Medium-Sized Wars

Historian James Stokesbury has this to say about the war in Iraq:

Any government that goes to war does so, unless it is absolutely frivolous, to make a point, and it makes that point by the expenditure, in greater or lesser degree, of treasure, military skill, and above all, lives. It is more difficult for democratic states to do this than it is for totalitarian ones... Democracies can therefore best fight two kinds of wars: little ones, which are simply fought by their professionals, without bothering the ordinary citizen; and great big ones, in which everyone can be caught up in a crusading fervor. They have very real problems trying to fight a middle-sized war, where some go and some stay home. They have even more trouble if they place a very high value on the worth of the individual, while their opponent does not.

The excerpt is from a book published in 1981, A Short History of the Korean War, but the lesson holds true today. It has bothered me from the beginning of the war on terror that the administration is at the same time attempting to mobilize the populace and trying to get us back to business as usual. Are we at war or aren't we? If the danger is truly as severe as Bush makes it sound, why aren't we converting car factories into bomb factories, and going all out to win this existential conflict? On the other hand, if the future really is bright, and the economy is looking up, and America is a safe place to invest, why are we spending all this time and money on a pointless war? Is there a real existential threat or isn't there?!

The Korean War included a year of decisive battles, and two years of peace talks accompanied by half-hearted jockeying along a largely fixed line. Consider yourself warned.