Military too strong for our own good?

Can our military ever be so robust and dominating that it weakens us in war? Maybe.

Our awesome military strength gave LBJ and Nixon unbounded confidence we could win any war against a non-nuclear nation. As a result, their concerns about the Vietnam civil war were too much about their political interests. They gave a lot of thought to appearing strongly anti-communist but hardly any serious thought to understanding Vietnam and what was motivating its civil war.

A robust, dominating military encourages leaders make our war aims unrealistically expansive. LBJ was going to make Vietnam a great western success, sort of like what the New Deal did for the Depression blighted Mid-West or what Bush suggested in making Iraq a beacon of freedom, democracy and prosperity for the Middle East. He couldn’t understand how Ho Chi Minh could turn that down.

Had our robust, indomitable military not overawed our leadership’s thinking in Vietnam, 58 thousand Americans wouldn’t have been killed, and more maimed or mentally damaged. It’s notable that we don’t often consider the costs of wars at their beginning, but when wars end in defeat the costs mean everything.

Having a robust, indomitable military is appropriate to safeguard America and Americans. However, when that military tempts our leaders into imprudent elective wars, it’s as if America has put a gun into the hands of a child. The Vietnam War isn’t the only case in point.

— Dave Weiner, Chico