War Without End?

Third Quarter 2002

Editor's Watch

by James W. Skillen

In 1983, one year after my family and I moved to Annapolis, Maryland, we were surprised by the sights and sounds of a downtown parade. People dressed in colonial uniforms, it turned out, were reenacting the 1783 ceremony in which George Washington resigned his commission as general of the revolutionary army. The Treaty of Paris, which brought an official end to the war, was signed on this side of the Atlantic in Annapolis, which was then serving as the national capital. The newly independent Americans would not countenance a standing army.

Today, many Americans still think of themselves as an innocent, nonbelligerent people who have no desire to maintain a "standing army." We have been dragged into warfare by European and Asian conflicts and especially by the worldwide dangers once posed by Hitler and Soviet Communism. We are simply trying to defend ourselves and to help our allies.

However, almost 230 years after Washington disbanded the army, the three main branches of the United States military have forces spread so far throughout the world that a new department of homeland security is now being proposed to help us defend ourselves against terrorists. Our standing armed forces represent and are supported by military spending beyond imagination in 1783 or even in 1983. The US now amasses more military force and spends more money on defense than all of the rest of the world put together. The new republic of small-town Annapolis in 1783 has become the largest empire in history.

Tightened security at home and standing armed forces may be something that Americans can accept and adjust to. But what about unending warfare? If the United States insists on identifying the actions and threats of terrorists as the actions and threats of war, then there will be no end to American engagement in warfare. Not only will we need to maintain a "standing army"; we will be in a perpetual state of war till the end of time.

There is something wrong with this picture, but it is not something that can be corrected with a phrase or two, or by a single presidential speech or act of Congress. Nevertheless, the picture does need correction. Much of what is now required for "homeland security" is improved intelligence coordination and better cooperation among national police forces. These are not military responsibilities and should not be thought of as acts of warfare. Furthermore, much of what the president and Congress are now pouring into defense spending will do nothing to aid the fight against terrorism. Finally, the United States should be doing more to assure other countries that we would be happy to see genuine international cooperation replace our empire.

The age of George Washington is gone forever and so should the age of naive idealism about America's role in the world. Standing armed forces for purposes of defense are one thing, but talking ourselves into a state of perpetual war and the further expansion of an already overwhelming military capability in order to maintain our imperial reach is something else. The time for critical, patriotic discussion is now!