Skip to main content

War Without Casualties?

America has had presidents who could offer the inspiration that the country needs right now, but I don't think a reality-TV-star will measure up. Perhaps the entertainment value of a president is not the most important thing in the world.

The country faces a serious struggle -- not exactly a "war" -- that represents what William James might have called the "moral equivalent of war." But our current struggle is more than just a metaphor of war, because it requires us to accept casualties, as a real war does.

How has the notion gotten into people's heads that you can win a struggle without casualties? It probably comes from the 20 year era of Forever War which the country got suckered into after 911. Although America has destroyed the lives of more than a million people in the Mideast, only a few thousand Americans have been killed.

No sacrifices by the average American in fighting wars on borrowed money -- that is what war has come to mean. But in recovering our economy from this hateful lockdown, there will be casualties.

In a real war, there must be casualties. If you can't stomach it, then just surrender.

Unlike most wars, which are unnecessary and stupid, there are some wars that are worth fighting. A country cannot commit economic suicide out of fear of a virus.

But SAFETY has become a deity or moral absolute over the last few decades, instead of a sober weighing of costs and benefits.

Everybody is going to die -- we just don't know exactly when and where. But the question is, will most people ever be allowed to live?


Mike Gallimore said…
Most of can accept casualties as long as they aren't ours.