Ex-Marine Thomas Gibbons-Neff's memoir in the weekend Washington Post editions, entitled "I could justify fighting in Afghanistan - until Boston" voices the concern of one of our fighting men that the Boston bombing means that the war he was waging has "spilled over" into our lives at home. In other words, that Gibbons-Neff feels his soldiering might be partly responsible for the Boston bombing.
No, I don't buy that argument. The terrorism of September 11, 2001 continues; Boston is the evidence thereof; but the war in Afghanistan, overextended and goal-altered though it may be, can't be seen as its cause. No need for guilt on that score.
This piece raises another more interesting question, though. The question of how we justify our almost continuous state of warfare in remote corners of the world. For two major world wars in Europe, the justification was that we were fighting to preserve America's freedom (and coincidentally that of our allies). It may have been credible then. After all, we shared a culture, and an economic fate, with Europe, Hitler directly threatened the U.S., and it was easy to see ourselves being attacked. (In fact the Japanese did briefly occupy the Aleutian Islands of Alaska.)
When we moved on to Korea, Vietnam, and many other places, if you think about it, the credibility disappeared. There was no real connection between Korea's fate and the future of American democracy. But the justification remained the same. For political leaders, what worked in the past would probably work again. Effectively, we were fighting for power and influence in the world; but that would have been a far less productive motivator than "keeping America safe [and/or free]." These were wars of choice.
If you doubt my premise, I'd just point out the popularity among troops in Vietnam of Country Joe McDonald's lyric: "One, two, three, what are we fighting for?" They had it figured out. Or, consider why, when we faced a real threat to our safety exemplified by the attacks of September 11, we reacted by creating a "Department of Homeland Security." What was the "Department of Defense" doing? Fighting overseas wars! (We should really go back to calling them the "Department of War." It's more honest.)
Paradoxically, it's possible that this old justification is slowly becoming true again. Unlike in those in-between wars like Vietnam, where we absolutely no reason to think that winning the war in Vietnam would somehow spare us from being attacked by hordes of Vietnamese bent on occupying New York City, now we may once again be able to discern that our overseas wars actually may spare us from attack. Boston, of course, proves (tests) the rule. But what's been done in Afghanistan, and across the border in Pakistan with the killing of Bin Laden, has undoubtedly disrupted terrorist networks, reduced their numbers, and spared us from far more numerous attacks.
Yes, in Afghanistan, by gum, we may actually again be fighting to "keep America safe."