War

I’ve just finished watching an episode of Boston Legal, where James Spader is arguing that a soldier killed in Iraq shouldn’t have been there, was fraudulently kept in service and not given the correct equipment.

I don’t know how much, if any, of the story is true or based on true events. And since the phrase “based on a true story” has been rendered completely meaningless by cynical movie producers, I probably never will know.

But what I started thinking about was the reasons for going to war.

You see, I can understand why we went to war against Hitler. There was a clear threat there.
I can understand why the Korean War happened, because it was necessary to halt the spread of communism in an unstable region.

But then it gets a little hazy.

I understand (roughly) why the Vietnam war started, although I was shocked upon looking it up to discover that it ran for 16 years. Sixteen years at war.

I sort of understand the Falklands War, started because of a misunderstaning between what was said and what wasn’t said between the UK and Argentina. Basically, we decommissioned a small patrol boat guarding the island, a boat that would have lasted exactly five minutes against the Argentinian navy, but they saw this as a message that the UK would not defend the island if invaded.

But I cannot begin to explain the war in Iraq. I mean, I understand the first one. What I don’t get is:

1. Why we never finished the job, deposed Sadam and liberated the country.
2. Why we felt we had to go back and have another go at it.

The amount of money being spent there is obscene! Hundreds of billions so far. Likely to be measurable in trillions of dollars before it’s over. And why?

Yes yes yes, I know. Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Weapons that we already have, by the way. Weapons we haven’t been able to find, due to a fundamental failure of intelligence. A failure that continues to be promoted.

It’s like halfway through a game, somebody suddenly changes the rules. All of an instant, no-one’s talking about WMDs. I can almost imagine someone off stage whispering to the President or the PM: “Downplay the WMDs!!!”

This failure can be traced back to the bay of pigs incident. A small almost forgotten incident that occured (and partially led to) the Cuban missile crisis.

Basically: The CIA, with the support of the US armed forces, would support an invasion of Cuba by exiled activists. The key word there is “support.” No direct action would be taken, save for air support.

There was good intelligence that there was a lot of resentment of Castro at the time, so a small uprising could give way to civil war and depose him. The insurgents were to be dropped off where they could make their way to nearby mountains if they needed to retreat.

Well first, the landing site changed. The mountains were now too far away. Secondly, Kennedy seems to have changed his mind and cancelled the air support, which was vital for the plan to work. But worst of all, the reported feelings of hostility towards Castro in the general populace was completely untrue. The CIA’s network had been completely infiltrated by Castro’s men and they were feeding false information to the CIA.

Castro then decided that he needed insurance against a US led invasion, which precipitated the Cuban missile crisis. Missiles were installed, and we damn near had world war three.

And all because the Pentagon was too eager to believe the reports coming from Cuba without verifying them.

My question is: Have we really learnt the lessons from our past? Do we truly understand how wars start and why they are fought? And do we know how to end a war when we know we can’t win it?