"The Truth About the Politics of War"

Jessica Gerlemann
Leigh Kolb
English Comp I
7 November 2009
The Truth About the Politics of War
We sit at the eye doctor and visit. Just another day. I sit and talk with Anne, the receptionist, on a surprisingly bright day, yet, the subject is dark. We shed light on the subject of war. We judge that more can be done. We discuss what they consider to be “Obama’s War,” and whether or not there should be more troops in Iraq. Each of us play a big role in this life and it is up to us to change the harsh effects of war. Is it really Obama’s war or ours? Anne mentions, “we need to be over there and we don’t have enough troops,” and “soldiers are short of ammunition.” I sit and think about the father I met from what we said to be “Muslim Country,” or Iraq, that he got back from when I sat shaking his hand. I also think about past friends since high school such as James in the Army, or Cody and Jesse in the Marines, or Nick in boot camp getting ready to train to fly helicopters. What about them? How are they right now? Most of all, even though Anne and I disagree about war and could quarrel whether it was needed we completely agree on the sole terms that war is inevitable. Something of the human nature that seems to be natural and happens regardless and especially if we don’t learn from history’s past mistakes.
In Fort Hood, Texas, 12 are dead and 31 are wounded. A tortured psychiatrist and two other soldiers fired and were shot several times. (CBS News)War can be right and justified and yet it can be wrong: “Just as there is no way to explain the internal agony of war, there is no real way to explain what happens in its shadow. This is the domain of tortured minds that may never heal. This may very well be the legacy of Fort Hood.” (Kinney) Tortured minds is the exact relationship of the hardened effects of war that it has on even its strongest fighters. No matter how well trained, each endures a certain personal agony of hardship of their own when sent to war. So is war right or wrong? What kind of war should we have?
The only war we should have is a war on the politics of war. Weaponry has led to the death and misery of billions throughout centuries and years worth of war. Not only are they threatened by guns, but bombs and gas were torture weapons along with rape used as well in war. War in the past has been such an inhumane scene. In World War II and Vietnam there was a lot of weaponry, bombs and confusion. The only way we can change it is by preventing the violence of much of the world scenes. The Economist, Obama’s War, says, “Afghanistan’s President Karzai, doubts the impartiality of a commission investigating fraud held in the presidential election.” “Pakistan’s army complained about the terms of a bill going through America’s Congress tripling non-military aid to Pakistan to $7.5.” “Three bombs went off in Tamadi, the capital of Iraq’s western Anbar province killing at least 23 people, including tribal leaders.” “Two suspected al-Qaeda men were killed in a shoot-out in Saudi Arabia.” “A fortnight after soldiers loyal to Guinea’s military ruler killed more than 150 protesters calling for civilian rule.” (Obama’s War“Economist” 9). For millions of years wars have been fought with no result and yet others some resolve. Yet, the result weaponry and much of its existence brings is a more than a fair amount of torture, nonetheless death of innocent lives. Wars should be fought with “characteristics” and the great influence “word of mind,” trying to resolve problems before life-threatening wars arise.
For years some fight without no resolve so is the politics of war even really worth it? The politics of war can even be torturesome. So is this really Obama’s war or ours? (Obama’s War, The Economist. 15)The answer is that it is ours. It is a country’s, it is a world’s war, but, that doesn’t mean in an entirety that the torture it brings is right. Here is what the Economist says about Obama’s War: There is not a lot of hope. “Eight years after the toppling of the Taliban, the prospects for the NATO- led mission in Afghanistan seem worse that ever. Every Western casualty, every reinforcement and every pious political homily on the “justness” and “necessity” of the war seem only to leave the mission floundering deeper and more hopelessly. The alternative is not, as some opponents of an Afghan ‘surge’ suggest, less intensive, more surgical “counter-terrorism,” relying on unmanned air raids and assassination. Obama has ruled this out. A counter-terrorist strategy is a euphemism for withdrawal-which is what plenty of Westerners think should happen. General McChrystal is believed to have offered a range or proposals to increase the number of American forces-at present about at 62,000 out of a total of some 100,00 foreign troops between 10,000 and 60,000 troops. Obama may be tempted to compromise to show military resolve by acceding to the commander’s request, yet appease anti-war opinion by picking the lowest number.” (Obama’s War “Economist”15)
The truth about the politics of war is that it effects everyone from the inside psychiatrist to the employed family members oversea. It may be a mother, a daughter, a father, a brother, a cousin or even your closest neighbor. Which in many cases it is. . The confusion and appeal to get involved becomes worse and then you have mass confusions like the characters of Vietnam who were each soldiers or nurses in, “A Piece of My Heart.” War must eventually begin and yet with the beginning of one another ends until a revelation comes. Instead of years worth of torture why don’t people cut out the worst. Sadly, many times it’s the opposite. War becomes something inevitable that people can’t control because the sides involved can’t get along to begin with or feel the need to defend themselves. War must eventually begin and yet with the beginning of one another ends until a revelation comes.