We Own The World by Noam Chomsky has many smart bits, but this one especially struck me, and not for the reasons Chomsky mentions (though I agree with him):
NPR then had a discussion — it was like being at the Harvard faculty club — serious people, educated, no grammatical errors, who know what they’re talking about, usually polite. The discussion was about the so-called missile defense system that the U.S. is trying to place in Czechoslovakia and Poland — and the Russian reaction. The main issue was, “What is going on with the Russians? Why are they acting so hostile and irrational? Are they trying to start a new Cold War? There is something wrong with those guys. Can we calm them down and make them less paranoid?”
The main specialist they called in, I think from the Pentagon or somewhere, pointed out, accurately, that a missile defense system is essentially a first-strike weapon. That is well known by strategic analysts on all sides. If you think about it for a minute, it’s obvious why. A missile defense system is never going to stop a first strike, but it could, in principle, if it ever worked, stop a retaliatory strike. If you attack some country with a first strike, and practically wipe it out, if you have a missile defense system, and prevent them from retaliating, then you would be protected, or partially protected. If a country has a functioning missile defense system it will have more options for carrying out a first strike. Okay, obvious, and not a secret. It’s known to every strategic analyst. I can explain it to my grandchildren in two minutes and they understand it.
So on NPR it is agreed that a missile defense system is a first-strike weapon. But then comes the second part of the discussion. Well, say the pundits, the Russians should not be worried about this. For one thing because it’s not enough of a system to stop their retaliation, so therefore it’s not yet a first-strike weapon against them. Then they said it is kind of irrelevant anyway because it is directed against Iran, not against Russia.
A fundamental myth of the USA is that we’re good guys, and good guys don’t attack first. But if you look at American Involvement in Wars from Colonial Times to the Present, one thing is striking: the US almost always invades or attacks first.
The exceptions? When South Carolina tried to secede, the US refused to withdraw its troops from South Carolina’s territory, so the Confederates followed the example of the American Revolutionaries and attacked the people they saw as occupiers. And in the Pacific Theater of World War II, escalating conflict between US and Japanese expansion came to a head at Pearl Harbor.
If I lived in another country, I would be very suspicious of the US Empire. Especially if I knew that some of the wealthiest Americans dream of Manifest Destiny, I mean, the New American Century.
credit where credit’s due: Several links here are thanks to B. and Beth in the comments to the previous post.
Yeah, but the B-2 is a first strike weapon.
But if you look at American Involvement in Wars from Colonial Times to the Present, one thing is striking: the US almost always invades or attacks first.
There are 18 conflicts on the list you linked to in which the United States participated. I count:
* 8 in which the United States began the conflict, either declaring war or taking the first hostile action (American Revolutionary War, naval conflict with revolutionary France, War of 1812, American Civil War, Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Panama, Iraq)
* 3 in which the United States responded to an aggressor’s hostile action or declaration of war (Barbary Wars, Creek War, Mexican-American War)
* 7 in which the United States entered an ongoing conflict in support of an already-participating party or as part of an international peacekeeping effort (Spanish-American War, WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Bosnia)
I made a few judgment calls categorizing those; the Spanish-American war is a little ambiguous, as is the Creek War, but I put them where they best seemed to fit. Also, I counted Grenada as an invasion but the intervention in support of the Cuban revolt against Spain that started the Spanish-American War as joining an ongoing conflict - debatable, but I think it’s supportable at least for the purpose of the distinction we’re talking about here.
Anyway, this breakdown doesn’t support the idea that the US ‘almost always’ invades or attacks first.
Addendum to the previous: the numbers DO support a statement like ‘almost always, the US decides to fight, rather than being attacked’. Really, it’s that substantial number of fights which the US didn’t start, but which joined without being directly attacked, that makes the difference.
Touchstone, I’ll grant you the Barbary Wars, but not the others: Looting by US soldiers was the provocation for US involvement in the Creek War. The Mexican-American War was definitely a war of aggression; the US rationalization was based on a treaty that Mexico had never ratified.
All of the seven you cite as wars of support were wars of choice. The Spanish-American War was baldly manipulated; there was never any evidence that the Maine was attacked, and no good reason for the Maine to have intervened in the first place. Vietnam was especially egregious–the UN wanted a national election, but the US joined in opposing democracy there, and went to war to support its unpopular puppets.
I should also look for a list of all the places where the US intervened that don’t count as wars: the current list doesn’t include choosing to overthrow the governments of Iran and Guatemala in the ’50s, for example.
Hmm. Okay, I started to respond to this by laying out what the (very broad, non-scholarly) sources I’d read about those wars said about how they started, but on second thought, that’s the wrong way to go. Frankly, I don’t need to get into championing their version of the facts :) They could be wrong.
Let me ask a more philosophical question, instead. What do you believe are proper/acceptable reasons for getting into a war? I’ll assume ‘defending yourself when someone else attacks you’, but is pre-emptive attack or intervention in a conflict between third parties ever justified? When is it right to help a friendly nation who is being invaded, or to support a rebellion against a government you disapprove of?
I have enormous respect for absolute pacifists, but I’m comfortable with the idea that people should be able to defend themselves. Which means that I don’t entirely rule out pre-emption, but you look like an evil wanker if you say you know where the WMDs are and they aren’t there.
When the US helps someone else, it should be to promote or protect democracy. I’m not sure when the US gave up on that idea, but it was long before the evil things our government did in the 1950s. Thoreau saw we’d gone wrong in the march up to the Mexican-American War.