“Choose Peace” may be a nice slogan. But these days, America’s slogan appears to be “Choose War.”
The term “war of choice” is often used to deride the George W. Bush-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. That is an armed conflict, critics argue, that is not necessary. It is, to use another more wonkish term, a “discretionary war.”
But now the term “war of choice” has entered the mindless media lexicon; Israel wages its own “war of choice” in Gaza; Pakistan chooses to wage war; and even the Mexican government is described as waging a war of choice… against drugs.
So, is this a good thing to be able to “choose war?"
The pervasive theme of choice in the American marketplace has long been celebrated. Consumers find "freedom" in the opportunity to choose from a multitude of competing products. A choice to purchase a given product amounts to a kind of victory for a corporation. And thus, industry fuels its own power on selling the very idea of consumer choice—a kind of attitude that led Pepsi to proclaim that it is “the choice of a new generation.”
Our freedom to choose allows us to label our own political identities--are you “pro choice” or “anti choice”?
The chants of choice create a din.
Even poor Carrie Bradshaw of Sex and the City couldn't help but proclaim (satirically): "I choose my choice!"
The enticing opportunity of making a choice seems to prove that we are free, autonomous beings.
But the idea of choice can be deceptive, connected with the limited view that things are either/or, this or that. In the world of choice, very little is necessary. One always has so many choices!
Although any nation can choose to go to war, in the realm of foreign policy, a “just” war is still viewed as one that is deemed necessary.
Thus, in his first months in office, President Obama was careful to make a distinction as he laid out his war plans: Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, he claimed, was “a war of choice.” But Obama's own plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, was different. "This," he claimed, as he stood before a group from the Veterans of Foreign wars, “is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.”
"Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again,” Obama continued. “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."
Given that this is the very same language that accompanied the launching of U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, it appears that the difference between a war of choice or necessity is a matter of opinion.
When faced with the choice of escalating US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, Obama made a choice.
Isn’t that, after all, how any war begins? A choice is made.
“Hostilities exist,” proclaimed President Roosevelt on December 8, 1941, as he asked that the US Congress declare that a state of war “has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire” since December 7, 1941.
Whether one argues that FDR chose to wage war or that the US had no choice but to fight that “necessary war,” ultimately it was up to the U.S. Congress to declare that a state of war existed. The power to wage war, according to the U.S. Constitution, lies solely with the U.S. Congress.
That is not a choice. It is a necessity.
The term “war of choice” is often used to deride the George W. Bush-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. That is an armed conflict, critics argue, that is not necessary. It is, to use another more wonkish term, a “discretionary war.”
But now the term “war of choice” has entered the mindless media lexicon; Israel wages its own “war of choice” in Gaza; Pakistan chooses to wage war; and even the Mexican government is described as waging a war of choice… against drugs.
So, is this a good thing to be able to “choose war?"
The pervasive theme of choice in the American marketplace has long been celebrated. Consumers find "freedom" in the opportunity to choose from a multitude of competing products. A choice to purchase a given product amounts to a kind of victory for a corporation. And thus, industry fuels its own power on selling the very idea of consumer choice—a kind of attitude that led Pepsi to proclaim that it is “the choice of a new generation.”
Our freedom to choose allows us to label our own political identities--are you “pro choice” or “anti choice”?
The chants of choice create a din.
Even poor Carrie Bradshaw of Sex and the City couldn't help but proclaim (satirically): "I choose my choice!"
The enticing opportunity of making a choice seems to prove that we are free, autonomous beings.
But the idea of choice can be deceptive, connected with the limited view that things are either/or, this or that. In the world of choice, very little is necessary. One always has so many choices!
Although any nation can choose to go to war, in the realm of foreign policy, a “just” war is still viewed as one that is deemed necessary.
Thus, in his first months in office, President Obama was careful to make a distinction as he laid out his war plans: Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, he claimed, was “a war of choice.” But Obama's own plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, was different. "This," he claimed, as he stood before a group from the Veterans of Foreign wars, “is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.”
"Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again,” Obama continued. “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."
Given that this is the very same language that accompanied the launching of U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, it appears that the difference between a war of choice or necessity is a matter of opinion.
When faced with the choice of escalating US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, Obama made a choice.
Isn’t that, after all, how any war begins? A choice is made.
“Hostilities exist,” proclaimed President Roosevelt on December 8, 1941, as he asked that the US Congress declare that a state of war “has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire” since December 7, 1941.
Whether one argues that FDR chose to wage war or that the US had no choice but to fight that “necessary war,” ultimately it was up to the U.S. Congress to declare that a state of war existed. The power to wage war, according to the U.S. Constitution, lies solely with the U.S. Congress.
That is not a choice. It is a necessity.