Comments
Pretty hard to set that aside and no one should do so. Wars are never frivolous. They may be forced or of choice and either of those can be necessary or unnecessary.
The Revolution was a war of choice -- the Sons of Liberty and others deliberately fomented the war, mostly in resistance to the British desire to Tax the Americans to pay for their own defense and the debt from the Seven Years War. Americans <i>still</i> don't like Taxes and seem to want something for nothing...
It was probably necessary -- don't know for sure, wasn't there.
Afghanistan wasn't frivolous and our entry was necessary -- staying this long was not necessary IMO.
Iraq was almost as necessary as Afghanistan, it was indeed a war of choice but it or something like it was necessary to compensate for the errors of four previous US Administrations in failing to respond properly to armed provocations emanating from the Middle East (Afghanistan is not in the ME...). That it was necessary does not excuse the poor prosecution and resultant length of commitment.
Nothing frivolous about wars -- they affect many persons other than those who fight them. A lot of innocents and nominally uninvolved persons are always caught up and hurt or worse in some fashion. The total human and other costs preclude use of "frivolous" applied to a war in any meaningful way. Or should...
A better term might be "frivolous wars" or similar, setting aside that such terminology might well be viewed as insulting to those who fight in them. The Revolutionary War could be considered a war of "choice", but I don't think it could be considered frivolous. Our entry into Afghanistan probably wouldn't be considered frivolous, but our continued involvement there might be.
Opps. Critical error. Last sentence should obviously have said:
"Likewise, internal "wars of NECESSITY" might also be explained via the current conflict within the United States; wherein, the more-modern/liberal elements feel that their way of life is threatened by the less-modern/conservative elements and vise-versa."
ADTS: I think you have hit the nail on the head: Threats to one's way of life often constitute and are frequently considered "wars of necessity."
This can apply internationally, as in your example re: Nazi Germany being perceived as a threat to our way of life. Or, presently, as in the case of the less-modern/more-conservative elements of Islamic World feeling that their way of life is threated by the encroachment of the more-modern/more-liberal "West."
Likewise, this can apply internally within a country; as per your example re: the American Civil War. Likewise interal "wars of choice" might also be explained via the current conflict within the United States; wherein, the more-modern/liberal elements feel that their way of life is threatened by the less-modern/conservative elements and vis-versa.
I should, perhaps, have not included the American Revolution, the War of 1812, or the American Civil War as wars of choice. To me, a war of choice is a war fought for some reason other than the ability of the nation-state to exist as is. I suppose by definition, then, the Civil War was a war of necessity. But as I read Sasquatch's comment, I felt somewhat compelled to write (and am doing so here): moral objections to slavery notwithstanding, what is inconceivable about a Confederacy being allowed to secede from the Union, and the two peacefully coexisting? Such an occurrence seems, at a minimum, plausible. Similarly, forget about the Civil War, or the US "abstaining" from WW II either before or after a Japanese attack; the British considered making peace offerings to the Germans well after WW II had begun. Is it conceivable that a Channel-protected UK could have coexisted with a Nazi Europe? To me, yes.
I think the wiggle-room in my definition lies in the "as is," which allows for Domino Theory-type fears or definitional issues, e.g., "If we [the US?/the UK?] permit Europe to fall, we shall be next," or perhaps more minimally, "If we [the US?/the UK?] permit Europe to fall, our way of life will be so radically different that..."
But ultimately, I think various modes of peace that did not occur could, in fact, have occurred fairly easily. I might not be accepting basic elements such as domestic politics (e.g., after an attack at Pearl Harbor). But I think the basic point about American grand strategy - the US needs to fight very few wars due largely to its size and location - and (to be grandiose) the nature of history more broadly - many things that did not happen could easily have happened - are tenable.
ADTS
I think Jimbo is making the definition of "war of choice" far too broad, basing it around the fairly arbitrary point of who made an attack on military assets first. WWII was a war of necessity because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor--in which case, why did we spend so long fighting in Europe? WWI was a war of choice because, I guess, killing American citizens isn't provocation? But wait, if that's the case, why does 9/11 count as provocation (yes, AQ attacked and killed US soldiers prior to 9/11, but we'd have gone into Afghanistan even if 9/11 had been the first-ever AQ attack)?
James Fearon arguably makes the same point as LawVol, in his article "Rationalist Explanations for War," in "International Organization."
"For states that compete through war, the loss in lives and property reduces the benefit or increases the burden of eventual settlements. Therefore, states are better off obtaining a given settlement without a costly contest."
http://wikisum.com/w/Fearon:_Rationalist_explanations_for_war
Basically, one could theoretically arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome that mirrors the outcome of a war, without having the war itself. Hence, why have a war, rather than bargaining an outcome in advance?
In terms of the choice/non-choice coding conducted above in this thread, I find it very hard to view any American wars as being anything other than wars of choice. Geography is destiny, and the United States has two tremendous moats. I suspect an agreement with the Japanese could have been made prior to WW II, e.g., acquiescence to Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia in exchange for peaceful relations with the US. The US could even have, conceivably, made peace overtures with the Japanese after December 7, 1941, even though public opinion and political pressure would have rendered such an action unfeasible. As for the remainder of the Axis, what occurred in Europe was arguably of minimal significance to the self-sufficient and geographically protected US. Would the US have declared war on Germany if Germany had not declared war on it? Would it really have mattered were the Germans conquered Europe, including Russia? Then the world might have transmogrified into a bipolar world - which seemed somewhat stable during the Cold War - or in the worst case, a United States isolated but still able to defend and provide for itself.
ADTS
All wars by all nations are wars of choice. A nation may choose to fight or to submit -- it may also choose between fighting and the status quo. If submission is unacceptable, then the choice is usually fight now or fight later. Even WWII was a choice. Once attacked by Japan, we could have withdrawn from the Pacific. Instead, we chose to fight.
The issue, as indicated by Ken, is in selecting the appropriate times and circumstances for using force. Apparently, the recent human cost in our wars of choice have shown Mr. Gates the light and made him realize that, perhaps, we are too quick to resort to the sword. Better late than never I guess.
<b>Jimbo:</b>
While I agree that those were Wars of Choice as you write, most also were choices made in reaction to a threat or a perceived future threat in order to disrupt said threat. Non-tolerance of threats is the longest standing tenet of American policy (that and commercial interference; all those southern hemisphere -- indeed worldwide -- interventions). Add the fact that many believed and still believe the Americans were to self involved to fight; that's led to most all our wars. Always a mistaken idea on the part of those who do not know us well...
That choice bit does apply to WW I <i>and</i> to WW II -- given all FDR's machination to get us into that war and given the fact that he virtually implored the Japanese to attack, it was definitely a war of choice -- but it was also aimed at disrupting not one but two potential future threats.
Afghanistan is also a war of choice. There were other ways to respond, we simply chose the easiest because the Defense establishment which should have been capable of doing other things was not. After the initial, successful response, we could have (should have IMO) departed but G. W. Bush decided to stay and fix not what we had broken but something that had long been broken. Even if one concludes it was not initially, it certainly is now a war of choice...
In Gate's defense, I suspect he's aware of all that though he might quibble over a war or two. I think he meant we should just be careful when and where we choose to fight -- we probably would be well advised to stop trying to fight by the opponents rules and on his turf.
Mr. Gate's feelings--while laudable--ignore the history of American war. The history of American War is almost completely a history of war's of choice. Furthermore, I would not call Afghanistan a war of choice.
Revolutionary War - war of choice
War of 1812 - war of choice
Mexican-American War - war of choice
Civil War - war of choice
Indian Wars - war of choice
Spanish American War - war of choice
Various Small Wars of Latin America - war of choice
World War I - war of choice
World War II - Not war of choice (only because they swung first)
Korean War - war of choice
Vietnam - war of choice
Grenada - war of choice
Panama - war of choice
Desert Storm - war of choice
Afghanistan - Not war of choice
Iraq - war of choice
Libya - war of choice