Former USI English professor John Gottcent has recently suggested in his column "Retiring Thoughts" that
the U.S. may be more inclined to military interventions elsewhere given that we've not had a war on the U.S. mainland in 150 years. What do you think?
36 comments:
It makes sense that a person would rather have a war occur else where. In a war numerous innocent people are hurt and those innocent people are usually civilians who where caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the battle is not fought on our soil we do not have to worry about that consequence relating to our own civilians. The violence doesn't see as severe or real. The saying out of sight out of mind is true for some people and if they do not have to experience that violence or personally see someone else experience it then they might be more likely to support a military intervention.
I believe that John Gottcent makes a very good point. We have not experience war on our soil for 150 years. Due to this, we have not had to deal with the ramifications of war and perhaps do not have a true sense of the consequences of war. We have not had to deal with the ramifications of fighting. I believe this would perhaps have an effect on our readiness to intervene militarily especially if is not on our soil. Taking this into account, I could see how America would be more inclined to intervene militarily elsewhere. Intervening elsewhere could also have the adding benefit of stopping the problem whatever it may be before it can affect Americans on American soil. After 150 year of peace on our mainland, I could see how we would want to keep it that way.
I agree with John Gottcent that most likely the US is more inclined to intervene militarily elsewhere because we have not had a war on US soil in a long time. In the past, US civilians have been mostly shielded from the worst aspects of war. Sometimes wars were even seen as positive, like when WW2 brought the US out of the Depression. When we learn about past war involvement, American ideals are often glorified in textbooks and there are no destroyed cities or large casualty counts on the US mainland to dispute that positive spin. The idea of being in a warzone is foreign to the American people, and that makes it more difficult to see the effects that our involvement overseas has on individuals and families. If we better identified with these people, perhaps we would consider more carefully before jumping into war. As things are, with no recent memory of war in the United States, it takes a considerable mental stretch to see what we are doing to innocent people abroad and an even greater stretch to realize that war could come to our mainland and strike our own homes, friends, and families. With this sense of invincibility, it is no wonder that the US is more inclined to meet opposition with military force.
I think that John Gottcent has made a very valid point. We haven't had a war on our own land in over 150 years. The wars after the Civil War have all been fought on foreign soil. The U.S., being the wealthiest nation, has consistantly intervened on foreign soil. I think that it's good that we have not had an attack on our land; however, I believe that as Americans who have never had to experience the harshness of war firsthand, we have become somewhat immune to what is happening overseas. Perhaps if Americans could see firsthand the violence, pain, and cruel parts of the war, they might be more supportive of military invervention.
John Gottcent brings a fresh and new perspective. I think it is ease for us as Americans to see the war and think about how horrible things are happening, but Gottcent is exactly right when he says we then go back to our day to day routine. I think the U.S. is very fortunate in the fact that we have not had a war on our soil in so long. I think a lot of this is due to the industrializations of the countries that surround us and the fact that we are such a strong country. If we look at the countries that do have war, they are in social and economic upheaval and do not have a strong government.
My grandpa is a veteran of both WWII and Korea. He has long made the comment that our country no longer cares about our wars or why we fight.
If we think back to the WWII era, there was a level of patriotism that does not even begin to exist today. Hollywood actors rode in open parade cars, worked in USO lines, and toured overseas. People bought bonds and rationed everything from silk to gasoline. Even for those still at home, they still made their effort for the fight. That was the generation that produced Rosie the Riveter, sending women to work in mens' jobs in order to keep production going for home and the war front.
Currently, few people support the war, and those who volunteer to fight are often thought of as ignorant or suicidal. There is seldom a question of whether they are really just patriotic and believe in America's cause. However, all of the people still at home have come to ignore what's going on "over there." Everyone has their own day-to-day lives and seem to become more angry at the president over Social Security than the numerous daily deaths of American soldiers.
Even if you choose not to support the war, you should support the soldiers who are fighting it. They are doing a job that most of us wouldn't dare to try. Even though you are not over there, someone you know probably knows someone who is. Once you make the connections, you will probably find that the war is closer to home than you think.
I agree with what Mr. Gattcent has said. I always found it kind of funny (not in the ha-ha way, but rather the interesting/sad way) we mourn over a couple people dying where there are, like he said, higher averages every day somewhere else. We get upset (and rightfully so) over seven coal miners when the risks of even going to the store are higher in other places.
Another thing I have noticed is that kids nowadays are immune to numbers. A well-intentioned student at one of my old schools said something along the lines of, "Well it was only a couple thousand people," about the 9/11 attacks. I know what she meant--that there are higher death tolls elsewhere--but still, only a couple thousand? That's more people than any school I've been to, and the school I graduated from was the largest. It had 1200 kids (so, not including staff members) in it from K-12 with 400 or so in the high school. To imagine that entire school being wiped out, staff and possibly their families, wiped out in a single day... I can't. I really can't.
Still, stuff like this happens every day and it's hard to really show how much that really affects us in the long run. Sure, it seems silly to think a 10-year-old kid dying from a suicide bomber directly affects us, but in all reality it does. Who knows what that kid could have done for today's world? He could have been a writer, a doctor, an engineer, an inventor... His death should be mourned as much as the Evansville soldier in my opinion. A life is a life, no matter what you have or haven't done.
Too often do I hear the line, "Well if I were President I'd just bomb the shit out of the country and be done with it." That's ridiculous and if you really think about it, insane. It's statements like this that make me absolutely sick of people.
My father has served in the military for roughly twenty years and he has been to the Gulf "and all of that fun stuff." We really have no idea how hard it is to be out there... And no one even cares about why we ARE there. People avoid getting into the military when years ago you'd lie about your age just so you could serve. It really makes me sad.
~Crystal
The author, John Gottcent brings up a very interesting point. WE have been extremely fortunate to be spared from fighting on our own soil for 150 years. I would never wish that we would, but i wish that people would see the true impact a war has on a country. Most countries are barely recognizable after wars. If we could just try to envision ourselves in the war torn countries, then maybe we, or actually the government, wouldn't be so quick to intervene in other countries matters. Sometimes i do agree with intervening, mostly to help keep our country's safety. But there are times where we rush into things without knowing where we are headed. So, i do agree in using our strong military power to help others, when their need is dire, and not just to benefit ourselves.
The author, John Gottcent brings up a very interesting point. WE have been extremely fortunate to be spared from fighting on our own soil for 150 years. I would never wish that we would, but i wish that people would see the true impact a war has on a country. Most countries are barely recognizable after wars. If we could just try to envision ourselves in the war torn countries, then maybe we, or actually the government, wouldn't be so quick to intervene in other countries matters. Sometimes i do agree with intervening, mostly to help keep our country's safety. But there are times where we rush into things without knowing where we are headed. So, i do agree in using our strong military power to help others, when their need is dire, and not just to benefit ourselves.
No one wants a war on his own soil becasue it is very devestating. I like the point he makes in saying that we are blessed to have not had a war in America in 150 years. We live in a blessed nation, and with our resources, we have been able to keep war out of our country. Those people that have fought in wars have seen what it can do to the land and civilians, and I believe they are working to keep us safer and out of devestation. I also agree that most of us don't know what war is like, and we won't understand completely until we actually experience it. Without this experience, we are less likely to appreciate all our military forces are doing for us.
I believe Mr. Gottcent hit the nail on the head when he addressed the issue of Americans inability to empathize, to really feel what others are going through. I believe this is the underlying cause of many current problematic issues right now.
I don't believe that this is the case. While it is sensible to have war on another place to keep it from happening on our soil, it does not link up with other examples. Canada, for example, has not had a war on its own soil in nearly the same amount of time and have not intervened in too terribly many foreign affairs, to my knowledge. In addition to this, the effect of terrorism seems to have a stronger pull on what's to occur over what happens on our soil. So overall, no, I do not believe that the lack of war on our mainland has to do with military intervention in other places around the world.
I completely agree with the statement of John Gotcent in saying that the U.S. is more inclined to foreign military interventions. I think that we have become immune to the realities of war. We do not encounter the same effects or emotions that citizens of countries experiencing war in thier own lands encounter. Our greatest struggles are fear of our loved ones experiencing grief and death, yet we do not have to have fear for our own lives as millions of others do. I feel that we as a society take for granted our history and the lack of war on our own soil.
John Gottcent makes an excellent point in his article. The United States has not experienced a war on its own soil in over 100 years. No person in our country has even experienced the turmoil of war in their own neighborhoods or towns. Americans are not faced with fear everyday as they go to school or work or continue with their daily lives.
However, I do feel that if Americans were in some way able to get an understanding of what life in constant fear of the ravages of war was actually like, we would think twice before inflicting such turmoil on our fellow humans. I feel we would not jump so haphazardly into war and would not constantly feel the need to intervene in foreign countries. Yes, at times it is necessary to go into other countries, that requirement comes with being a world power. Yet, I do not feel that in those circumstances the US should use the intervention as a means of promoting its own agenda.
I think that this is definitely a point to consider. Who would want to destroy the country they live in? I think that it really hasn't taken the full effect on most peoples' minds in America, especially those less than 30 years of age (of course, excluding those who have first hand experienced loss or injury from the war). It's almost as if our generation has been brainwashed into thinking that people have to die in order to win a cause and that a few thousand more people killed every year should be expected. Sure, freedom isn't free, but this isn't even our freedom we're talking about. We would much rather dismiss a war taking place thousands of miles away than have it in our country, much like the NIMBY philosophy (Not In My Back Yard). Everyone wants change, but where? Well, anywhere but not in my back yard.
In his article, John Gattcent makes some extremely valid points. Those of us living in the US today do not understand and cannot imagine what living in a country devastated by war is like. We are extremely blessed to have not experienced a war on US soil in almost 150 years. However, this inability to fathom the detrimental effects of war has made us immune to the true scope of the word “war.” Being able to wake up every morning, knowing that our surroundings are the same as they were yesterday is a truly fortunate thing. But, other countries around the world have not been and are not so lucky. Therefore, before the US engages in war overseas, we (our government) should consider how it might affect innocent civilians. Keeping the US safe by engaging in war is still necessary. However, we ought not to be so hasty in intervening just for our convenience.
I belive that because of our military intervention elsewhere, it has been a helpful part to keep our military fighting out of our homeland.
I definitely agree that the U.S. is more likely to intervene militarily elsewhere than have a war at home. I think people are more likely to support such a war because they believe the problem is being taken care of without much disturbance of their day-to-day lives. Americans see the violence in war-torn countries on television and in the news but can't imagine living under those conditions. The violence doesn't seem as severe or real as it would if we were experiencing it firsthand. We are blessed that a war has not been fought here; however, perhaps if we had experienced a war on our soil in recent history we would more thoroughly consider the effects of war on a country before intervening militarily.
He did make a really good point, but at the same time, the country may face war with or without the US' help. I want for them what we have. I want them to be able to say, "we haven't had war in 150 years." Using Iraq for example, if there is going to be a civil war anyway and one group is going to be terrorizing and probably killing the other group, then isn't it better for us to help them if they want it? I mean, excluding the fact that it keeps us safer to put responsible people in charge, shouldn't we help them like we would want to be helped (tweaking the golden rule). I can just hear that Miss America question...and the answer: World Peace.
I agree with John; it is much easier to send the troops without a thought to what that will cost the country we send them too. War is ugly and destroys more than just foreigners, it destroys people, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, uncles, great-auts, best friends, paper boys, doctors, lawyers, pastors, babies, kittens, culture, homes, everythin... But if it is in our power to shorten the time of despair, then, thinking not lightly on it, let's... And if we can't, then we should back off, keep a close eye on our borders, and let them duke it out until someone cries for help.
I agree with John Gottcent's statement that we are more inclined to military interventions in other countries due to the fact that we have not had a war on American soil for 150 years. We in America are sheltered from the horrible truths of war. We do not have to worry about being killed when we walk outside our homes everyday like people do in countries where there is war. Not experiencing war on American soil has truly made us ignorant and put us in a bubble, and we cannot relate to those who live in war torn countries. Due to this, we are quick to jump up and intervene in other countries. If we had experienced a war and seen first hand its horrors, I think Americans would definitely not be as hasty for military action in other countries.
John Gottcent did make a good point in that our country has almost been spoiled by not having to deal with wars on our soil. It makes sense that that would make us less sensitive to the ravages of war. However, when he made the comment about us not having to hear gunshots every night I was struck with a thought. There are places in the country that do have that very thing. Granted gang wars and full scale wars do not compare, but it would be interesting to see the difference in perspective of someone who comes from a peaceful rural area versus the perspective of someone who comes from a high-violence gang area.
John Gottcent makes a very good point. It makes sense that Americans would rather have a war occur somewhere else, and this could indeed be the reason that so many Americans supported the war at first. Many Americans probably think that since the war is not fought here, we do not have to worry about the deaths of innocent civilians, but I do not think this is the case. We should be concerned about the number of deaths adding up even though those dying are not Americans. We should certainly be concerned with keeping war from coming to our soil, but we should also avoid it in other places.
I definitely think John Gottcent has made a valid point. Our inability to empathize with others about the effects of war, have made us much more inclined to resolving problems by violence. I think if Americans were able to remember what it was like to have a war fought on our soil, we would be much less inclined to trying to solve problems in other countries through war. Also, if we could empathize with those whose homeland is a battleground, I feel that our support for the war would dwindle greatly.
It is true that the United States is more inclined to militarily intervene on foreign soil rather than fight a war at home. The ultimate goal seems to keep the fighting away from our country forever. By fighting overseas, we are not directly exposed to the devastation of war. As a country that has not seen war first-hand for over 150 years, we are comfortable keeping it that way. The US would rather impose its military will in foreign lands.
-Steve Saligram
I think that in some ways, having a war on American soil would do us some good. If we had a war on American soil, we would see the effects firsthand of what war does to people, making us more hesitant to send soldier to start a war on foreign soil. I'm not saying that a war on American soil would be a good idea, rather that it would teach us something about war and its effects.
I see where Gottcent is coming from. However the real reason why Americans have been so quick to support foreign wars is because of fear. The World Wars were promoted by labeling the Germans as "bloodthirsty Huns" and any war during the Cold War was promoted by the fear of Communism. After Sept. 11 Americans supported the invasion of Iraq because of the fear of terrorism. But now that the fear and shock and is fading, most Americans no long support our presence in Iraq.
I agree with John Gottcent's comment. I feel that the citizens of America are lucky to have not had to experience the horrors of war at home in over 150 years. Most of our knowledge of war time events comes from the media or stories from veterans.I think that sometimes getting involved elsewhere prevents harmful dictatorships, etc. from becoming too powerful and thus prevents war from reaching U.S. ground. However, I also believe we must be careful and not get involved when it is not necessary or when we are not asked for help since many Americans cannot grasp the full concept of what war does to a country.
I think that John Gottcent makes a good point about fighting in another country. We don't understand how bad it is to be in the middle of a war when we live in the United states. Since we are fighting the other side of the world, we are shielded from the full force of what is acutally going on. We go by our day to day routines and hear stories from the news. The people in Iraq though are getting the full blast of the fighting and death. The war is intended to help them, but they are still having an extremely rough time.
"War to us has become something that happens on the other side of the globe."
This is a sad, but true statement, regarding most American's feelings about war. It is unimaginable, to me at least, living in constant fear for my life and the lives of my loved ones. I have never experienced my home or city being ravaged by war. The closest I have come was the tornados of 2005, and just seeing the devastation after that was heartwrenching. I would never say that the U.S. needs to have war on her own soil to really see what it's like and only then can we be so quick to intervene in other situations. However, most Americans probably don't consider this when taking a stance on world issues.
I believe that our country will most definitely not be fighting a war on our soil, as a war fought in this country would not have the support of the majority of our citizens. In the event that we are attacked as we were on September 11, we are far more likely to take the fighting on the soil of the attacking nation and become the agressor. The fact that fighting does not take place on US soil and has not for 150 years makes it easier for United States leaders to gather support for military invasions, as citizens do not have a complete grasp of everything war entails and the horrific effects it has on innocent citizens.
I believe that the incapacity of the United Nations to bring settle disputes and prevent genocide demands that the United States be more inclined to foreign intervention. Although most negative feelings come from more recent interventions such as Iraq one must not forget the dozens of overseas missions in the late 90's. When the U.S. left Somalia the U.N. mission collapsed. The United States was even called to intervene during Kosovo which gives testament to the unwillingness of Europe to intervene in affairs on their own continent much less overseas. In short, I believe the U.S. is in fact driven to intervene as no other 1st world country is capable or willing. Furthermore,the global war on terror has technically come to our shores. In my eyes the impulse for more major interventions came after 9/11 due to the fact that the mainland U.S. was attacked by a foreign entity that had been and still is waging a war against the west. Although the proper terminology of the 9/11 attacks can be debated, it is undeniable that a great many americans consider them an act of war.
I think that the U.S. is more likely to engage in war elsewhere, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. When a war occurs there are many innocent people that are hurt and our government's tendency to engage in wars elsewhere is keeping our citizens safe. Also, if the people of the United States are not directly subjected to the violence and hardships of a war, they are more likely to support it, which is what the government needs.
I think that the U.S. is more inclined to intervene militarily elsewhere because we feel that we are the world's policemen/women. I also think that we would not be as inclined to intervene if the war was taking place on American soil. I realize that helping others in need is a good thing, but do we honestly need to get involved in just about every semi-major or major war that has taken place overseas? I mean seriously, did we have to get involved in WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Yom Kippur War, or the Persian Gulf War? The answer is a big, resounding NO! We need to stop sticking our noses in other countries' business. We also need to keep in mind that what goes around comes around.
Post a Comment