An excerpt from Will It Never Stop? From Forever War to Eternal War by Karen Greenberg
“It is time,” President Biden announced in April 2021, “to end the forever war” that started with the invasion of Afghanistan soon after the tragic terror attacks on this country on September 11, 2001. Indeed, that August, amid chaos and disaster, the president did finally pull the last remaining U.S. forces out of that country.
A year and a half later, it’s worth reflecting on where the United States stands when it comes to both that forever war against terrorism and war generally. As it happens, the war on terror is anything but ended, even if it’s been overshadowed by the war in Ukraine and simmering conflicts around the globe, all too often involving the United States. In fact, it now seems as if this country is moving at breakneck speed out of the era of Forever War and into what might be thought of as the era of Eternal War.
Granted, it’s hard even to keep track of the potential powder kegs that seem all too ready to explode across the globe and are likely to involve the U.S. military in some fashion. Still, at this moment, perhaps it’s worth running through the most likely spots for future conflict.
In Ukraine, as each week passes, the United States only seems to ramp up its commitment to war with Russia, moving the slim line of proxy warfare ever closer to a head-to-head confrontation between the planet’s two great military powers. Although the plan to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia clearly remains in effect, once taboo forms of support for Ukraine have over time become more acceptable.
As of early March, the United States, one of more than 50 countries offering some form of support, had allocated aid to Ukraine on 33 separate occasions, amounting to more than $113 billion worth of humanitarian, military, and financial assistance. In the process, the Biden administration has agreed to provide increasingly lethal weaponry, including Bradley fighting vehicles, Patriot missile batteries, and Abrams tanks, while pressure for even more powerful weaponry like Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) and F-16s is only growing. As a recent Council on Foreign Relations report noted, Washington’s aid to Ukraine “far exceeds” that of any other country.
In recent weeks, the theater of tension with Russia has expanded beyond Ukraine, notably to the Arctic, where some experts see potential for direct conflict between Russia and the U.S., branding that region a “future flashpoint.” Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently raised the possibility of storing tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, perhaps more of a taunt than a meaningful gesture, but nonetheless another point of tension between the two countries.
Leaving Ukraine aside, China’s presence looms large when it comes to predictions of future war with Washington. On more than one occasion, Biden has stated publicly that the United States would intervene if China were to launch an invasion of the island of Taiwan. Tellingly, efforts to fortify the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region have ratcheted up in recent months.
In February, for example, Washington unveiled plans to strengthen its military presence in the Philippines by occupying bases in the part of that country nearest to Taiwan. All too ominously, four-star Air Force General Mike Minihan went so far as to suggest that this country might soon be at war with China. “I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me [we] will fight in 2025,” he wrote in a memo to the officers he commands in anticipation of a future Chinese move on Taiwan. He also outlined a series of aggressive tactics and weapons training maneuvers in preparation for that day. And the Marines have been outfitting three regiments for a possible future island campaign in the Pacific, while war-gaming such battles in Southern California.
….
Congress seems to be seconding the move from Forever War to Eternal War without significant opposition. In fact, when it comes to funding such a future, its members have been all too enthusiastic. As potential future war scenarios have expanded, so has the Pentagon budget which has grown astronomically over the past two years. In December, President Biden signed the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which granted the Pentagon an unprecedented $816.7 billion, 8% more than the year before (with Congress upping the White House’s suggested funding by $45 billion).
And the requests for the 2024 budget are now in. As Pentagon expert William Hartung reports, at $886 billion dollars, $69 billion more than this year’s budget, Congress is on a path to enacting “the first $1 trillion package ever,” a development he labels “madness.” “An open-ended strategy,” Hartung explains, “that seeks to develop capabilities to win a war with Russia or China, fight regional wars against Iran or North Korea, and sustain a global war on terror that includes operations in at least 85 countries is a recipe for endless conflict.”
….
Disturbingly, American calls for peace and diplomacy have tended to further embrace the ongoing war. The New York Timeseditorial board, while plugging future peace diplomacy, suggested that only continued warfare could get us to such a place: “[S]erious diplomacy has a chance only if Russia accepts that it cannot bring Ukraine to its knees. And for that to happen, the United States and its allies cannot waver in their support [of Ukraine].” More war and nothing else, the argument goes, will bring peace. The pressure to provide ever more powerful weapons to Ukraine remains constant on both sides of the aisle. As Robert Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee put it, “[T]his approach of ‘more, better, faster’ would give the Ukrainians a real shot at victory.”
Whether in Ukraine, in the brewing tensions of what’s being called a “new cold war” in Asia, or in this country’s never-ending version of the war on terror, we now live in a world where war is ever more accepted as a permanent condition. On the legal, legislative, and military fronts, it has become a mainstay for what passes as national security activity. Some of this, as many critics contend, is driven by economic incentives like lining the pockets of the giant weapons-making corporations to the tune of multibillions of dollars annually; some by what passes for ideological fervor with democracy pitched against autocracy; some by the seemingly never-ending legacy of the war on terror.
Sadly enough, all of this prioritizes killing and destruction over life and true security. In none of it do our leaders seem to be able to imagine reaching any kind of peace without yet more weapons, more violence, more conflicts, and more death.
Who even remembers when the First World War was known as “the war to end all wars”? Sadly, it seems that the era of Eternal War is now upon us. We should at least acknowledge that reality.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
I really don’t get the hawks who see war as a means to peace. War should only ever be a desperate last resort, when all other options are exhausted. Warmongers don’t understand that wars – even conventional ones – will shatter the world in ways they cannot conceive of, and that’s to say nothing of how any large war between major powers would almost inevitably go nuclear.
There is an expression – attributed to Jimi Hendrix – that warmongers and hawks would be wise to listen to: ‘When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world shall know peace’.
It does seem that the majority of US politicians crave the “glory” of war. I read an article recently regarding the drop in military recruitment rates. It seems that fewer and fewer young people are lured into becoming expendable fodder for wars created by the wealthy and powerful, and politicians are racking their brains to figure ways to lure more young bodies into the military. I guess gutting education programs, making it harder for people to earn a living wage, forcing more people to have children, and perpetuating poverty may work as a long term strategy (said by the cynical near-conspiracy theorist here who thinks that the GOP in particular wants these things, but that some Democrats are willing to go along). Eh, maybe I am just being ridiculous here….
Yes,the military by now is the largest employer in this country. And of course, the Hard Right claims that to fund this ever – growing branch of government, social benefits MUST be cut, because no way will THEY be willing to take a pay cut ! Fascism requires large armies, like Communism does. Does anyone remember the old dictatorship in Romania, where Nicolai Coucescu forbade both control and abortion because he wanted a large army ? Mao did the same thing at one point. This is why we see these real crazy laws about abortion and birth control is next. Good wages keep people out of the military,so get rid of good paying jobs. Neoliberalism. And all these politicians have their bunkers outfitted to survive such wars. There’s a double standard here. Both parties are guilty, of failing the country. The Hard Right is just more blatant. Look at Tennessee right now, Texas also. It’s sneaky at first, little changes, then it grows and accelerates. Reading ” They Thought They Were Free,” by Milton Mayer. The process for Fascism in both Germany and the U.S. is just too similar. It starts out under the radar ( Nixon).
Not long before September 11, I read something (I wish I’d saved it!) that in its 200-plus year history, the US wasn’t involved in a war or other military action in or against another country for only 15 years.
What’s even more telling, I think, is that there are only three countries in the world that haven’t experienced a US invasion or military presence: Andorra, Bhutan and Liechtenstein.
(Can you see the recruitment posters?”Be a man! Go to Bhutan!” Or “All will be fine/When you sign up/ For Liechtenstein!” How about: “Be a warrior/ In Andorra!”)
Call me a conspiracy theorist,’but I believe that this country’s addiction to military action has more to do with the pushers,
I mean stakeholders (whether they are institutions, office-holders or private citizsns) in military-related industries than actual animosity with other countries.
Then again, none of this should be surprising when this country’s national anthem is, as Kurt Vonnegut put it, violence punctuated with question marks.
Bruce, can you let us know what you think Ukraine should do?
I share your concern with America’s emphasis on war. But I see there is also a time and place for legitimate defense. Is Ukraine in a place where defense is justified?
I see no way to describe the Russian attack on Ukraine as anything other than state-sponsored terrorism. Surely nations have the right to respond to most acts of terrorism. Do we come to the point where the terrorist actor is so powerful (Russia) that one is better off just stepping back and letting them ransack the country?
So what should Ukraine do? Should they fight back? Should they seek help from America? To what extent should America help? I would love to see your comments.