Andy Declares War on War

Andy Rooney Observes Veterans Day And Declares War On War

(CBS)  I keep this calendar on my desk, and while I don't look at it very often I notice that this Wednesday is Veterans Day. It's one of ten federal holidays that we have. Well, I'm a veteran and I hate that name.

Considering that we aren't technically at war now, there's an awful lot about war in the news even when it's not something like Veterans Day. I suppose that's because there's so much fighting in the world. There are half a dozen small wars going on right now - some of them in places most of us have never been to or even never heard of before.

Too many young men and women with a whole life ahead of them are getting killed before they have a chance to live it and for what?

Of all the things that men do - historically mostly men - fighting a war to kill other men is the most uncivilized.

Wars have been fought through time and we may think we're more civilized now than people were 100 or 500 years ago but there's no sign that fighting wars is a thing of the past. There's always one going on somewhere.

Eight of my classmates - friends really - in school and college were killed in World War II. I've had 60 years of life that those eight friends never had. We call this a civilization?

More than 5,200 American men and women, kids really - have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be a small number in two small wars but if you're one of those killed or even a father or mother of one, there's nothing small about it.

Why not, instead of commemorating Veterans Day, we establish and work on what we could call a "No War Day".

The name doesn't have much of a ring to it but a day like that would be worth celebrating.

[John_272]

Andy, you are brilliant as always!

And former HUD employee Thomas Safran charged with fraud over low income affordable housing tax credit properties non-compliance; no equal protection for applicants; Congress asked to investigate Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's "secret society" CTCAC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBy138OqYkU, http://www.hudincomeexclusions.wordpress.com
http://www.not-hud-compliant.spaces.live.com

[YourVeryWrong]

Back when Andy was in the War to End all Wars, he had the same goal.

[zoopster1]

(continued...)
Allow me to remind you: we are fighting dead-enders here. These people do not fear their own deaths, so we can't use that as leverage to get them to stop. They don't fear prosecution or imprisonment either, certainly not the warm fuzzy kind that we have here in the USA. Has anyone seen what a typical Arab jail looks like? I'll give you a hint: it's unlikely that they play Eminem records or pour water on your head there. Next to those places, Guantanamo is (literally) a tropical resort.

We have fought dead-enders before, in case you forgot: the Japanese. Their Bushido code prevented them from surrendering, if any of you bother to read history. Even on Okinawa in June 1945, when they were supposedly "about to give up" if you believe the revisionists out there, their army of 110,000 fought to nearly the LAST MAN. A few dozen surrendered. The rest committed suicide. Oh, and that goes for the civilians there too; almost 100,000 of them died, mostly from suicides. How could we possibly get them to accept defeat without extending the war another 20 years and simply exterminating them all?

The answer is complex. You see, they had no problem with casualties. Even casualties on a catastrophic scale. By August 1945, round-the-clock incendiary bombing of Tokyo, Kyoto, and other cities had claimed more than 400,000 civilian lives. That is not a typo. FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND. That was not enough to get them to surrender. When Operation Olympic (the invasion of the Japanese home islands) was being planned, we were expecting 1 million American casualties the first YEAR. The Japanese were expected to lose at least 2-4 million. As long as they were still allowed to kill US, their honor would be served and they STILL would not give up. So what happened?

History records that we nuked a couple of their cities and that finally got them to stop the fight. But it's not that simple. What REALLY happened, is we showed them a way to wage war that DENIED them their honor. We showed them that we could wipe their culture from the face of the earth if we wanted, while denying them the honor of killing even ONE American soldier. Anyone see a parallel here? Well, since they had lost everything else, and inflicting casualties on Americans was really all they had left, denying them that as well made it impossible for them to justify continuing the war, didn't it?

So, why not apply that lesson now? Has the world REALLY changed all that much? I don't think so. The fanatics we are fighting are winning the propaganda war against us, because we are fighting them on THEIR terms. Why not fight them on ours instead?

That means no more half-measures. It means total mobilization. It means the use of EVERY weapon in our arsenal to destroy them, including nuclear if that's what it takes. It also means denying them that thing they want more than anything else: the chance to kill Americans.

Our enemies rely on a combination of WWI trench warfare tactics and VietCong style ambushes, designed to inflict the maximum number of casualties on both us, and upon innocents that they can then blame on us. We can DENY them that. We have technology that can deny them any American targets to shoot at. We can change our own doctrine and go after them wherever they are, even if they hide among civilians. In 1945 Churchill, FDR and Stalin all agreed that bombing civilian populations was acceptable, since they worked in the factories that continued to supply the Axis war effort. Today, donations made by private citizens to Islamic charities regularly funnel money directly to terrorists. I am not suggesting that we DELIBERATELY target civilians, but if a high value terror target is spotted in a marketplace then a napalm strike on that market is justified, even if hundreds of innocents die.

If we don't have the stomach for that, then I say we just quit the fight now, pull all our troops out, and call the mission a failure. Maybe the next generation will have the courage to do what we couldn't. I just hope it doesn't cost thousands more innocent American lives to motivate them.

[zoopster1]

The problem now is that we're not fighting war to end war. We are fighting low level conflicts that ultimately resolve nothing, and change the status quo not at all. The only thing that DOES happen, is that people die. How does that help us?? Oh, right. We fight wars, but we try to be CIVILIZED about it. We try not to target those who aren't fighting us. We even SAY we're trying not to target them. Good thing the enemies we ARE trying to kill don't twist that to their advantage somehow.

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

I have a simple alternative to this nonsense. Of course most of the "educated" and "urbane" among you will dismiss it as the ravings of some kind of deranged lunatic. But here goes.

First, if a war HAS to be fought, if we really have NO choice, then why not make it a "TOTAL" WAR. From Wikipedia:

"Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance."

Shouldn't the goal of ANY war be to get it over with as quick as possible?? What could possibly be quicker than this? Is there anyone out there who HONESTLY believes that fighting all these "half-wars" and "limited actions" have in any way contributed to our security or prestige as a nation? Military historians will tell you that if, at any point in the future, you have to AGAIN fight a war that you already fought before, then the first one wasn't done right. That makes sense to me. How about you?

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Number two: DEMAND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. Come on, how hard can that be?? Unless you cease hostilities we will keep killing you. See? Simple.

And finally, BE PREPARED TO ACCEPT CASUALTIES. Ours as well as theirs. In war, innocent people WILL die. There WILL be starvation, disease and suffering. There WILL be lives wasted pointlessly. We WILL be responsible for causing at least some of it, perhaps a great deal of it. There is no bomb that kills only bad people and spares good people. The question is, do we want to inflict minor suffering on a local scale for decades, because we're afraid that 10,000 civilians dead in one attack would be bad PR, or is it preferable to inflict regional destruction, kill thousands, and end the war in a month? Let me put it another way: take all the people who have died in war since 9/11. Wars which at this time have no end in sight. Would EITHER war still be going on if all those casualties had occurred in a SINGLE DAY? Something to consider, isn't it?

(to be continued...)

[rexrox2]

If we are not in a war, then I'd like someone to say it. It seems the plan is to wait until it's so bad and enough political power is available to back out of Afghanistan. We are still operating under the permission of Congress to use force.

[4Yahshua]

Thanks Andy! You have stated what I have been thinking for most of my 61 years! By the way, I came from a family of "warriors". I am a Native American because some of my White ancestors were here long before the American Revolution. Some of them fought eachother during that bloody war. My great grandfather really a drummer boy lost his leg fighting for the Union in the Civil War. My father, a peaceful guy from a farm, was drafted into the army and fought at the Battle of the Bulge during World War II. My brother and first husband joined the service during the time of the Viet Nam War (which I was against). Ever since the Iraq War began I have had a six sided sign in front that I made. It's red with white lettering: STOP WAR From now on, Veteran's Day for me will be
"STOP WAR DAY".
Will you join me??

[Terry_Campbell]

Perhaps Mr. Rooney would care to check the record. We have a No War day already- Veterans Day. President Eisenhower's proclamation in 1954, setting up the modern holiday known as Veterans Day includes this message, "On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain."

[Vet_Turner]

nillohim I am a veteran too but we need to stop the rhetoric of veterans gave him the ability to speak his mind. That's rubbish. Certainly we have faught off terrany in the past but the small wars were in now have nothing, nothing to do with giving people free speach.
War is a nasty business and I still believe Bush took us there to be the "war president" - as he got board with being just the cheif executive over a bunch of buroucrats. And I hope you still do not think that Iraq was ever a threat to the United States.

[nillohim]

I recognize that Rooney has a fundamental right to his views and that I have the fundamental right to change the channel if I don't want to hear them.

To dislike war is just fine. I do not know who would profess to liking or wanting war, but for Rooney to tell the world that he hated the name "Veteran" is simply insulting. After all, the veteran is the one who made it possible for him to sit in front of the main-stream-media cameras and spew irresponsible statements.

I personally desire a world where war could be vanquished. I hate war. It is ugly as Satan - the ultimate source. But I tell you, people like Andy Rooney should stop whining and stop throwing out controversial and irresponsible statements with, what appears to be, his sole intent to boost his TV ratings. This is improper even for CBS.

www.associatedcontent.com/article/2374460/mr_andy_rooney_so_you_hate_the_word.html

[CherryLaneStation]

Talk about whining! Good lord, let us fight over semantics now. If someone hates war, it is okay to hate a word or term that is brought about because of war. I be most Veterans hate that they went to war, so the fact that Veterans exist is sad -- because it means that they wee young men and women who had to go to war. What a horrible thing. Listen to what he was trying to say -- it is too bad that we can't find other ways to figure things out. These kids are pawns in a never-ending chess game while the "royalty" is usually well-protected and away from the action. It is insane. So before you draw lines in the sand because you think you are "right" and he is 'wrong", remember that anyone against war is right. All the time. And we're so sorry that a term he used was misconstrued by you enough to have your feelings hurt. Don't be so sensitive about semantics.

[subayai2009]

Ladies, gentlemen... let's all try to just listen a little and understand the sentiment. I am also a veteran and while we do what we MUST like stopping Germany from murdering half the known world, killing another man should never be considered something we are proud of. We do it because we HAVE to defend our lives or the lives of others. There is much trumpeting about honor and sacrifice and you see it in the "Army of ONE" and other media pumping young men up about serving God and Country. I have heard many such young men get excited about killing someone in another country they have never met. Let's just take it all in perspective and not lambast Mr. Rooney just yet. Instead lets consider when we really need to start wars, whether there is really nobility in it or whether we do in fact need to be very conscious of the fact that whether we had to or not - taking another person's life is never a noble thing but something we should only do with great restraint.