According to U.S. government estimates, the relentless War on Terror has devoured over $8 trillion since 2001. These staggering numbers include $2.3 trillion on military endeavors in Afghanistan and Pakistan, another $2.1 trillion in Iraq and Syria, a hefty $355 billion in Somalia, and $1.1 trillion on domestic security measures, much of it paid for by the insurmountable national debt. And yet, the toll continues to accrue.
The War on Terror, birthed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, has sprawled its tentacles across 85 nations. The U.S.'s involvement ranges from purportedly benign training and military aid to the grim realities of combat, airstrikes, and targeted assassinations. But for all the bloodshed and wealth spent, victory remains an elusive specter.
Over 900,000 souls have been claimed by this unyielding war, with a staggering 432,000 civilians mercilessly caught in the crossfire and a harrowing 38 million displaced from their homes. The CIA's ominous list of sixty active terror organizations paints a grim picture of relentless adversaries like al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and the Taliban, none of whom bow to democracy's ideologies. Despite repeated salvos launched by U.S. interventions, these forces of extremism continue to defy defeat and continue their reins of chaos.
The Taliban, notorious for their brutal treatment of women, exemplify the futility of our efforts. They stoned women before U.S. arrival in Afghanistan, and they persist in their atrocities even after our departure. The grim reality is that some foes may be beyond the reach of conventional warfare, no matter how fervently we cling to the hope of absolute conquest.
Our nation has been spared from a torrent of terrorist assaults, but at what cost? Proxy wars have become the norm, orchestrated by the State Department's “do-gooder” machinations. Yet, if we were to scrutinize the colossal expenditure of lives and resources through the lens of a business venture, the balance sheet would reveal bankruptcy, a stark testament to our failure to realize meaningful gains.
There are those who argue that victory lies not in vanquishing foes but in coercing compliance, citing investor activists like Nelson Peltz’s battle with Disney as examples. Yet, can the same tactics of leverage be applied to adversaries like the Taliban, ISIS, or Hezbollah, or are we merely deluding ourselves with false hopes of influence and control?
Sun Tzu's ancient wisdom echoes through the corridors of time, reminding us that every battle is won or lost long before the first shot is fired. The true artistry of war lies not in conquering enemies but in subduing them without resorting to open conflict, a nuance lost in the relentless pursuit of illusory Crusade-like victories.
“I am as ethical as I need to be…” captures a sense of ethical pragmatism or situational ethics, where ethical decisions are made based on the immediate context and needs. Ethical pragmatism acknowledges that ethical considerations can vary depending on the situation, and what may be considered ethical in one context might not apply universally. This approach contrasts with moral absolutism, which posits fixed and unchanging ethical principles regardless of the circumstances.
Ethical pragmatism is associated with the idea that ethical decisions should be practical and achievable within the constraints of a particular situation. It recognizes the complexities of real-life ethical dilemmas and the need for flexibility in ethical decision-making.
However, critics of ethical pragmatism argue that it can lead to moral relativism or the prioritization of short-term gains over long-term ethical considerations. Balancing pragmatism with a strong ethical foundation rooted in values and principles can be a challenge but is essential for making sound and responsible ethical decisions.
The somber truth remains: proxy fights are not victimless, in the end, “liberty, equality, and fraternity” are but an “over the horizon” mirage.
More By This Author:
Interesting, thanks.