Polls showed a large percentage of us in this country supporting the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and even — though
somewhat reduced — the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But not long after, and ever since, a majority of us have said those
were mistakes.
We’ve opposed attacking Iran whenever that idea has entered the news. We opposed bombing Libya in 2011 and were ignored,
as was Congress. And, by the way, advocates of that happy little war are rather quiet about the chaos it created.
But last September, the word on our televisions was that missiles must be sent to strike Syria. President Barack Obama
and the leaders of both big political parties said they favored it. Wall Street believed it would happen, judging by
Raytheon’s stock. When U.S. intelligence agencies declined to make the president’s case, he released a “government”
assessment without them.
Remarkably, we didn’t accept that choice. A majority of us favored humanitarian aid, but no missiles, and no arming of
one side in the war. We had the benefit of many people within the government and the military agreeing with us. And when
Congress was pressured to demand approval power, Obama granted it.
It helped more that members of Congress were in their districts with people getting in their faces. It was with Congress
indicating its refusal to support a war that Obama and Kerry accepted the pre-existing Russian offer to negotiate. In
fact, the day before they made that decision, the State Department had stressed that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
would never ever give up his chemical weapons, and Kerry’s remarks on that solution had been “rhetorical.”
The war in Syria goes on. Washington sent guns, but refrained from air strikes. Major humanitarian aid would cost far
less than missiles and guns, but hasn’t materialized. The children we were supposed to care about enough to bomb their
country are still suffering, and most of us still care.
But a U.S. war was prevented.
We’re seeing the same thing play out in Washington right now on the question of whether to impose yet more sanctions on
Iran, shred a negotiated agreement with Iran, and commit the United States to joining in any war between Israel and
Iran.
In January, a bill to do all of that looked likely to pass through the Senate. Public pressure has been one factor in,
thus far, slowing it down.
Are we moving away from war?
The ongoing war in Afghanistan, and White House efforts to extend it beyond this year, might suggest otherwise. The
military budget that still eats up, across various departments, roughly half of federal discretionary spending, and
which is roughly the size of all other countries’ military spending combined, might suggest otherwise. The failure to
repeal the authorizations for war from 2001 and 2003, and the establishment of permanent practices of surveillance and
detention and secrecy justified by a permanent state of war, might suggest otherwise. As might the ongoing missile
strikes from drones over a number of nations.
But you’ll notice that they don’t ask us before launching drone strikes, and that their assurances that no innocent
people are harmed have proven highly misleading.
War may be becoming acceptable only as what its advocates have long claimed it was: a last resort. Of course if we can
really make that true, we’ll never have a war again.
ENDS