Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
I'll join Entropy in his remarks.

I'd rather return to your initial point, that all wars of the US - save for WWII and Vietnam (possibly) - were unnecessary because they "were not vital for the nation's well being or shaping the international environment." The Revolution established the country; the Civil War ensured that it would not be half slave; th e War of 1812 protected independence from the UK, the Mexican War established the southern US boundaries and American pre-eminence in N. America - something that protected Mexico from France in 1865, the Spanish American War made the US a World power; WWI redrew the maps of the world and set the stage for WWII as well as the Cold War. The Indian Wars both subjugated indigenous peoples and protected settlers from terrorism. BTW have you been to an Indian casino recently? I call them revenge takers on the "pale faces" The Banana Wars protected a number of states in the Caribbean from the predation of such European powers as the UK and Germany (albeit at a price but America never annexed these independent states). El Salvador was, I submit, a quite necessary war and the US intervention served to not only reduce the barbarity but helped the Salvadorans on both sides to achieve a much better and healthier society. Panama, in 1989, was a Just Cause and we left the place better than we found it. So, too was Desert Storm which was a classic resistance to armed aggression.

Even if you disagree with some, most, or all of the outcomes, the results of these wars did change the structure of international society (if not the rules of the game).

Cheers

JohnT
I usually don't consider wars of independence as wars of the nation state, so I disregarded that one.

The Civil War was probably avoidable and even if the secession had succeeded, the slavery would most likely have ended few decades later.

The 1812 war was not decisive and avoidable.

The Mexican War was not necessary unless you consider expansion necessary. The Texan settlers had serious interests, but IIRC they were not fully U.S. citizens at that time?

The Spanish American war was the definition of useless and unnecessary. The USA got some colonies that it neither wanted nor needed and defeated an empire that was already in steep decline for a century. Furthermore, the reasons for the war were rather fabrications of the U.S. press than anything else.

WWI saw no decisive influence of the U.S. and was certainly not in the interest of the U.S. - the voters wanted peace, British propagandists/lobbyists wanted an additional ally.

The Indian wars were unnecessary as wars of expansion usually are, although it's obvious that they allowed an increase in power (ask Luxembourg citizens whether national power is really that relevant for well-being).

The Banana wars not really about deflecting European influence, but about raping defenseless Latin American states for the sake of some U.S. businesses like UF.
Btw, I don't understand the reference to Germany in context of Banana Wars. There's no relation at all.

Panama was an illegal invasion that didn't really serve U.S. interests simply because it was irrelevant. The people of Panama are slightly better off now; that doesn't mean that the war was necessary or good for the well-being of the U.S. Americans.

The 1991 Gulf War prevented that the U.S. economy got off the oil drug in time, caused a huge backlash with hundreds of billions economic damage so far, several thousand U.S. deaths and will continue to trouble the USA for decades. Hussein was about to invade Saudi-Arabia in 1991 as much as he was about to build nukes in 2003.

The USA wouldn't be as large or as powerful without these wars, but its people would not be less happy or rich.