Danger of British 'Perpetual War' Policy Identified in Afghan War Debate

Behind the ousting of Gen. Stanley McChrystal— who, in spite of himself, was a vehicle for the uproar in the U.S. military against Obama Administration policy—was the commitment of the Administration to a policy of perpetual war, argues an op-ed by defense analyst Andrew J. Bacevich in the Washington Post today. Previously, American leaders understood what Gen. George Marshall once said, "A democracy cannot fight a Seven Years War." Yet, that's what the U.S. has done, again and again, starting with the Vietnam War, he writes.

It's what the Pentagon calls its "Long War," he says. And it's a war being fought by "the troops" (volunteer army), not the population. And those troops have increasing disdain for the civilian leadership, Bacevich argues. He then goes back to Roman times, quoting centurion Marcus Flavius of Rome, who warned that if the Roman legions did not get the support of the population, they would turn on the leadership in the capital.

Bacevich concludes that that leadership has to abandon the idea of perpetual war, or it will become truly at war with itself.

A parallel analysis of the disastrous situation which has been created in the military by this de facto British policy, is reflected in the Post's lead article on the crisis which led to McChrystal's firing. "Today's wars demand that top commanders act like modern viceroys," writes Greg Jaffe. This job is incompatible with the training of America's generals, he argues, pointing to the fact that three of the dozen commanders who have been put in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of the U.S. Central Command, have been fired or forced to resign under pressure.

Unstated in these otherwise useful articles is the authorship of this self-destructive strategy for the United States, a strategy in effect since the 1756 to 1763 Seven Years War: the British Empire.