"Good" war, real and mythical

I was happy to see someone calling attention to the problems of romanticizing the Second World War, as we often see done in American culture. The occasion was Sean Sean Gonsalves' column Exposing the myths of World War II Cape Cod Times 08/14/07. But then I wound up shaking my head in disappointment over one very disappointing point in an otherwise refreshingly good column.

Gonsalves encourages a critical attitude toward the upcoming Ken Burns/Lynn Novick documentary series The War, which is scheduled to begin airing on PBS on September 23. The teaser at the Web site describes the series as follows:

THE WAR, a seven-part series directed and produced by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, tells the story of the Second World War through the personal accounts of a handful of men and women from four quintessentially American towns. The series explores the most intimate human dimensions of the greatest cataclysm in history - a worldwide catastrophe that touched the lives of every family on every street in every town in America - and demonstrates that in extraordinary times, there are no ordinary lives.

Throughout the series, the indelible experience of combat is brought vividly to life as veterans describe what it was like to fight and kill and see men die at places like Monte Cassino and Anzio and Omaha Beach; the Hürtgen Forest and the Vosges Mountains and the Ardennes; and on the other side of the world at Guadalcanal and Tarawa and Saipan; Peleliu and the Philippine Sea and Okinawa. In all of the battle scenes, dramatic historical footage and photographs are combined with extraordinarily realistic sound effects to give the film a terrifying, visceral immediacy. (my emphasis)

Ken Burns is generally pretty careful with his historical facts. I certainly don't expect any kind of hack job from him.

But how much it challenges misconceptions that have proved to be dangerous in their effects on American foreign policy is another question. Gonsalves cites a book called, Worshipping the Myths of World War II: Reflections on America's Dedication to War (2006) by Edward W. Wood, Jr. Gonsalves sums up the "myths" to which the author refers as follows:

"The philosophy of the way to fight terrorism or to halt rogue states from possessing the atomic bomb rests squarely on the four myths of World War II," Wood writes, sure to raise the hackles of those who consider the prevailing mythology as sacred.

Wood's four myths: "1.) The Good War; 2.) The Greatest Generation; 3.) We Won World War II Largely on Our Own; and 4.), When Evil Lies in Others, War Is the Means to Justice."

On the basis of Gonsalves' column, Wood's book certainly sounds promising and thought-provoking.

But then, in explaining the "Good War" point, Gonsalves writes this:

The "Good War" myth is exposed as such by the historical record, testifying of the mass killing of innocents. What's good about that? A necessary war, perhaps. But "good?" That's sick.

I certainly think that a better understanding of the massive destruction and death from the Second World War bombing deserve better and more realistic understanding than most accounts I see seem to convey.

And, in general, I also think the story of civilian suffering, both during and after the war, and the stories of the prisoners-of-war are badly neglected.

But I just wanted to groan when I saw Gonsalves' comment, "A necessary war, perhaps. But 'good?' That's sick."

On the face of it, it sounds like a vague humanitarian or pacifist sentiment. But he's not arguing for a pacifist viewpoint. And his comments seems to indicate a complete lack of understanding of the moral dimensions of war.

The notion of the Just War is one of the most basic Christian doctrines in the history of the Church. St. Augustine is credited with formulating the basic concept. The doctrine involves looking at the reason for going to war and realistically assessing the costs and benefits.

But it's scarcely an exclusively Christian doctrine. Islam and Judaism both have developed similar concepts over the years. I'm not familiar enough with the particular treatment of the concept in other religions to say much about it.

Secular international law, which was heavily influenced by religious concepts of the Just War, incorporates many of the elements of the religious notions. Without them, we're left with pure pragmatism in deciding which wars are necessary and which are not. For a country like the United States, which is currently able to initiate wars against enemies not likely to initiate conflicts against us, having some reasonable criteria of deciding which wars are necessary and right is particularly important.

It should be obvious that our poor species hasn't done so very well in applying reasonable enough restraints on war or implementing moral concepts of the Just War.

But tossing the whole concept into the air and dismissing it as "sick" seems to be to ignore the essential moral dimension of political decisions about war. We're left with mourning the morally repugnant results of the wars we're more often than not stampeded into for no good reason.

Tags: just war, just war doctrine, ken burns, sean gonsalves, second world war