Whose Wars of Necessity--the Dead and Maimed Civilians?

Recently President Obama echoed a phrase used by President Bush that described our war in Afghanistan as "A War of Necessity". Just what makes the war in Afghanistan "A War of Necessity"? Was the Korean War "A War of Necessity"? Was the Vietnam War and our invasions of Panama and Hatti? One can certainly argue that WWII was indeed "A War of Necessity". but all the others listed above were and are trumped up as "Wars of Necessity". All wars produce civilian casualties. Innocent men, women and children are maimed and killed and they are not described as innocent civilians but instead governments and media refer to dead and maimed civilians as "collateral damage". By using such an innocuous term we avoid the realty that the collateral damage consists of mothers, children, sons, daughters, husbands, brothers, uncles, aunts, grandparents, parents all of whom were killed and maimed during wars of necessity. Whose necessity?

All wars are wars of choice, none truly are of necessity. WWII was Hitler's war of necessity and the world fought back to destroy the Nazi war machine that was attempting to control all nations of the world. The world made the choice to fight Hitler and did so.

Our recent wars are all wars of choice made by our leaders for reasons that generally were falsely claimed, and for which we responded in knee-jerk fashion to an event that was labeled as provocative enough to justify attacking the offender. Deliberation and thoughtful analysis was lacking as the momentary anger took over and compelled our leaders and Congress to strike back and get retribution whether it be justified and effective or not.

The two wars that we are presently embroiled in are the latter type,i.e., knee-jerk reactions to specific acts that incited our Congress and elected Federal leaders, and the majority of our people. We attacked Afghanistan because 21 terrorists, 16 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, used a cowardly action that hi-jacked civilian aircraft with civilian passengers and crashed them into civilian and government buildings also occupied mainly by civilians. Nearly 3,000 civilians were killed and hundreds more maimed. This horrible act of terrorism was not an act of war by Afghanistan, yet we attacked that nation along with our NATO allies to rid the country of Al Qaeda terrorists and their collaborators who were in that country in clandestine training camps. The people of Afghanistan did not attack us. Terrorists mostly from other countries did so. Yet, we and NATO forces attacked and have been fighting and killing terrorists and civilians in Afghanistan for 8 years and counting.

The war in Iraq was an act of blatant militancy against a nation whose leader, Saddam Hussein, we considered as evil as he indeed was. Just a few years earlier, before the recent war we considered Saddam as a friend or at least a useful pawn against Iran and supplied Iraq with weapons and aid.

These two wars in the mid-east have resulted in the devastation of both countries and the slaughter of many tens of thousands of innocent civilians as well as over 5 thousand American and NATO military personnel deaths. The deaths and maimed civilians and military personnel far outnumber the number of civilians killed by the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in 2001 in our country. The war in Iraq was based on deliberate lies. The dead and maimed in both wars far exceeds the number of dead civilians killed and maimed on 9/11. What has the retribution accomplished aside from causing needless military and civilian deaths, despair, and destruction in two nations that will suffer for years to come, and that are now dependent upon us and others for their own economic viability and protection against internal upheavals.

Perhaps, before we justify another war as "A War of Necessity", we, the USA will ask ourselves "why" before we react with a rush to war and the needless killing of innocent civilians and military personnel who are ordered into deadly combat by leaders who proclaim that we must fight the next "War of Necessity". Ask the souls of the dead children, men, and women who were innocent victims in past "Wars of Necessity" first. Ask their beloved survivors. What will they say?

Los Angeles--Ahead to the Past

Los Angeles is a perculating sea of change and has been for over 150 years. Having lived in LA from the early 1930's to the early 1960's I witnessed many of these changes and most were detrimental, or so it seemed to me. But sometimes changes are actually beneficial to the people and environment. One that Mayor Villaraigosa just announced is particularly noteworthy. The Mayor of our country's most populous city in our largest state announced that the city was to embark on the construction of electric car infrastructure that eventually would make electrical charging of electric vehicles the standard. This is a step that can help clean the badly polluted air in the region and eliminate some dependency upon oil for transportation. Totally electric cars are not common now , but many manufacturers are developing their versions and various types are expected to be available in the forthcoming years.

These changes are very welcome and ultimately they will occur throughout our country when the price of electric battery-powered cars and vehicles becomes affordable to most people. There was a time in LA when electric powered street cars and buses provided effective and affordable public transportation. From childhood to adulthood I used such transportation to travel long distance for work and recreational purposes. The electric mode of bus and streetcar transportation in LA was, however, aborted by corporate and political powers in the 1950's when the electric street cars and buses were eliminated and the lines were converted to roadways for gasoline-powered cars. This was accomplished when the then Mayor of LA (affectionately known as "cabbage head Poulson, for reasons that are self-deduced) was influenced by the auto manufacturers who were salivating to create a huge market for their internal combustion cars. All electric transportation soon disappeared from the public streets of greater Los Angeles. Traffic gridlock and horrendous air pollution was the ultimate result.

Now LA under the leadership of another mayor is about to take a U-turn and return to electric powered vehicles. Unfortunately, this U-turn will only lead to limited public benefit since the gridlock will continue since electric lines dedicated to public transportation alone will be difficult to reconstruct. Nonetheless,perhaps a century from now LA may be a place where the air is cleaner and and the lands less contaminated by petroleum products. This assumes that centralized power generation is relatively pollution free by then as it should and must.

Los Angeles should be awarded an A for effort if the mayor's plan really takes hold. Perhaps the city's U-turn to the past will help create a better future. If other metropolitan areas replicate the LA plan successfully we will all benefit wherever we live in the USA. Go LA!