No More Wars on the Cheap: When and How To Fight

Veterans of the faculty lounge wars in our nation's elite universities seem to have no problem with sending other lesser individuals into combat . . . to wage wars for purposes that enable members of our (combat experience exempt) ruling class to feel noble and good about themselves.

Our militarily inexperienced chalk stick tossing academicians appear to be not the least bit troubled by ignoring the provisions embodied in the Constitution that were intended to ensure that going to war and the ramifications of doing so would be broadly and carefully examined, debated, and considered before the onset of hostilities.

When then should the nation go to war?

Unless we are responding to an actual attack or an imminent threat, I suggest that, as a minimum, there must be:

*  A vital national interest or the security of America and/or Americans at stake,

*  A clearly defined and achievable military mission,

*  Overwhelming and sustainable support by the nation's citizens, and

*  A clear understanding of what will constitute success enabling our forces to stand down.

These criteria are not easily met. That is why the nation's founders made Congress rather than the president responsible for declaring war.  Sending troops into harms way with anything less is recklessly shooting craps with their lives and well being.

After Congress has acted, the president, as commander in chief, is responsible for implementing the decision and deciding how to do so. Once committed to, and engaged in a war, it behooves the commander in chief and the country to do anything and everything necessary to bring the hostilities to a successful conclusion by achieving absolute and complete victory as efficiently and expeditiously as possible. Anything less holds cheap the lives and well being of our troops.

The above thoughts recall a debate in which I years ago found myself with an academician who -- with the Olympian detachment that characterizes our current administration -- argued that it was immoral for President Truman and the U.S. to have ended World War II by using atomic weapons against Japan. He argued that the estimated combat losses that continuation of the war by conventional means would have entailed had been exaggerated. I at the time thought (and still believe) that this was incorrect but I also maintained that it was irrelevant. I  argued and still believe -- though it enraged my professor friend -- that dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified and worthwhile if doing so saved the life of even a single American serviceman. 

Insofar as war is concerned, the president and commander in chief is responsible and accountable for the national interests and the military men and women of the United States; all other considerations are irrelevant.