RALPH PETERS’ OPINIONS
Dear ACG:

As a relatively new subscriber (having received 3 issues) to ACG, first let me say that I enjoy and appreciate the fresh approach you take to enliven military history. I’ve been a long-time subscriber to many military history mags and yours is definitely unique in its efforts, and success, in bringing history to life.

However, I feel strongly that you should label Ralph Peters’ column as “Opinion” or “Editorial” rather than “Crisis Watch,” a title which implies that it presents some factual description of a current circumstance likely to lead to a military crisis, or at least a set of intellectual arguments pertaining to some military topic. Intead, this column appears to be composed solely of intellectual substance-free war mongering by an angry, emotional man who believes that war is its own Good, and end to be achieved, rather than a means of last resort to resolve political or human conflict.

One can be interested in military history, and certainly believe that at times war is a necessary evil, without being an angry Hater like Mr. Peters. That you choose to publish (or agree) with his positions is your own decision, and I welcome viewpoints of all sorts. But failing to present his writings as opinion, implying that this is instead a presentation of historical or present day factual description of analysis, is, I believe, an editorial mistake that reflects poorly on ACG.

You might infer from my strong reaction that I staunchly disagree with Mr. Peters. That’s not exactly correct: I believe in a strong military and also that those who risk their lives in the service of their country deserve not only our gratitude but our unflinching emotional and financial support.

However, Mr. Peters appears to believe that war should be our, and perhaps every historical nation’s, first option. His position that modern wars do not or should not be considered as having political components is the worst sort of drum-beating, chest-thumping hogwash. For every war, there are dozens and perhaps hundreds of examples of political solutions that prevented, ended, or at least reduced wars (and yes, in some cases, caused greater wars), and resolved issues without, or with very reduced, loss of precious life.

Mr. Peters refers to “leftist intellectuals” as though they have some insidious purpose to undermine the good that war brings. He characterizes all of our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan as just “one bad week in Normandy.” I’m sure that is much comfort to the parents, widows and parentless children who have lost their loved ones in these conflicts. Yes, wars create casualties and when as a last resort war is required to bring about a just result, people have to sacrifice for this cause. But to dismiss the loss of precious life in such a cavalier fashion is disgusting. All I can say is that I am very glad he does not represent the prevailing opinion of our military, political, or intellectual leaders.

I do, however, agree with Mr. Peters that the study of history is vital in avoiding a repeat of past mistakes and to assure we always retain a perspective on current crises. However, I suggest first that Mr. Peters acquaint himself with that history rather than implying that war is man’s greatest and most desirable tool to resolve political or human issues.

Respectfully,

Jim Interlandi
Chicago, Illinois

Thanks very much for your email to Armchair General magazine and for your comments on Ralph Peters’ Crisis Watch department column (“The No Victory Lie”, July 2009 issue). We appreciate the time you have taken to write down and send us your frank assessment of the article with your critique of what Ralph wrote in it. Based upon reader feedback, Ralph’s column is one of the most-read and consistently popular of all of our regular departments, presumably because of his ‘no-holds-barred’ style and the fact that he selects current topics of immediate interest, many of which are controversial, on which to base his opinion column each issue.

Help Armchair General by bookmarking to