I was wondering whether the escalation of this war in Afghanistan, beyond its originally touted “surgical” scenario, might be due more to an historic military need than to any current tactical strategy. Is it just coincidence that virtually every ten years of its history America has an armed conflict? Is it coincidence that the military inevitably raises the stakes of the conflict from “a police action”, or “a quest for justice”, or blatant revenge and retaliation -- to outright war? Is it really just to stop terrorism that our government is employing as many weapons, deploying as many troops, and destroying as many lives as it possibly can?

Even if we believe that our military exists (or should exist) solely for the defense of our freedoms, is it realistic to expect it to NOT go to war every ten years -- whether there is a justifiable excuse or not? If soldiers are not sent to fight and die at least that often, who will lead the troops into battle if there ever comes a time when a REAL war is necessary? Imagine how difficult it would be for young recruits to follow a squad leader who had no previous combat experience. Since most sergeants first earn their stripes in their early twenties and since most would not be much good at charging up hills by their mid thirties, we are left with a ten year window to keep combat veterans. This is also just long enough to ensure that the war machine stays greased and the collective memory of the citizenry fades.

It is not surprising that we are carpet bombing an entire country to try to kill a few terrorists. What is surprising is that some Americans are surprised. It’s been a decade since the Gulf War, two decades since Granada and Panama, three (and four) decades since Vietnam, five since Korea, etc. Maybe this is what the rest of the world refers to when they speak of American Decadence.