I have found it somewhat strange that not much more has been made about the tenth anniversary of the Gulf War. Most major media news organizations are not shy in trumpeting some significant date in American conflicts that have occurred in at least the past half-century. Not to be a party pooper, but since there has been a void in reminiscing about the Gulf War, I'll take this opportunity to fill that void with the misgivings I have about it and war in general.

It was ten years ago on Feb. 14 that myself and a hundred or so other souls were officially assigned to a unit to prepare for the on-going Gulf War. All of us at one-time had served in the Army either on active duty or in the reserves. By the Pentagon recalling us from inactive status meant plans were being made for a long-term commitment in the Middle East.

I, like most of my buddies, were eager to get over to the Gulf and get this thing over with. As a soldier and ROTC cadet, naturally, I vociferously advocated American involvement in this affair from the time Iraqi troops took over Kuwait until the cease-fire was signed.

I believed as many others did that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler and needed to be dealt with promptly and firmly before being able to accomplish but a fraction of what Der Furher did. Here was my opportunity to do something about it and be a part of history by fighting in a real, live shooting-war.

Perhaps one of the acts that turned me toward an anti-war attitude was the West Virginia Legislature appropriating a $300 tax-free stipend to all West Virginia Gulf War vets. Having spent the duration of the war at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, where the only injury I received was bloodshot eyes from watching too much CNN, I returned home with plenty of money in my pocket I had no complaints about the compensation I received for my time served (receiving"free" clothing, meals, housing and transportation while being paid on an active-duty scale and returning home with my mind and body in tact was quite a bargain in my opinion). Even then, I thought this "gift" from our Legislature was excessive and nothing but a ploy for returning soldiers to help pump-prime the local economy and remember those who bestowed us this money in the 1992 election. Needless to say, I refused to stake my claim.

Since then, I have come full-circle in my beliefs about when a war should be conducted – never. I agree wholeheartedly with the late Saturday Evening Post editorial writer Randolph Bourne who said "War is the health of the State." Having actually been a witness to and participant in the futility of at least one war, I have much more respect for those who refuse to be pawns in this game of human chess (I should qualify that by saying I respect those who are honest conscientious objectors and not those who need to pontificate about their potential “political viability” in a 23-page letter). By contrast, I harbor not resentment to veterans of any conflict and those still in uniform as I, myself, am both. However, the resentment I have is for the "policy makers" who have lead us into the various and sundry actions in which the US has participated.

There hasn't been a military action in certainly the last 100 years and I dare say dating as far back as the War of 1812 in which American soldiers have fought to "keep us free from tyranny." Veterans of wars since then should be remembered not for the sacrifice they made in "fighting for freedom," but for having their lives disrupted by the insatiable appetite for the warfare/welfare state. While history is replete of great and lesser-known men and women who have been made by war, one can only speculate how much better the United States and the world would be if their endeavors had been put to peaceful use.

I should note that even though I consider wars (or at least military actions that are non-defensive) as unnecessary, it should not be said that I embrace the actions of strongmen like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic The acts of these men and others like them at terrorizing their own people are well-documented and without question despicable. However, by the United States attempting to bully the bullies creates resentment toward us and empowers the person we're trying to oust. Saddam can certainly make the case that the real “war criminal” is George Bush I, who’s initiation of the Gulf War has lead to tens of thousands of Iraqis being stricken with waterborne diseases in the ensuing 10 years from damage inflicted to Iraq’s civilian infrastructure from Allied bombing. It should come as no surprise as to why the world has become such a "dangerous place" is because of American involvement in the internal politics of other nations. The seeds of Wilsonian nation-building have borne their fruit in our military actions against Iraq and Serbia.

A world in which all the nations embraced the principles of self-government would be enough to make Louis Armstrong proud. However, it is not nations that embrace principles, it is people and nations are nothing more than the sum total of its people. A nation in which people are free to conduct themselves in a manner which brings no harm to their fellow countrymen is certainly more of an enticement for people in other nations to bring changes in their homeland rather than at the point of a gun.

As the new millennium is still in its infancy, Americans have a choice of continuing to support a posture of playing 9-1-1 for the world. By doing so, we will continue to confirm Plato's fatalistic maxim of "only the dead see[ing] the end of war." On the other hand, we can choose to follow George Washington's advice in his farewell address by "extending our commercial relations [with other nations] to have as little political relations [with them] as possible." Following this sage advice no doubt has its roots in the words spoken by a wise man many years before Washington who said "they shall beat their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

February 12, 2001

Lawrence J. Smith is a columnist with The Lincoln Journal in Hamlin, W. Va.