America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great (18 page)

After World War I, spurred on by confidence and the tremendous industrial
stimulus the war had provided, America enjoyed a thriving business community and unparalleled expansion of the manufacturing sector. We got heavily involved with the international business community, but had little desire to engage in international geopolitical squabbles. Once again, an isolationist mind-set began to prevail, while political tensions throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa began to mount. Our military preparedness had dwindled, even though large conflicts in Asia and Europe were beginning to take place. The Germans were determined to regain their status as a world power, and in 1936 entered into a treaty with Japan, forming the basis for the Axis powers. As the various international conflicts increased, the politically neutral United States sold military, industrial, and nutritional products to supply the war, greatly bolstering its coffers.

There was not unanimous agreement, however, that we should stay out of the war, which had pulled in virtually every world power except the United States. It appears that Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to get involved, particularly given the friendship he had with Winston Churchill, but our nation’s isolationist faction was still too strong. However, on December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, and more than two thousand American servicemen lost their lives. Four days later, the Germans declared war on the United States, and an amazing thing occurred. A spirit of unity encompassed the entire nation, and we went from neutral to strongly committed to the Allied forces overnight.
²

Prior to our entrance into World War II, many nations of the world had been falling like dominoes before the tyrannical Axis powers, but the Japanese made a strategic error when they awakened the sleeping giant of America. Ours was a nation with the ability to send its young men from the cities, suburbs, and countryside to fight around the world, while sending its young women into factories to build more airplanes, tanks, and mortars than anyone could imagine. Through our industrial might and determination, we became a nation that changed the course of history and delivered the world from brutal tyranny.

The United States and the Soviet Union emerged from World War II as the two superpowers of the world with markedly different philosophies regarding freedom, economics, and geopolitical strategies, which eventually led to the strategic standoff known as the “Cold War.” Although it is true that many nations that are free today owe their freedom to the United States, it is also true that we would most likely not have prevailed in
our
quest for freedom from Great Britain in the late 1700s without the help of the French and other nations.

In spite of the obvious horrors of World War II for a generation around the world, there were also a number of green shoots that emerged for the United States following that war. National unity and pride was at an all-time high, and our infrastructure for production of industrial goods continued to function very well, leading to a booming post-war economy. The war even helped provide an impetus for the civil rights movement because African-American soldiers had performed so valiantly throughout the conflict. They boasted many heroic ground units as well as the famous Tuskegee Airmen, whose impressive list of successful combat missions is unparalleled. In 1948 President Truman outlawed segregation in the armed forces, paving the way for the abolition of this abominable practice throughout America.

We experienced a similar groundswell of unity after the 9/11 crisis in New York City. Political rancor ceased and almost everyone united behind President George W. Bush for a season. Whether America’s ensuing steps into war in Afghanistan and Iraq will be seen as positive or negative remains to be seen, but I can’t help thinking there may have been a better way to react that would not have cost us so many lives and financial capital. I believe that if the president had seized the moment and declared that we would become petroleum independent within the next ten years as part of our effort to strip terrorism of its resources, that business, industry, academia, and everyone else would have been foursquare behind him, and we would have been much further ahead in the fight against terrorism than we are today.

First of all, the moderate Arab states would have been terrified about losing their economic base and would most probably have turned Osama bin Laden and anyone else we wanted over on a silver platter immediately. Second, an enormous number of jobs would likely have been created in the process of switching over to a new energy source, and Wall Street would have been booming. Third, the environmentalists would have been ecstatic; and fourth, but most importantly, the terrorists would have been deprived of much-needed funding, which would have gradually strangled their efforts. Oil prices would have fallen dramatically in an attempt to soften our resolve, but good leadership would hopefully have recognized and compensated for such a ploy. The point, of course, is that in some cases clever tactics can be employed outside of military action to respond to hostile actions. A strong military, coupled with wise leadership, will go a long way toward establishing and maintaining peace in the world.

While World War I and World War II had very positive effects on the American economy, subsequent wars have had a neutral effect at best. The
Iraq war should certainly have put an end to the myth that war is good for our economy. It is true that the demand for war products gave the economy a giant boost during our wars largely subsidized by other nations, but today the expense of modern warfare far outweighs any economic benefits it achieves. War is bad on all accounts and should be the very last resort for our nation.

The horrors of war are probably best illustrated by what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Not only was there massive destruction of life and property, but the residual effects of radiation after the atomic blast were felt for decades. Although the dropping of atomic weapons certainly hastened the end of the war, the Axis powers were already on the run and their defeat was certain. Nevertheless, the advent of the atomic era forever changed the landscape of large-scale international conflict. One can only imagine what would have happened to the world if the Axis powers had been first to acquire atomic weapons — and one can only imagine what will happen in the future if terrorists are armed with such weapons. A grave responsibility rests with those who are in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the entire world should endeavor to keep them from rogue nations.

I realize that some feel that the United States and other world powers with nuclear weapons have no right to declare that others cannot have them. On the surface this seems like a fair argument, but can you imagine how many deaths would occur if everyone were given a handgun? Perhaps it would be
fair
to give everyone a handgun, but it certainly would not be
wise
. Although I applaud efforts toward nuclear disarmament, I also realize that if no one had nuclear weapons and one of the madmen of the world acquired them, worldwide tyranny would quickly follow. Therefore, we must be careful in pursuing our goals of an idyllic world.

The next two wars the United States was involved in were really ideological wars. The Korean War was a proxy war, with the Korean Peninsula becoming the site of the first Cold War conflict. It was the first major intervention in the world by the newly formed United Nations, which took action when communist North Korea, backed by China and Russia, invaded South Korea, backed primarily by the United States. The conflict lasted only three years, and Korea remains a divided nation today. In the case of Vietnam, we were trying to stop the spread of communism, which seems like a noble cause to those who hate communism. However, many people love communism, and certainly everyone should have the right to live under the system of their choosing. The problem occurs when a system of government
is forcibly imposed upon unwilling participants. It was our attempt to stop such intrusions that led to our participation in these wars. Although our intentions were noble, I question our methodology.

A major question, however, remains: what responsibility does the world’s only superpower have when it comes to responding to humanitarian atrocities throughout the world? Should we have intervened in Rwanda to prevent the slaughter of over one million innocent people? Should we have been more concerned about the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam Hussein was slaughtering than the possibility of him possessing weapons of mass destruction? When the United Nations was formed, it was intended to be an international guardian of freedom that would not allow humanitarian atrocities. Like the United States, however, it has become so bogged down in politics that it did virtually nothing to stop these and many other calamities from occurring. Recently, it did vindicate itself to a degree by taking relatively quick action against the ruthless regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, but its overall record leaves something to be desired. These issues become very complex when a nation responds to these atrocities through the lens of such questions as, what’s in it for us? and how does it fit into our global strategic goals? They are much simpler to answer, however, when constrained by the principle of doing what’s right and moral.

A large void in ethical world leadership has been present for quite a while, and this is a perfect time for the United States to step forward and offer effective, morally consistent policies unconstrained by political correctness. If a bully faction or bully nation is beating up on those with whom it disagrees or simply doesn’t like, we should immediately stop them with brutal force, if necessary, because it is the right thing to do. If that were done consistently, I guarantee that such incidents would cease almost immediately.

I mention political correctness here because it only hampers effectiveness. For example, a lot of time, effort, and lives were wasted in Fallujah, Iraq, because the terrorists were hiding among the people and using them as shields against the American forces. Political correctness dictates that we cannot kill innocent women and children in the process of destroying the enemy. I certainly agree from a moral perspective, but from a military perspective I would not have played their game. I would have announced via bullhorn and leaflets that in seventy-two hours Fallujah was going to become part of the desert because there were substantial numbers of terrorists hiding there. This would have given people time to flee before the
city was destroyed, and is a tactic that would actually save lives not only of women and children, but also men. If the terrorists were foolish enough to choose to remain and to keep people from leaving, any ensuing deaths would clearly be their responsibility. Admittedly these are very bold and definitive steps, but such actions would likely preclude long drawn-out wars, and ultimately decrease the numbers of people killed and injured.

I can just hear pacifists saying, how horrible and brutal — how could a man of God even think such a thing? But they haven’t thought beyond their initial reaction. You would not have to take this type of action very often before people began to realize that having terrorists among them was not a good thing, and they would act accordingly to either expose such individuals or expel them. On the surface, this kind of action may seem brutal, but I believe the number of innocent lives that ultimately would be spared is substantial, and it seems to me that it would be more morally acceptable to destroy structures than lives. Buildings can always be replaced, but not so for even one life. When political correctness is not introduced into warfare, efficiency and smart economic policies can prevail.

We have talked about World War I and World War II, but could World War III be in our future? The war on terror has already been declared, and unless we act with courage and decisiveness, there is no question that the terrorists will soon acquire nuclear weapons. Radical Islamic extremists are not satisfied to peacefully coexist with those they consider to be infidels. They feel that such people need to either be converted or destroyed — and there is no middle ground. Although the vast majority of Muslims don’t subscribe to this philosophy, they are not very vocal, just as the vast majority of Germans did not subscribe to Hitler’s insanity, but instead remained silent, paving the way for some of the most monstrous acts against humanity ever committed. We need to actively combat these extremists in every way possible, including economic warfare. The terrorist network derives most of its money through oil revenues, and we, along with most of the rest of the world, have an insatiable appetite for oil. Unlike the rest of the world, however, we have enormous amounts of oil under North and South Dakota, Montana, and Alaska, as well as offshore oil. I am as much of a conservationist as anyone and love the natural beauty that surrounds us, but the pragmatic part of me warns that there will be no beauty at all if the world is consumed in nuclear conflagration. As we intelligently tap our own resources, we must doggedly pursue other energy sources. With appropriate incentives, I have no question that Americans, with all their ingenuity, can come up with new sources of clean energy in a relatively short period of time.

Providing appropriate incentives to the American people should result in a plethora of ideas and inventions to solve our energy problems. Can you imagine the amount of hydroelectric power alone that is available to us, situated as we are between two oceans? We simply need to invent efficient and inexpensive ways to harness that energy. We also need a way to regulate the way some companies and individuals buy up patents of promising ideas that would threaten their sources of revenue. For instance, petroleum companies should not be allowed to purchase the patent for a new process to harness solar energy. Perhaps no one should be allowed to buy such a patent without demonstrating a clear-cut plan and the capability to bring the plan to fruition. Incorporating such ideas into our society should help America move toward energy independence, leading to greater self-sufficiency and preventing political conflicts over oil.