In Honor of Veterans: New Rule

The morality (and legality) of war has been a subject for ethical and political debate for many centuries. Many of the world's most widely-observed religions profess high values for peace and nonviolence, yet ultimately come to some compromise regarding war as a tool of self-defense, or defense of the weak and vulnerable, etc. And politicians find ways to use these justifications in pursuit of statist interests or economic interests, and by that time all of the many arguments about what is, and what isn't, a "necessary" war become increasingly complex, abstruse, and irrelevant.

So I propose a new rule, a simple rule for identifying what is, and what isn't a "necessary" war. It is this:

Any time a community and/or its delegated representatives calculate the true and full costs of a war, discuss those costs openly, honestly, and fully; make a binding legislative commitment to raising the revenues to fully meet all of those costs; and still believe the war is worth fighting, that war is necessary.

But wait:

First, let's define the full costs of a given war.

The easy ones are the costs of combat operations. These must be honestly and completely calculated. As in, what are the real costs, including inflation, financing, R&D, transit, inventory, and support, of deploying combat personnel with the best possible equipment and materiel in adequate and readily available amounts. That means the best body armor. The best transport. The most reliable weaponry. The best possible training, both in combat skills and in unit cohesion-- no skimping on time and training. If we are asking our soldiers to put themselves in harm's way for us, we must commit to providing them with the best conceivable chance of coming home to us intact.

Then let's include the costs of the promises we make to our soldiers: That you will have the best medical care available if you are wounded--in body or in mind. That we will not cheapass you, or pretend you don't have a difficult and/or expensive to treat condition because we aren't willing to pay for the treatment. That we will have the best hospitals, rehab facilities, medical personnel, etc., to look after you. That you will be treated with dignity and honor if you are wounded or disabled, and with the utmost respect and honor if you are killed in our service. That we will honor our commitment to assist you with education and other benefits, including retirement if you live to earn it. That we will not find ways to discharge you for cheap right before you qualify for a decent pension. That we will still be willing to provide the care you need if your wounds --physical or mental-- affect you many years into the future, after you are no longer on active or reserve status. All of those costs must be fairly calculated and included in the reckoning.

Then the indirect costs must be calculated as honestly as we can: The lost opportunity costs, the costs of diverting the best and brightest who might otherwise be able to benefit us by building wonderful infrastructure, innovating green technology, finding ways to build our children's future-- those best and brightest, too, will be eaten up by the cost of researching and building the war machine and providing leadership.

If, after as honest and sober an accounting of those potential costs as we can make, we still believe it is necessary to ask our young people to take on the personal costs of waging war --the risks to body, mind and soul-- if we still find the reasons for the conflict so compelling in the face of those costs--

then, and only then, can the war be deemed necessary, and our designated representatives empowered to authorize it.

Otherwise, it is not a necessary war. It is part of the racket that keeps our Beloved Oligarchs sleek and rich and indifferent to the brutal suffering borne by millions so that they can stay wealthy and powerful.

There will be a lot of pious and patriotic blather eructated in observance of the "holiday", about our wonderful Vets and their service and how grateful we all are.

Well, I am grateful. And the best way I know to show that gratitude is to oppose any war that is unnecessary, and to advocate for keeping our promises and paying the costs we've already racked up-- you've racked up.

This day used to be called "Armistice Day," and it was solemnized in the belief and hope that the "War to End War" had finally come to an end.

We've never managed to come close to that ideal. But to remember and continue to hallow that ideal seems like the best possible way to observe the day and honor those who commit their lives to our service and put themselves in harm's way for us. So, new rule:

From now on, only NECESSARY wars. Using the definition above.

idealistically,
Bright

But when the question was amended to include the probability that soldiers would die, the number who supported war decreased dramatically.

health care we didn't provide, etc. because we were paying for war and soldiers.

many veterans think, sometimes say among say among ourselves.

EACH AND EVERY PERSON "affilliated" with the war will cost $ 1 million dollars, they can't start their war. That includes service members, each member of their extended family, their employers, every "enemie and his/her family, etc.
Every war we fight is started by stupid fuckin politicians, who want to thump their chest over something that they are too cowardly, or too old to participate in,..... or religion.
Start a draft beginning with age 60 and work your way down to 30.

And the cost to the victims....from immediate casualties to weapons left behind, population dislocations, infrastructure degradation - the list goes on.

Also, many weapons produced are toxic - especially the mutagenic ones like agent orange and depleted uranium - workers who produced those weapons should also receive health care costs.