is not conducted by groups of people against countries. That accords too great a status to those who employ terror to make a point or to claim martyrdom. The response to crime, including collective crime ought to be collective law enforcement.

I have little doubt that there are people both inside the U.S. (remember Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City) and outside who would, given an opening, try to stage another terrorist incident. They would do so, however, whether U.S. forces remained in or left Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Costs of the Iraq War

As to Iraq in March 2003, this preventive war clearly violated the tenets of international law. What I find disheartening is that the United States until the last few years often took the lead in writing and insisting on the adoption of laws regulating both the causes of war and the way in which war is conducted. And I would also ask you to think back before September 11, before the administration’s campaign of fear, and compare the freedoms and the responsibilities Americans exercised as our political heritage to what we still have today. We have lost much in substance and in reputation, with the erosion of civil liberties at home and the rendition and torture scandals abroad.

And the “job” that we have in Iraq? There was none; there is none. We cannot kill all the people that our government calls terrorists and who would kill us. In so trying, we end up simply giving more people more cause to try to kill Americans. And the longer we remain in Iraq, the more opportunities we give others to try to kill Americans.

As one nation-state among many, our job is to work with other nation-states to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of our respective countries and to help alleviate the worst conditions affecting the lives of people marginalized in our own country and around the world. Certainly, this is not done through war or the threat of war. Once a ruler decides that war is the answer to a dispute, the unknown, the unanticipated, and the unexpected become inevitable. And the cost of all three combined more often than not far exceeds the supposed “benefits” that led to the decision for war.

Security vs. Freedom

Consider this the next time you see the “war is not the answer” sign. If you had to choose between security and freedom -- really had to choose -- which would you select?

I hope you answered freedom. As long as you are free, you will be able to resist -- especially after the unexpected happens -- the platitudes of those who would save us from a fearful future if only we would surrender to their wiser wisdom. With freedom, we the people can make whatever minimal adjustments for the minimal length of time are prudent to help ensure public safety.

In the United States, we do not have to choose between liberty and security -- yet. But the temptation for more security is stronger since September 11 because the atmosphere of fear created that day continues to permeate presidential pronouncements and actions. Life is worth living only if we have freedom, but life cannot be free if we have neither security nor the sense that we are secure. Freedom and security are complementary.

I commend Ben Franklin’s famous caution that rejects both extremes: “They who would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” Let us hope that we do not choose the latter over the former, for then we will irrevocably lose both.