Solomon, N.(2005) War made easy  Hoboken, N. J: Wiley &Sons

Solomon's well documented book, can be summarized by it's chapter titles. It runs something like this:

America is a noble super power. Our leaders try to avoid war and do not lie. There is a new Hitler out there and this war that is being launched is to liberate the people of this leader.It is not for profit, oil, or corporations..We are not the aggressors. We know that war is wrong and Congress and/or the media will stop us if we are wrong. You will see what we are saying on television and we will be transparent and candid. Those who oppose us here in the states really support the enemy. The war is necessary to fight terrorism and we must win the hearts and the minds of the people who we are liberating. We fight as humanely as possible, our soldiers are heroes and the opposition is misguided or evil. We have to kick the Vietnam defeatism to it's death and return to a war like World War II. If we should withdraw too early, the locals can not build the necessary democracy that we all want.

The USA has been in 14 wars, incursions, bombings and related since the mid 60's. The above rationale has been fine tuned since then or even earlier although the author goes no further back in time. War is primal and fearful. Volunteers and recruits will fight and die. War smells of dead bodies and assorted decay. Mothers and fathers as well as other family and friends grieve for their dead soldier. They did not die in vain. The lives of others are changed forever. Citizens caught in the middle of war die unnecessarily. All this stench is cleaned up by propaganda and clinical military terms.

The ongoing narrative in the first paragraph is repeated over and over so that the message transcends the messenger. It is fine tuned and repeated in a thousand ways. The next war may be in Syria or Iran, but it will probably occur. Those who have reservations about going to war are silenced by the message above and the mores of the culture. You don't mess with a death mission.

World War II and the Afghanistan war, were clearly moral wars. Prominent anti-war activists flew flags after 9/11. Bush became a hero. All over the world, nations held memorial services. Then came Iraq. The first paragraph narrative kicked in. Facts established that it was necessary to go to war. Most other nations stayed out. As time went on, the rationale fell apart. However, finishing the mission is not questioned. It may take a long time, but we can begin to withdraw and locals will do the fighting with the support of volunteer soldiers from new military basest hat provide logistical support.

Oil will be shared with Iraqis. America will carry on. Terrorism can be defeated or minimized if we carry on the fight. Where does all this go?

The book is a treatise of the social psychological aspects of propaganda. Although paragraph one was  used in WorldWar II and Afghanistan, it was much less necessary. Being attacked at home is a major emotional trigger to defend and fight. However, the others are generally vague and if they are waged and they are short. .. and if it can be defined as a win, folks back home are satisfied.

The other wars that last  for a long time, support diminishes, and the media then turns on the very words it used a year or two before. The opposition grows stronger until there is a final resolution or conclusion.

The author's shortcomings appear to be that much of the text was  spent jockeying back and forth between Vietnam and Iraq. Both now appear at this writing to have been initiated with unclear and controversial evidence.

Additionally, he faults the mainstream media whom as an organization and individuals can not go against the tremendous emotional and cultural forces at the time of the beginning of a war. They too want to keep their advertisers, and individuals have house payments and the like. They also do not want to face recrimination from neighbors. So the war goes on. The author does not give credit to the media and the social and emotional forces that they must deal with.

Nor does the author deal with the dilemma of the following. Can the States win a war that lasts for a long time? Can the media sell of a war influence the military to conduct the war so that boots on the ground can pacify the population? Or will the 21st century insurgents know to offer token resistance, temporarily lose, and then  return as guerillas in a never ending cat and mouse struggle that exhaust the troops and sours the home folks?

The author also implies that paragraph one is peculiar to the United States. Is it not possible that the same narrative has been used throughout history to justify unilateral attacks by other countries?

Further, this same narrative in paragraph one could easily been used in the old USSR and in Nazi Germany. England, France, and Spain probably also used these same strategies during their imperial days.

In the end, regardless of the nation and for whatever reason, the country expands into other countries because they can do it. Paragraph one suggests how one sells the domestic population.

However, down the road, there appears to be an imperial overstretch, and ultimate power goes elsewhere as the previous power stumbles into debt and demise. And then, the human condition goes on.

What we do gain from this book is the narrative. When one hears of rumblings about war, paragraph one sets in. There are small changes, but the essentials are there. Though out the book, Soloman indicates that there are those who oppose a war that others in other countries can openly speak about. However, the individual quickly learns what the press and government officials already know. When the rumblings start, war will be waged. It is just a matter of time .Sometimes that is a good thing and other times it is not.