Why are we always at war? (Opinion)

War is bad. I don’t believe such a simple statement would encounter much disagreement in even the bitterest political enemies. Almost by definition, war is a terrible experience that tears apart families, friends, and nations. The problem, however, is that the United States’ modern-day foreign policy, economy, and attitudes towards conflict abroad predisposes us to engaging in endless war.

Even if we’re not at technically at war with a nation, we’re almost always still involved. We’re still creating enemies by involving ourselves wherever we see fit—sending weapons to the Syrian opposition (linked to Al Qaeda and known to kill members of the Christian minority in cold blood), flying drones over Pakistan to kill civilians, and even now drawing lines in the sand to combat Russian influence in Ukraine. It all leads to a senseless sacrifice of lives and worsening of diplomatic relations.

If we ever hope to make meaningful progress towards peaceful diplomacy and away from our current status as a misguided, militaristic police force for the world, the entire nation needs to totally rethink the way we view war and our responsibilities abroad.

This problem has arguably been going on since World War 2 ended America’s isolationist streak, but I’ll stick to a relatively recent example to illustrate my point: Iraq. There are many more recent examples to be sure, but Iraq gives us context. The situation in Iraq is nothing new, as Middle Eastern nations seem to be in a constant state of political flux, often resulting in devastating bombings and violent revolutions. The political climate in the region is, to say the least, complicated.

The government’s questionable motive for invading Iraq are well-publicized by this point, but the huge opposition against the war was still largely ignored until, as Reason notes, we finally pulled troops out in 2011 (well into Obama’s presidency, I might add, who fought to keep the troops there—this issue crosses party lines).

And what does Iraq have to show after eight years of military intervention from the world’s greatest military power? A government ruled by the Shi’ite minority prone to violent altercations against Al Qaeda-linked protestors and frequent suicide bombings, a nation no closer to peace than when we arrived.

Some may say that this is simply because we left Iraq, but the facts don’t support them there. Even when US troops were close to leaving for good in June 2011, violence was surging more than it had been for two years prior.

President Bush’s reasoning, to find weapons of mass destruction, has of course been thoroughly debunked, but his other claim, that there was a link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al Qaeda was also debunked in a Pentagon report conducted during his presidency. Now, however, Al Qaeda has more presence in Iraq than it ever did before. Ultimately, Al Qaeda’s increasing sphere of influence in the nation is due to the US-backed regime change.

There’s one other reason Iraq war apologists may point to: a desire to spread democracy. This sort of reasoning keeps with an essential problem with our attitude toward foreign conflict. The government likes to sell us a myth that we are the unquestionable good guys in any situation, and average citizens perpetuate that myth. The fact is, a desire to spread democracy isn’t what motivates government.

In fact, while there are dozens of nations at any given time undergoing regime challenges and civil violence, we only pick some to intervene in. Not because we’re the good guys, but because the government sees political or economic reason to intervene. They need incentive. For example, the Iraq war, at the risk of sounding clichéd, was about oil.

President Bush’s administration received huge campaign donations from big oil companies. At the time, oil companies were concerned about Chinese and Russian oil companies gaining access to the huge, nationalized oil reserves of Iraq. US relations with Saddam weren’t exactly friendly, so the oil companies and Bush forced a regime change. They sold the war in connection with the September 11th attacks and Al Qaeda, but the Bush administration had discussed an Iraq invasion months before then. One oil company, Halliburton, received about $71.7 billion in taxpayer money for government contracts in Iraq. These oil companies sought to corner the market and Bush sought to keep his donors happy for the sake of his career.

If our intentions were truly to spread democracy, why did we install another Shi’ite ruler to head up a nation made of mostly Sunni Muslims? Political reasons, of course—we didn’t want Iraq’s leader getting too cozy with the Iranian president, a long-time opponent of the US’s involvement in the Middle East. Democracy is about self-rule and universal rights, but we didn’t provide Iraqis with either, because it might have compromised our own political goals.

If it’s been going on so long, why do we still buy it? We’re often led to believe, even manipulated, by the federal government (and the media working in tandem) that there’s one clear path for a conflict in another nation
Usually, they’ll paint the current government as an evil entity terrorizing its citizens. So, by this logic, the opposition needs our support, when in fact it’s almost never that simple. There are so many sects within both sides that trying to micromanage a war from across the world is nearly impossible, and only results in multiple civilian deaths for every supposed enemy killed. We don’t know which side is good or bad, we take sides based on our own agenda.

This sort of policy also creates worse perceptions of the US around the world. This is called blowback and we can still see it in full swing. The greater presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq is actually a direct result of our disastrous invasion.

We’re not viewed as saviors when we send soldiers abroad (an inherent act of aggression). Instead, it allows anti-American organizations like Al Qaeda to expand their spheres of influence due to the devastation our military might cause.

Even 9/11 has widely been determined to be a result of blowback from decades of intervention in the Middle East. This isn’t just my opinion—tons of researchers and even Bush’s Defense secretary Robert Gates admit that US involvement in Afghanistan during the Cold War directly led to the attacks.
Ultimately, these wars are more than just misguided; they’re tragic wastes. The US government spent an estimated $845 billion on the Iraq war, during one of the worst economic crises in decades. Essentially, we went to war for the benefits of a select few politicians and oil companies at the expense of every average taxpayer. The biggest waste, however, was the amount of lives squandered away.

More than 4,400 US soldiers were killed throughout the Iraq war. More than 175,000 Iraqis died, the majority of them civilians. If we’re sending men to die overseas, I believe we should have a damn good reason for doing so. If we’re sending them to kill a vague enemy who are often simply civilians embroiled in political conflict, we better know why we’re killing them. And most would be hard-pressed to find a convincing reason why these men had to die.

I don’t mean to give the impression that other nations are innocent in war. Was Saddam’s regime cruel? Undoubtedly, and many might accuse me of being heartless for opposing his overthrow. “So you would’ve just let those innocent people die?” We have no reasonable way of knowing our intervention could prevent the loss of life. We have a history of picking the wrong sides, a fact nowhere more evident than in Iraq.

In 1968, the US and UK, organized a military coup in Iraq to overthrow a democratic government led by elected President Arif because of his socialist leanings (democratic process didn’t matter). Both spent millions of dollars propping up Saddam’s dictatorship through the 80s, resulting in his use of chemical warfare against his own people and the people of Iran. And we claim that we can know what’s best for this government, or that we have some right to determine who should rule other nations?

In short, we installed and supported Saddam, a mass murderer. Sure, we overthrew his regime, but not out of regret, never acknowledging our mistakes, but yet again to go against the wishes of the nation’s people to suit our own means.

And it’s likely to happen again. This isn’t a problem of the Bush years, but has been going almost constantly since our disastrous efforts in Vietnam. History has already repeated itself in many ways, whether it by Libya, Pakistan, or Syria.

I’d like to mention Syria, so this piece doesn’t get bogged down in my cynicism about foreign policy. When President Obama pushed the nation towards open military intervention in Syria, the American people finally voiced strong opposition.

Maybe it’s a healthy skepticism we’ve all acquired from the endless wars of the Bush years (we’re still in Afghanistan by the way). It’s especially comforting that the government actually took note, pulling us from the brink of another Iraq. It’s a step in the right direction, a step towards peace and a step away from more senseless loss of life.