Category Archives: Op-Eds

Iraq: America’s Other “Longest War”

US Stryker vehicle hit by a deeply buried improvised explosive device while conducting operations just south of the Shiek Hamed village in Iraq., 2007. Public domain.
US Stryker vehicle hit by a deeply buried improvised explosive device while conducting operations just south of the Shiek Hamed village in Iraq., 2007. Public domain.
As the calendar prepared to flip from 2019 to 2020, protesters stormed the US embassy in Baghdad.  As I write this, the action — a response to US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria which killed at least 25 and wounded more than 50 — hasn’t yet become a reprise of the Iran hostage crisis of 40 years ago, but it’s eerily reminiscent.

Although few Americans seem to notice, Iraq is arguably the second-longest war in US history.

Mainstream media often refer to the 18-year US occupation of Afghanistan as “America’s longest war.” That claim is wrong on its face.

Setting aside a century of “Indian wars” and two decades of involvement in Vietnam prior to the 1965 escalation, the Korean War handily takes the “longest war” prize:  It began in 1950 and has merely been in ceasefire status, with occasional flare-ups and no final settlement, since 1953. If wars were people, the Korean War would be collecting Social Security.

The US war in Iraq is approaching its 28th birthday, also with no end in sight.

It began in January of 1991 with Operation Desert Storm (“the liberation of Kuwait” from Iraqi occupation). The 12 years between that “mother of all battles” and the 2003 US invasion were punctuated by US bombings to facilitate a Kurdish secession movement in the north,  protect persecuted Shiites in the south, and provide convenient distractions from assorted Clinton administration peccadilloes.

Following the short, sharp conventional fighting phase of the invasion, the war remained a very hot conflict — a combination of civil war and anti-occupation insurgency — for years following US president George W. Bush’s “mission accomplished” announcement in May of 2003.

A brief cooling period accompanied Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, but by 2014 American troops (and “civilian contractors,” i.e mercenaries) were once again arriving to intervene in the new regime’s fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The airstrikes which sparked the current protests were carried out in response to a rocket attack on a regime military base in which one of the aforementioned American mercenaries was killed.

The bigger picture:

The US government is using Iraq as a staging area for its ongoing actions in Syria and against Iran (which it blames for this specific rocket attack and for its backing of militias in Iraq in general).

US president Donald Trump talks a good “let’s get out of all these stupid wars” game. But in actuality he has increased, and continues to increase, the size of US military deployments to, and the tempo of US military operations in, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Several thousand US troops remain in Iraq and the war looks likely to stretch into a fourth decade.

There is, of course, an alternative: Trump could put his money where his mouth is and begin withdrawing US troops from the region instead of continuing to pour American blood and treasure into a series of conflicts which should never have happened in the first place.

Peace on Earth? Maybe not. But the US going home and minding its own business would be a good start.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

The Christmas Truce of 1914: Proof that Peace is Possible

British and German Soldiers Arm-in-Arm Exchanging Headgear: A Christmas Truce between Opposing Trenches, The Illustrated London News, January 9, 1915. Illustration by A.C. Michael. Public Domain
British and German Soldiers Arm-in-Arm Exchanging Headgear: A Christmas Truce between Opposing Trenches, The Illustrated London News, January 9, 1915. Illustration by A.C. Michael. Public Domain.

As 1914 drew to a close, Europe had been at war for months. On the Western Front, opposing armies faced each other across a stalemated front line running from the North Sea to the Swiss border.  On December 24, 100,000 soldiers from both sides of that line decided to create some peace on Earth.

They decorated their trenches with holiday spirit. They sang carols to each other across “No Man’s Land,” then walked into the space between their trenches, met, smoked and drank together, and exchanged what gifts they could round up. Chaplains conducted Christmas services for all comers. Impromptu football matches were played between shell craters (Germany’s Battalion 371 beat the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, 2 to 1).

A similar truce occurred on the Eastern Front between Austro-Hungarian and Russian troops.

The “Christmas truce” didn’t end “the war to end all wars.” It dragged on for nearly four more years,  at a cost of more than 20 million lives.

But for a brief moment peace reigned, proof that the already hardening hearts of opposing armies could at least temporarily melt and that soldiers could treat each other as human beings rather than as mortal enemies.

Not all of them, certainly. A young Austrian soldier is apocryphally said to have sniffed that “such a thing should not happen in wartime.”

The high commands on both sides suppressed press coverage of the “Christmas truce,” and resolved to prevent it from happening again. In 1915, artillery barrages and raids were pre-planned for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to prevent peace breaking out a second time.

More than a century later, does the “Christmas truce” offer any lessons we can take to heart, or hold out the prospect of similar pauses in the wars that have consumed the US, the Middle East, and Central Asia since 1991?

One obvious argument against such prospects is that the current wars tend to pit people of very different religious views against each other. The west has become far less Christian and far more secular over the last century.

On the other hand, Jesus does hold a high place — just not the highest — in Muslim esteem. And Muslim combatants have been known to observe truces for their own high holidays.

As for lessons, the greatest one may be this: Wars may be planned and ordered governments, but they’re fought by PEOPLE. People who mostly, unlike the Austrian soldier mentioned above (his name was Adolf Hitler), prefer song and sport and friendship to mindless mutual killing.

Those people — not just soldiers, all of us — can decide at any time to stop cooperating with the murderous plans of our masters and instead choose peace on earth and good will toward each other.

That choice embodies the spirit of Christmas.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Trial and Error: Pelosi’s Foolish Impeachment Ploy

The Senate as a Court of Impeachment for the Trial of President Andrew Johnson, illustration in Harper's Weekly, April 11, 1868, by Theodore R. Davis (public domain).
The Senate as a Court of Impeachment for the Trial of President Andrew Johnson, illustration in Harper’s Weekly, April 11, 1868, by Theodore R. Davis (public domain).

To the extent that the third presidential impeachment in US history is a “victory” — the public jury is still out on that question and likely to remain so for some time — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) seems determined to snatch defeat from its jaws.

In a press conference following the House’s vote to pass two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Pelosi floated a plan to delay Trump’s trial in the US Senate by refusing to appoint the House’s “impeachment managers” until she considers the plan for conducting the trial to be “fair.”

CNBC’s Lauren Hirsch describes Pelosi’s ploy as a “game of chicken” with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-KY). Per that metaphor,  Pelosi’s riding a tricycle and McConnell’s driving an 18-wheeler. He has no reason to swerve.

The Constitution assigns sole authority to impeach the president to the House, but sole authority to conduct the trial lies with the Senate.

The Senate does have rules for impeachment, including one that triggers the trial process “[w]hensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed” to prosecute the case. But those rules can be changed by a simple majority vote, and McConnell’s party enjoys such a majority.

The House has passed the articles. Any further involvement on its part occurs at the pleasure of the Senate. If Pelosi declines to provide managers to prosecute the case, that doesn’t oblige McConnell to sit on his hands until she changes her mind.

Either way McConnell handles the threat, assuming Pelosi follows through on it, the Democrats lose.

If he decides to wait Pelosi out, it’s the Democrats who have formally accused the president of committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” requiring his removal from office but who are now delaying that potential removal.

If he decides to have the rules changed, those rules may preclude any House involvement in the trial at all. The new rules may let the Republican Senate majority choose “prosecutors” for the trial. In that case,  Pelosi will have no one to blame but herself.

Republicans have continually bemoaned the whole impeachment process as “partisan” and “politicized.” They’re right — but so far they’ve been at least as  guilty as the Democrats of making it that way, and arguably more so.

If Pelosi can bring herself to stop scheming, appoint the House’s impeachment trial managers (some Democrats propose, and I endorse,  independent congressman Justin Amash of Michigan as the leader of that team ), and let McConnell and Company make themselves look like defenders of presidential corruption, as they surely will,  Democrats just might come out ahead in terms of public opinion.

If not, she should be made honorary chair of Trump’s re-election campaign.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY