Another War - Or Two Or Three ?

The United States is already involved in two seemingly endless wars right now -- in Afghanistan and Iraq. The government has already signaled that the Afghan War will be continued at least until the end of 2014 (another three years). And while we are legally supposed to leave Iraq by the end of this year, it now looks like the Iraq government will be pressured to ask us to stay longer -- how much longer is anybody's guess.

For most countries that would be more than enough military action, especially considering it has already gone on for over 10 years. But it seems that the politicians in Washington think two wars are not enough. They think they know what is best for the rest of the world (even though they can't even solve the problems we have here at home), and that U.S. troops can magically solve problems that other countries have been unable to solve for years. These politicians have obviously failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

It was announced yesterday that President Obama is sending about 100 United States combat troops into Africa with full combat gear. Some of the troops are going to Uganda and some to surrounding countries. Their mission is to help these African countries deal with rebel leader Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army. There is no doubt that Kony is a terrible person who has been a thorn in the side of that part of Africa for many years -- killing civilians and soldiers, kidnapping children and forcing them into his army, raping women, etc.

He needs to be dealt with -- of that there is no doubt. But is it the United States that should be doing it? If outside intervention is really necessary, shouldn't it be done by the United Nations and not be a unilateral action by America? I'm an older guy and I still remember that this was how we first got involved in Vietnam. We just sent a few dozen combat "advisors" that were supposed to give the Vietnamese the help and expertise they needed to solve their Viet Cong problem. That turned into a full-fledged war that cost the lives of over 58,000 American soldiers.

Frankly this new war worries me. What are 100 soldiers supposed to accomplish in the African jungle against a rebel army that several African countries have been unable to deal with for years? Do we really think this handful of soldiers can accomplish a miracle in that harsh environment that hundreds of thousands of troops couldn't do in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? But like it or not, we are now involved in three wars -- and all we can do is hope this latest one doesn't turn into an endless quagmire like the other two have become.

But even a new war in Africa is not enough for some of the Washington politicians. Using the foiled attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, many Republicans (and too many Democrats) are ramping up their rhetoric against Iran and Syria. They say the president hasn't done enough to rein in Iran and Syria, and some are even calling for regime change in those countries. The problem is that the president has done about everything that can be done short of taking military action.

These fools in Congress need to make it clear exactly what they want the president to do. Do they want military strikes against these countries? Do they want the United States involved in five military wars -- with no assurance that any of them can be won? And what's even crazier is that many of these same politicians are the ones saying our government is already spending too much. Do they really think that in the middle of this recession, when we can't even seem to find the money to help our own hurting citizens, we should be trying to pick a couple of new wars?

For a nation that claims to be peace-loving, the United States sure has a lot of very blood-thirsty politicians. It's time to let them know that we need to stop the wars we're already in -- not start some new wars.