RSS 2.0 FeedThoughts On November 11th
by Doug MataconisAs we mark Veterans Day here in the United States, it is worth remembering that, for the rest of the Western world, today marks the end of what may very well be the most pointless war in human history
The war in which millions of educated and working class men sacrificed their lives to fight over the remnants of a Europe that was still ruled by Hohenzollern’s, Hapsburg’s and Romanov’s —Middle Age Europe’s inbred contribution to insanity.
And what were they fighting over ? The same stupid battles that Europeans were fighting 100 years previously when Napoleon raged across the Russian frontier. Only this time, they were doing it with tanks, planes, and mustard gas.
It was massacre writ large and insanity on display for four long years — and it all started when some guy got shot in Sarajevo.
And yet, somehow, the boys of America ended up in the middle of this mess that the Royalists and Europeans has created. Rationally, there was no reason we should’ve been there and yet we were led by a man convinced that he could remake the world in America’s democratic image.
Sound familiar ?
That didn’t work out so well back then, as people unlucky enough to live in Europe in the 1930s and 40s can attest. Not to mention the men who the United States sent back to Europe in 1941.
So as we remember Veterans today, and thank them for their service, perhaps it’s time to think about how we can stop creating so many gardens of stone in so many corners of the world in the name of misplaced idealism.
Hear, hear!
Comment by tarran — November 11, 2007 @ 3:42 pmWhile my sympathies are with your sentiments, you two do realize that the time period we live is the most peaceful period in all of history? And that can be demonstrated by evidence that includes the total number of wars being fought right now, the percentage of the world’s population engaged in armed conflict and the percentage of the world’s population dying due to armed conflict.
That is not to suggest that I don’t approve of your sentiments, I do. But the comparison to WWI is poor, at best. As is the comparison between Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush. I think Bush is a very poor president, to say the least. But that doesn’t make him particularly comparable to Wilson, except that they were both fairly awful presidents, overall.
Comment by Eric — November 11, 2007 @ 4:00 pmYeah, the peace you speak of reminds me of Pax Romana.
The legions of Rome are off in the distant edges engaging in small skirmishes with any group that might threaten the cities and the peace of the Empire. Meanwhile the stupid plebs back home are sedated by the gory games at the Colosseum and reap the benefits from the spoils the army manages to loot and pillage. All of this is finance by a dinarius that went from 99% pure gold at the height of the Republic to less than 0.1% when the Empire finally fell apart some 500 years later.
Comment by TanGeng — November 11, 2007 @ 5:11 pmEric,
The only comparison to World War I mean to make is to the idea that American foreign policy should be guided by some zeal to remake the world — which, essentially, is what Wilson used to justify entry into the war back in 1917/
In that respect, I think, the neocon response to 9/11 — that America needs to remake the political structure of the Middle East — is similar to the logic that propelled us into the Great War.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 11, 2007 @ 5:16 pmDoug,
It sort of feels like Rome invading Gaul so that Romans could bring civilization to those “barbaric” Gauls. Today, we’re not even sure that the Gauls were as barbaric as the Romans claimed they were, but there was a humanitarian justification for invading France and killing the resistance, enslaving the unruly, and raping the women.
Errrr… At least I think it was a humanitarian justification.
Comment by TanGeng — November 11, 2007 @ 5:29 pmNow, bear in mind that I am not a neo-conservative, nor do I support their foreign policy.
TanGeng and Doug, you are both incorrect about NeoCon foreign policy. And it is not comparable to Wilson’s reasons for entering WWI, which were idealistic and altruistic (and untenable as well). NeoCon foreign policy says that we remake things to be more liberal, democratic and capitalist because it makes the USA safer. That is not the same as fighting a war to spread democracy for the sake of democracy, which is what Wilson advocated.
By the way, we are applying the term NeoCon wildly incorrectly, in any case. NeoCons are people who used to be leftist democrats and switched sides, so to speak. Strictly speaking, W can’t be a NeoCon because of that. Reagan, on the other hand, was.
Comment by Eric — November 11, 2007 @ 6:47 pmWell said Doug, excellent post.
Comment by David M — November 11, 2007 @ 8:45 pm