A Young Pro-War Preacher, Harry Emerson Fosdick, wrote a short book, published by the Young Men's Christian Association.
War was not gallantry and parades anymore, Reverend Fodick said. 'War is now dropping bombs from aeroplanes and killing women and children in their beds; it is shooting by telephonic orders, at an unseen place miles away and slaughtering invisible men.' War, he said, is 'men with jaws gone, eyes gone, limbs gone, minds gone.'
Fosdick ended his book with a call for enlistment: 'Your country needs you,' he said. It was November 1917. Excerpt from Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization.
War is defined above in concrete terms. War is often expressed in the abstract though, rendering that description to be laced more with platitudes. But, war as a verb, as an experience differs greatly depending within which geopolitical position the subject people live.
An Iraqi sees war as a staple of their daily existence, influencing every decision they make. Do they flee Baghdad in the fall of 2007 when 100 new corpses filled the morgue each day? Do they flee to Syria to escape the ravages of the "insurgency"? Do they flee Syria to escape the "opposition" including the ranks of the jihadist soldiers of fortune in Al-Nusra? If so, do they face greater danger from Al-Quaeda retread "ISIS, ISIL, IS, or Daesh" or from their being caught in Western bombing barrages intended to defeat said Al-Quaeda retread? To this Iraqi, war is a daily reality, so tragically integral to their daily existence. That is war......to the powerless, perpetually expendable Iraqi exiles.
In the U.S. war is a tool used when it fails to project its power through its own brand of diplomacy. War is the projection of power waged always with virtual impunity. Its a media story instantly marginalized by its being sandwiched between stories of reality show stars' most recent publicity stunts. Yet, war in this vein is seen as a self-evidently moral action taken to serve humanity. Americans show how deeply they have internalized this notion because war is justified by a tautology: we reluctantly wage war for good in order to save a fallen world damaged by "terrorists" or "dictators." How do we know both our intentions and actions are good? It just is because otherwise we wouldn't do it.
Our moral arrogance also explains why War is waged against other evils, like drugs or terrorism or poverty. The War on Drugs justified its invasion of Panama in 1989. War in those settings are not just the result of failed diplomacy but more so a redemptive act. In this empire, War is that word used to describe the latest crusade for the good. An Iraqi person today likely sees war as a direct and constant reality, an endless nightmare of their facing constant exile and relocation forged from war with Iran 1980-87, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Insurgency, ISIS, Operation New Dawn. The U.S. current dominant position offers it a security and impunity from adverse effects of its engaging in war.
Yes the U.S. had suffered casualties in Iraq for instance but Iraq possessed no capability to launch airstrikes or WMDs over the U.S. or a decade-long military occupation (yes this is an obvious fact but its worth repeating because it doesn't seem to effect the consciousness of many Americans' views on their rulers launching wars in their name). Thus, this level of impunity enables the U.S. to see war more as glory than tragedy. Sometimes the U.S. conflates both so that the latter embellishes the former as shown in the example of the Hollywood depiction of serial sniper Chris Kyle. In essence the tragic aspects are interpreted in a manner adding more glory to the war.
The U.S. glorification of its wars to fight a tactic like "terrorism" contrasts with the Dutch view of its own military after 80 years of fighting its war for independence from the Spanish empire:
For the Dutch, war was not a beautiful craft, and adventure of youth, or the crowning of a man's life. They undertook it without exaltation but also without protest, as one enters a struggle with an element. According to such a code of behavior, there was no room for displays of heroic bravery or spectacular death on the field of glory. On the contrary, what was most important was to save: to protect, to spare, and carry from the storm a sane head and one's belongings. [1].
Chris Kyle need not apply there.
War is a concept that conjures varying connotations. In other words in this instance the world doesn't agree on first principles. Consequently, the entire world does not appear to see war as a tragedy to avoid. Therefore, for many persons seeing war through a world power's filter distorted with its self-righteousness and delusional benevolence, it will either maintain its appeal or at least be something that the public will remain conditioned to accept.
The clashing rationales for the War in Iraq: on one side it was rationalized as the noble effort to eliminate WMDs, to foster democracy, to fight the ubiquitous terrorists; and, from another viewpoint, it was seen as a world power further securing its control of oil, to feed the military industrial complex (yes this term is used excessively, but it still exists), to place a vital geopolitical piece on the Grand Chessboard, etc. These conflicts of what war actually is imposes constant states of cognitive dissonance on us asking rhetorically, "why are we really at war?"
After his seeing directly the bloodshed in World War One, the pastor cited above who expressed the horrors of modern warfare yet called on his fellow countrymen to join that War, eight years later he converted to pacifism:
'I hate war,' he said, 'for what it forces us to do to our enemies, rejoicing over our coffee cups at the breakfast table about every damnable and devilish evil we have been able to inflict upon them. I hate war for its results, the lies it lives on and propagates, the undying hatreds that it rouses, the dictatorships that it puts in the place of democracy, and the starvation that stalks after it.' Fosdicks's speech was quoted in newspapers. Twenty-five thousand copies of it were printed and distributed. Most people agreed with it. Most of the world was pacifist. excerpt from Baker's Human Smoke.....
Pacifism in the U.S. empire exists today as an organization with about as much appeal as the Flat Earth Society. But, pacifism likely faces more ridicule because it opposes the force seen by some as one of our most glamorous and revered constructs, War. Regrettably, no mass support has galvanized around the view that this war violated international law and has caused roughly 461,000 deaths. [2]. This construct is not manifested by masses of persons demanding "their" government declare war. Instead, the masses merely accept war once the media and government present it as a fait accompli. This phenomenon though does manifest itself as passive-acceptance, which is still effective. The popular support for war though is more nuanced than simply being either in favor of it or of opposing it. Polls show slightly more than 50% Americans support drone strikes. [3]. Pacifism remains an endangered species, and seeing the perfect storm of modern war infrastructure emerging that includes drones, the NSA, state run Biobanks wherein American's DNA is stored (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-coming-biological-infowar-us.html,) humanity will soon follow.
1. Herbert, Zbigniew. The Collected Prose. 1948-1998. CCCO. New York. 2010.
2. Sheridan, Kerry. "Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says." Jan 23, 2014. The World Post: A Partnership of the Huffington Post and Berggruen Institute. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html
******Like any large scale study conducted to estimate statistical figures, sampling methods are questioned, and different methods are used, causing variations of results. This case is no exception. For other sources that attempt to calculate the death toll from the war in Iraq that began in 2003, see the following:
Iraq Body Count https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Just Foreign Policy http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
I cite those two sources in particular because they used different calculation methods, generating drastically different death totals.
3. Fuller, Jamie. "Americans are fine with drone strikes. Everyone else in the world? Not so much." The Washington Post. July 15, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/15/americans-are-fine-with-drone-strikes-everyone-else-in-the-world-not-so-much/
********This source indicates that the current level of U.S. support of drones that is currently 52% is 9 percentage points less than 61% support in 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment