There was a time when the parents of America 's children were the
generation of the Second World War; the people that had every reason to be
optimistic. They cared deeply about the lives of their children as they looked
at a triumphant America
that was second to none in every field of endeavor. Also, looking at the
technological innovations that were coming on stream, they saw a future for
their children that will be brighter than their own, and brighter than anything
the world had seen before.
That was also the time when America
had a draft; and those children were being sent to fight a war in a far away
land called Vietnam .
It was a war that the parents did not mind at first because they thought that
mighty America
will do quick work finishing off the Communist hordes, and come home in no time
at all to celebrate yet another victory with a ticker tape parade. Such parades
were a habit that came to symbolize the best way to celebrate the superiority
of Capitalism over the other forms of governance, especially central planning.
But the work in Vietnam
was not quick as the war dragged on; compelling America to do something it never
thought it would do: mission creep. That is, more and more troops were sent to
fight a war that never seemed to end. And this was the point at which the
children of America ,
their parents and the whole nation were ready to say that enough was enough,
end the war and bring the troops home.
That's also what prompted the media to get interested in the
war, what nudged the big publications to start telling the true story of places
like “hamburger hill” where American soldiers were cut by enemy bullets, and
made to look like ground meat. That was the time when the dream of a bright
future for the children of America
was turning into a nightmare … and so, the calls to get out of Vietnam started
to grow louder.
Ever since that time, the most effective argument to
dissuade the top brass in America from sending the nation into another war, has
been the one pertaining to the possibility that a mission creep will become
necessary, and that it will cost American lives. The people thought that such
cost would be a high price to pay in return for fictitious gains that could not
be realized. But even if they could, the argument went; it would mean nothing
to the people of America
who have problems of their own crying out for attention.
And this is how a host of other brand new arguments aimed at
dissuading America 's
top brass from sending the nation into yet another war began to grow roots and
take shape. You can see them being formulated tentatively in the piece that was
written by the editors of the New York Times under the title: “Stumbling Into a
Wider War,” published on May 3, 2015.
Putting down the backgrounder for the discussion, the
editors of the Times warn that “some regional members of the coalition are now
pressing the administration to carry the fight to other groups...” And so, they
urge the top brass that “it is essential that further expansion of the
[military] campaign be debated rigorously and openly by Washington and its
coalition partners [who] would make a serious mistake if [they] treated all
groups as the same kind of threat.”
And then, instead of the old simplistic view that mighty
America will do quick work finishing off the hordes out there, and come home to
celebrate the victory with a ticker tape parade, the editors now recognize that
“the problem is far more complicated than just going after ISIS and its
affiliates … [which] makes finding a coherent and effective strategy – or more
likely strategies – much harder.”
At last, what was not clear to America yesterday has now become
“manifestly clear” to the editors of the New York Times who see that “the main
responsibility for ending ... wars lies with countries in the region.” They are
still weary, however, because they don't trust the top brass of the nation. And
so they recommend: “the fact that it [the war] is under discussion should
interest a public [that has] grown tired of war.”
They go on to say they are heartened by the fact that “Mr.
Obama has sought to limit the American role in the fight by ruling out ground
troops” but they are dismayed that: “he has increased troop levels in Iraq and expanded air strikes into Syria .” To
them, this appears like “an open-ended mandate to wage war.”