One could say that the history of liberal democracy in general, and the United States in particular, is a melange of ennobling and corrupting efforts that arguably has resulted in the institution and nation becoming more and more egalitarian over time. The high ideals that form its base, spoken of from democracy's very inception in Greece, are only slowly being brought into real practice. At times they are cast aside in favor of expediency or the particular ideology of one group. One of our challenges, as people committed to the process of democracy, is to note the closest we have come to these ideals, where we have fallen from what is our best, and how to renew and enliven the living social contract that enables this slow growth of the United States' moral and ethical character.
Regardless of what you believe about which social issue carries the most weight and importance, there is nothing about collective human behavior that reveals our pains and failures so much as our conduct of, and how we decide to engage in warfare. For most of this country's history, the invasion and political destruction of another extant nation was not undertaken without a declaration of war. Once the Korean "conflict" demonstrated that large-scale military action was possible without the legal imprimateur (or entanglement) of a Congressional declaration of war, the practice was completely abandoned, with the feeble War Powers Act just as tiny and useless a moral fig leaf as any Congressional "authorization of force."
Modern warfare has ostensibly a history of attempting to avoid the involvement of civilians as much as possible. After World War One, the feeling was that the engines of destruction now available to us were too terrible to ever again be unleashed on a civilian population. Unfortunately the idea that war itself was now too terrible to be borne didn't take hold, so the idea of protecting those who were not fighting gained credibility. Many non-combatants throughout history, dead and wounded, can reveal that this idea of separating civilians from the conflict wasn't happening, isn't happening, and may never happen in totality; especially the citizens of Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and that's just a small sample of World War II, as well as only two nations from that conflict. But the fact is, we go through periods of trying, and to tell the truth, we've never really given it a chance. Remember, this is not about civilizing warfare, but attempting to escape it with our national ideals intact.
Veteran's Day was originally Armistice Day, a day of rememberance for those who served in World War I. For those veterans, it was always a day of thanks for that moment at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, where those fighting in Europe said together that they would end their battle. That was a powerful moment, a moment when the soldiers were no longer bound by national duty to kill each other, and once again had the choice to be kind. It was a declaration that the fighting was over, easily the most powerful statement of responsibility you can make regarding the application of force against other human beings: that it must stop, and that you will be part of that cessation. Not responsibility in the sense of blame, but responsibility meaning a sober knowledge of what has been done, and taking action to end it. This is responsibility, to truly see a tragic decision through to the end, and to plan for the future (as spoiled as that planning was by the intensely punitive nature of the Treaty of Versailles).
Take a moment to pause and think about this: an armistice must necessarily follow a decision to start fighting - in that particular case, a declaration of war. An open deliberation with massive consequences for anyone touching the nation that embarks on it, let alone if war is actually declared. So ask yourself, if we're in a war, why wasn't war declared on Iraq and Afghanistan? What was so politically dangerous about the idea of the President going before a joint session of Congress and and stating "I feel it is necessary to take the country into conflict, here are my true and complete reasons, and I will abide by the decision you make in accordance with our Constitution" that it could not be done? Why, if our president was elected to bring honor to the White House, does he dishonor the Geneva Conventions, which we were right to have signed, because they center solely around the proposition that the strong must not victimize the weak? Why, if it was necessary to destroy nations, was it necessary to hide the reasons from us? And why, if this president claims to be a conservative, would he not only follow bad precedent in ignoring the exclusive power of Congress to declare war, but not set a new precedent for hewing to the original intent of the framers?
And lastly, on Armistice day, remember what we must be grateful for, that wars end: and that the soldiers and civilians will again have a chance for some measure of peace between the ravaging that only warfare can inflict on the fragile fabric of our compassion and humanity. I will be standing with others in front of Walter Reed tomorrow night, remembering that wars end, and that we must live afterwards. Not only must we help those who survive, and those who mourn, to rebuild their faith that the world somehow makes some kind of sense. On Memorial Day it is time to remember the dead, but on Friday it will be time to focus on the living, on their speedy and safe return from this undeclared war, and the hope that the next generation of combat veterans will not arise unless there is true need - and not for a very, very long time.
Please, join us.