In Part one of "Blood and Treasure" I found it necessary to address the need for government oversite in military operations, the need for the congress to listen to military command, and the general strategy of the Afghan theater. As some members of congress, including both Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud of Maine, have voted to defund the troops as a cost saving measure, part two will deal with the actual cost of warfare, not just in monies, but in lives.
The removal of material resources to the military in a time of war most assuredly can and will save money. Warfare by its very nature is costly and no nation can take up arms and expect their treasuries not to become leaner. The vast and seemingly endless need for foodstuffs, fuel, ammunition, clothing, shelter, and transport are immense but necessary expenditures in any contest of arms, especially in modern times. One cannot deny that the cost to the American taxpayer for our current involvement in hostilities has been huge. And if we were to look at warfare from simply a dollars and cents point of view one could easily be persuaded to follow the call of those Representatives who wish for us to stop funding the operation.
However, the subject is more complex than a mere accounting tally sheet. Though money plays a very important role in the conduct of operations, it is NOT the only and most important factor.
For; ultimately warfare in all its forms and guises is about the use of force, which culminates in the letting of blood and also death. There are always casualties in war, both belligerent and civilian. This is an inevitable fact associated with the violent nature of the task. Therein lays the true cost of violence, the price we pay in blood and lives.
One cannot honestly calculate the cost of hostilities by focusing on just treasure or blood. Both factors must be assessed fully for they are intertwined and each has a definite bearing on the other. I believe that it is this most important of facts which has escaped our legislator’s attention as they call out to deny the troops the necessary equipment and means to do their job. This vote by Congress can only be viewed in two ways:
First it is Reckless, as it will endanger the lives of our soldiery thus increasing the cost in blood. Over the centuries governments have learned that it is in their best interest to supply the soldiery with the proper equipment and materials to achieve victory. This cost in monies oft times is offset by not paying in lives lost. A well equipped and fed soldier has a better chance of surviving than he in tatters with antiquated weaponry.
We can assume this recklessness is based in ignorance of this correlation.
Second it is Disingenuous, as many representatives are merely posturing to seek votes from the anti-war crowd and so propose to pay for those votes with the blood of our troops. Those representatives who are posturing thusly are not only very dangerous fellows in their own right, they are also foolish to the point of folly. As they vote to defund many think “it won’t pass but I will have made a statement as to the conduct of war.” Perhaps, yet what if so many of our officials took the same thought and acted upon it? This would cause the proposal to be passed inadvertently would it not? Thereby placing soldiers in an even more dangerous state than they are subject to now.
Pericles the Athenian once said “ And everyone supposeth that his own neglect of the common estate can do little hurt and that it will be the care of somebody else to look to that for his own good, not observing how by these thoughts of everyone, in several, the common business is jointly ruined.”
The danger inherent in the House members voting to defund as a protest of sorts, is summed up quite nicely by that ancient sage.
The Government and the Commander in Chief have ordered the military into battle. They have dictated that our sons and daughters will go to foreign shores and fight the enemies of this land to destroy and demoralize the foe in his home rather than in ours. Many of those brave troopers ordered such will die; many survivors will witness the horrors of the battlefield first hand and need to live with its terrible images for the rest of their lives. They will let their blood out upon the dusty ground, thousands of miles from home, in acts of selflessness that can only be described as heroic.
Why? Because they have been ordered to do so.
How then can the very same Government who put these men and women in harm’s way deny them the material support to fight effectively? What manner of a man would even conceive of such a plan which denies troops in combat, armor, medicine, and ammunition? Such a proposal is so morally bankrupt one must consider whether or not those who support it are mentally healthy.
Carl von Clausewitz wrote “war is but an extension of politics by other means”
This being true then Congress needs to decide if the conflict in Afghanistan is of political value to the nation and act accordingly. They must assess the cost in blood and treasure; they must look to the future and ask what the consequences of their actions will be both good and bad. If the Legislature concludes that the eastern theater is not of value to the United States then it is their duty to call for a cessation of hostilities.
Have they done this? No they have not! Instead they propose to simply stop funding the war. Though expedient this course of action is in no uncertain terms, nothing more than negligent homicide. This if I am not mistaken is a crime in most states, for good reason I might add. To play at politics with the lives of human beings is an act unworthy of any man or woman, but especially so for those who are supposed to be “the best and brightest” of our society.
Let me conclude with this: “in all the confusion of politics we must not allow ourselves to lose sight of one simple truth “That in war lives are at stake, and that it will be families home and abroad who will pay a greater price in blood than can ever be weighed out in treasure.”
Allen R Butler
Gray, Maine
No comments:
Post a Comment