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.

[pcevet4]

Andy,
No one has more of a right to speak about war than you. You went where your country asked you to go and did what your country asked you to do. Like my war in Vietnam, we are engaged in two wars in which soldiers are stuck on the ground, doing the mission, fighting to live another day, and our country cannot decide whether or not we want them there. The universal question we soldiers ask is "What the f%$#". Ya want us in a war or not?

As a vet, I want our country to ask these questions: is this war truly in the defense of our country? Is it absolutely a last resort? How will we know when we've "won"? Is success feasible?

Next time we think we want a war, propose instituting the draft. The war is vital to our nation's security and interests or its not. Start drafting the gamers, the texters, the yakkers and the slackers. Go after everybody of military age. Shave their heads and put 'em in ranks. If you don't want to do that, then don't go to war.

The volunteer army is a bad joke. We have too many young people joining up because there's no hope of a job and hope of any education. Its truly sad when a kid has to put life, limb and sanity on the line just to have his education paid for. Multiple combat tours is wrecking a generation. These kids have PTSD from the first deployment.

Strip away the stupid myths. Like me in Vietnam, these young people are not fighting to preserve my freedoms. They are acting as other people have judged to be in their nation's interest, nothing more. Tell them the truth. If its about oil, then tell them.

[subayai2009]

This echos my sentiment exactly. If Saddam were invading Florida, I would be the first one to pick up a rifle and go defend my countrymen. However "defending our interests around the world" sounds more like we as a country feel like some kind of empire. I think it was more clear when the "Department of Defense" used to be called "The War Department". Since then it seems to me our people are largely confused about what war is about and how horrific it is to put a metal slug through another man's head or watch civilians burn alive. As Mr. Rooney was commenting, this sort of behavior is not the act of civilized people. Yes, I am glad that vets stood up to fight against murders but I am a vet too ... and please never never thank me for killing my fellow man because it is not something I am proud of. It was something I had to do.

[K_in_Denver]

Mr. Rooney, I always get enjoyment out of your comments, but this article about Veterans Day has really struck a nerve. My father who just passed away this year at the age of 88 was proud to be a veteran. The American Legion, VFW, etc. At his ripe old age, he was sharp as a tack and the last few years he always talked about his Army experiences as if it were yesterday and the people he met and helped. He was proud to be in the Armed Forces. There isn?t much pleasure in war, but I think out of respect for all who have fought in any war, those who lived and those who have died in the line of duty, have a right to be honored whether it be with a parade or a day written on a calendar. I hate war as much as anyone, but we have to realize whether it?s our war or someone else?s, we are over there as willing participants. I also realize that the United States has become an enable for countries past and present. As a mother, I would love for these countries to stand on their on two feet, but why should they when they know the United States will be there to take the fire, lose our young servicemen?s lives and rebuilt their country back. We should do like other countries and take a wait and see attitude until asked to take responsibility for a change. Stay on our own soil and defend our country .But that unfortunately isn?t our motto. As an American, we always feel like we have to take the initiative to defend the little guy against the bad bullies. Now my daughter has joined the military and as a mother, my heart feels like a shooting range. I?m excited for her because she wants to make a difference in the world for the good but absolutely terrified that she is going against an enemy who has no respect for human life, be it their own or our service personnel. I can?t even imagine what is in store for her, but as an American, I stand by her decision and if all I can do is honor her wish, then bring on Veteran?s Day. It?s unfortunate, but I doubt in our lifetime there will ever be an authentic ?NO WAR DAY? ? meaning no way anywhere! If there were, I would be the first to bring the potato salad.

[fairviewbooks]

It used to be called Armistice Day. It was started to celebrate the making of PEACE after World War I.

[virglou]

Hope, Andy, is what you gave me when I heard your comments regarding Veterans' Day. That someone on national TV would propose a NO WAR DAY! that's a hopeful sign that this world will not come to an end because we have succeeded in killing each other. You have encouraged me to keep working for peace through peaceful means in my own small ways.

louc

[Ms_enza]

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

"War isn?t hell at all. It?s man at his best; the highest morality he's capable of ? it?s not war that?s insane, you see. It?s the morality of it. It?s not greed or ambition that makes war: it?s goodness. Wars are always fought for the best of reasons: for liberation or manifest destiny. Always against tyranny and always in the interest of humanity. So far this war, we?ve managed to butcher some ten million humans in the interest of humanity. Next war it seems we?ll have to destroy all of man in order to preserve his damn dignity. It?s not war that?s unnatural to us ? it?s virtue. As long as valor remains a virtue, we shall have soldiers. So, I preach cowardice. Through cowardice, we shall all be saved." -- Paddy Chayefsky

[Johnaragsdale]

Reminds me...Philip Wiley..."war is man's inarticulate way of settlying a problem by exploding."..John Ragsdale

[Sloughfoot]

He is just a bitter old man who with all his fame and fortune ahs found no meaning in life and has chosen this time and place to urinate on the those whose lives were cut short so that he could acheive his aclaim.

A more noble man wanting media attention would have, on this occaission, had his press agent follow him to a Veteran's final resting place and had him photograft him during a moment of silence on bended knee showing true respect for those who gave all they could give so that he could have all that he has.

Rooney if you don't want to be a Veteran - just walk away but don't drag us all into your dung heap of disgrace.

[Ms_enza]

I was passed today by a single occupant Mercedes in the HOV lane doing 85 in a 65 zone. The license plate indicated that the owner was a bronze star recipient and the plate was a vanity tag "IRAQX2".

This particular stretch of road is heavily patroled for both speeders and HOV violaters.

I suspect our "hero" didn't worry.

[dblbar1]

more than likely it was driven by someone high in authority, as the regular enlisted people sure as he!! don't make enough to drive a Mercedes....

[rank_n_file]

It is extremely difficult to reconcile this Rooney moralistic diatribe with Rooney's militant, adamant, obsessed, neurotic flag-waving SUPPORT FOR the Iraq War, which was the most pointless, unwarranted, irrelevant, unnecessary war in U.S. history. But Rooney let himself get caught-up in the gung-ho, flag-waving psychotic post-9-11 pro-war hysteria that launched us into an irrelevant war that had absolutely nothing to do with Al Quida, global terrorism or the events of 9-11. If only Rooney had had this sky-opening eureka WHEN IT REALLY MATTERED, before the Iraq War. But then again, pro-war hysteria was popular back then, and now, the peace-nic "let's get out of Afghanistan" refrain is growing in popularity. Like a chameleon, Rooney follows what is popular. There's no insight or foresight involved here. Rooney just follows the applause. And the bitter irony is that the Rooneys in this country had us fight the WRONG WAR, while now shrinking from waging the 'real' war -- the important, vitally necessary war where al Quida has entrenched itself in a safe haven for perpetuating global terrorism.

[fss2009]

Maybe it's time for you people to start teaching your children that war is wrong, and that the man who supports or defends the cause of war is no hero.

[excoachken]

I, am a Veteran (1968-70) and I feel that Mr. Rooney was spot on with his comments. I now spend a great deal of time as a volunteer for Honor Flight, a group that takes WW II Veterans to their monument in Washington, to honor their sacrifices. Countless times I have heard these men and women say exactly what Mr. Rooney said. Perhaps, those of you complaining should listen more often and more closely to what those heroes have to say, instead of trying to think and speak for them from your own selfish perspective.

[dingojen]

Dear Andy,
You have said what I have felt since I was 15 years old. Your commentary made me feel sad knowing what you express is the truth, but will probably never happen (do we ever learn from history?) I am a 43 year old mother of two small boys and the "No War Day" for our world would be my greatest wish. My father was an officer and fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam (and eventually died as a result of this war). He never shielded us from the horrors of war and so I truly understand your thoughts. Thank you.