The Battle Rages On

We as a nation remain embroiled in two conflicts, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan. Despite having a commander in chief who professes to oppose war, neither conflict shows much sign of soon ending.

Each of these is different in many respects. Afghanistan, for example, was started as a direct response to Taliban protection and sponsorship of Al Qaeda, a group that had perpetrated attacks on American citizens in both this and other countries. While the initial operation was relatively swift, the engagement has been complex and extended. Afghanistan is once again earning the title "Graveyard of Empires".

Iraq, on the other hand, was started as an extension of the Afghan conflict. The initial rationale was that Saddam Hussein had pursued and developed weapons that posed a threat to the U.S. and its allies. However, as the buildup to war proceeded, the rhetoric changed. Not only were Americans to disarm both a direct threat and a potential arms dealer to sundry terrorist outfits, we were to both liberate and bring democracy to an oppressed people in the process. It is on these latter points that the argument broke down.

The United States has had a long, if sometimes reluctant history of being the world's police. We have involved ourselves in many humanitarian, political and military actions targeting injustice. However, in the case of Iraq, we took this several steps forward. The rationale was that bringing democracy to Iraq meant stability for that part of the world. While such an assertion might be correct, it was not the responsibility or right of the U.S. to attempt such a thing. The action, absent any legitimate threat of weapons stockpiles or development, was illegitimate at best despite its moral claim.

Yet we remain in each of these conflicts. I would assert that the reason for this is no different than the reason for starting them in the first place. After 9/11, America had an obvious enemy against which our leaders could rally the masses. The wars themselves then became extensions of that enemy, regardless how far removed from the initial attacks they are. In a way, they represent East Asia or, alternatively, Eurasia. These are part and parcel of the machinations of global power where a common enemy maintains centralized power. While Bush had the heat of fresh attack to spark the conflicts and was forced to deal with waning political support in the media, Obama has the luxury of maintaining each of these conflicts, with the support of the media, until they serve a political purpose. It's time we removed the potential for any president to again claim moral high ground simply because he or she has instigated or perpetuated aggression.