This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, March 24, 2011 - The conflict now commonly referred to as World War I began in earnest in August 1914. By November of 1918, Germany lay prostrate before its enemies. In truth, during the previous year, the Allies and the Central Powers had fought to a virtual standstill. No longer could either side muster a sustained offensive.
Bled dry by three years of savage mechanized warfare, the adversaries resembled two spent fighters staggering before each other, trapped within the brutal confines of a ring of their own device. That's when America came into the fray and thus determined its outcome.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --George Santayana
The fresh infusion of manpower and machinery was simply too much for the opponents to absorb. Had the U.S. entered on behalf of Germany, history's verdict would no doubt have been reversed. In fact, the case can be fairly made that of the two shaken combatants, Germany was ahead on points when America weighed in.
Alternate narratives notwithstanding, Germany and its allies were utterly vanquished by war's end. Fifteen years later, the German people would elect a fiery, young nationalist to lead their nation back to greatness. His name was Adolf Hitler. Within 12 years, he would bring the country to devastation that would make its previous flirtation with extinction seem benign by comparison.
What happened? How could the same people make the same catastrophic mistake twice within 20 years? The answer to that riddle is really quite simple: They forgot -- or worse, they re-remembered.
One of candidate Hitler's favorite themes was that the Great War was a noble cause and ultimately winnable, save for the perfidy of traitors -- the "Stab in the Back" as he and his ilk referred to it. Next time, Adolf would ensure that there was no internal treachery.
Once relieved of the burden of historical fact, it becomes fairly easy to replace it with convenient fiction. Germany's problem was no longer that of a nation surrounded by hostile powers, but rather that of a noble race laid low by impure elements within its midst. This delusion set the stage for the hasty dispatch of what was planned to be a 1,000-year Reich.
Of course, Germans hold no patent on selective amnesia and its attendant folly. Eight years to the day after George W. Bush launched his ill-fated invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama launched air strikes against Libya to establish a U.N.-mandated "No Fly Zone" in that troubled land. This safe haven is intended to prevent strongman Moammar Gadhafi from using air power to suppress the rebels who would unseat him. (Hint to future commanders-in-chief from a concerned taxpayer: Try not to launch anything more controversial than a weather balloon on March 19.)
President Obama has stressed the international composition of the coalition enforcing the zone and specifically touted the expressed support of the Arab League for the venture.
For his part, Gadhafi -- who would make a pretty good villain in an Austin Powers movie -- announced he would ground his air force while battling the rebellion before the U.N. finally passed the no-fly resolution.
To the extent that the first casualty of war is truth, its second victim is language. With Libya not flying, the No-Fly Zone would seem to have been an instant success without a shot being fired. Problem solved. Unfortunately, that facile solution left Gadhafi with tanks and armored vehicles to use against the lightly armed rebels. If the covert agenda was his removal, then this state of affairs was unacceptable.
Though both the president and his secretary of state have called for Gadhafi's ouster in recent weeks, the U.N. mandate was intended solely to limit civilian casualties from unbridled air power. To achieve this humanitarian goal, we have launched air strikes against Libyan anti-aircraft facilities located, naturally enough, in and around population centers -- bombing civilians for their own safety, as it were.
Ironically, proponents of the Iraq invasion mentioned its effect on people like Gadhafi as an ancillary benefit of the action. He was specifically cited as a rogue tyrant who was persuaded to abandon his WMD development program after seeing what happened to his Iraqi counterpart. Now, we're bombing him anyway, sending others the message that the only sure way to protect yourself is to acquire your own stockpile of nukes.
As of this writing, it's impossible to predict how the current engagement will play out. History, however, offers clues: If this proves to be a quick, surgical strike as advertised, its effects will not be long-lasting and it will serve only to prolong the conflict. Support from the Arab League will prove fleeting as several of its members are trying to suppress rebellions of their own.
Like Vietnam, we are injecting ourselves into somebody else's civil war. As in Iraq, we intercede to dispose a marginalized dictator who poses little threat to America's vital interests. And like both Afghanistan and Iraq, we have no money to pay for the venture. Every cruise missile we launch increases the deficit by $1.4 million.
Collective amnesia makes for repeated folly but there is some indication that it may be curable. Germany, for instance, has refused to participate in the Libyan campaign...
M.W. Guzy is a retired St. Louis cop who currently works for the city Sheriff's Department. His column appears weekly in the Beacon.