Antiwar Demagogues Distort History and Ignore Logic by Mischaracterizing Our Current War Effort

In their attempt to subvert our Iraq war effort and malign those who support it, antiwar demagogues repeatedly disparage it as a "war of choice," as opposed to the illusory "war of necessity." 

This is a false and pernicious dichotomy, one that misstates history and ignores logic. 

Unsurprisingly, proponents of this false dichotomy typically cite World War II as the archetypical "war of necessity," but even that is fallacious.  Even in 1941, other alternatives to war existed, notwithstanding the fact that those alternatives would have been cowardly, self-destructive and simply wrong.  Recognizing this fact in no way disrespects the valiant sacrifices of our country's "Greatest Generation," or the military and political leaders who directed our war effort.  Rather, it merely objectively recognizes that even this crucial effort was one that America chose to undertake, and righteously so. 

A prototypical example of this false dichotomy was offered by Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations.  In his article entitled "Wars of Choice," Mr. Haass alleges that our battle in Iraq is one "about control," and one on behalf of "imperial concerns, which is another way of saying on behalf of lesser interests and preferences." 

Mr. Haass proceeds to recite the common thesis in this camp, arguing that Iraq "at its core was a war of choice.  We did not have to go to war against Iraq, certainly not when we did.  There were other options:  try to rely on other policy tools, to delay attacking, or both." 

Mr. Haass obviously ignores the fact that years of reliance on such "other tools" and "delay" toward Saddam Hussein proved futile, but nevertheless arrives at the core of his argument, saying, "Iraq was thus fundamentally different from World War II or Korea or even the Persian Gulf War, all of which qualify as wars of necessity" because "no other option other than military force exists." 

Politicians from John Kerry to Madeleine Albright to Barack Obama to John Edwards, many of whom supported the war when it was politically-convenient, level the same slur. 

But this is simply historically inaccurate. 

America could have avoided confrontation with Japan by refusing to challenge its aggression across East Asia and the Pacific.  Had we simply turned a blind eye toward their imperialism at the time, instead of punishing them by imposing an embargo upon strategic materials, Japan would have not attacked Pearl Harbor and provoked a war that led to their utter destruction. 

Similarly, America could have avoided confrontation with Nazi Germany by washing our hands of Hitler's European campaign, as many isolationists in fact advocated at the time.  Had this nation turned a blind eye toward Britain's courageous battle against Nazi aggression, and refused to provide Churchill with substantial wartime support, the war could have remained a "European matter."  Indeed, Britain herself made the brave choice to stand alone against Hitler, who repeatedly stated that his aim was conquest of the Soviet breadbasket to the east, not England or France to the west. 

The world was obviously better because we ultimately crushed the Axis threat, but this does not diminish the fact that our campaign was based upon a courageous choice that could have been evaded, albeit to the detriment of the country's reputation and world leadership. 

The same is true of the other wars in American history.  We made the choice to defend South Vietnam and South Korea against Communist invasion.  We made the choice to confront imperial Germany in World War I.  We made the choice to battle Spain and Mexico in the 19^th Century, and even the Union could have avoided the Civil War by choosing to allow Southern cessation.  Indeed, even the Revolutionary War could have been avoided by accommodating English abuses or postponing independence into the distant future, as nations such as Canada and Australia did. 

Our current war is no different.  America could have chosen to tolerate endless additional years of Saddam Hussein attacking neighboring countries, using chemical weapons against other nations and his own citizens, refusing to allow unfettered inspections of his chemical and nuclear facilities (as required by the terms of his 1991 surrender), funding international terrorists, butchering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, harboring terrorists, attacking American Air Force jets and attempting to assassinate former U.S. Presidents. 

Instead, America recognized that Saddam Hussein had finally forfeited his right to govern Iraq any longer, and that our post-9/11 risk calculus no longer allowed him to continue his menace. 

President Bush and some supporters of our campaign in Iraq unfortunately provide ammunition to anti-war activists by occasionally employing the phrase "war of necessity" themselves.  But at least their purpose in doing so is to exhort vigilance against the terrorist menace that continues to target America. 

Regardless, it does a disservice to our fighting men and women, and the millions of Americans who have sacrificed in our war effort, to disparage this as a mere "war of choice" in contrast to other mislabeled "wars of necessity."  America continues to make the choice to fight tyranny, no matter the century or region of the world. 

And the world is a better, safer place because of that choice.