Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hope and Change Fade, but War Endures
Seven Reasons Why We Can’t Stop Making War
If one quality characterizes our wars today, it's their
endurance. They never seem to end. Though war itself may not be an
American inevitability, these days many factors combine to make constant war
an American near certainty. Put metaphorically, our nation's pursuit
of war taps so many wellsprings of our behavior that a concerted effort
to cap it would dwarf BP's efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.
Our political leaders, the media, and the military interpret enduring war as a measure of our national fitness, our global power, our grit in the face of eternal danger, and our seriousness. A desire to de-escalate and withdraw, on the other hand, is invariably seen as cut-and-run appeasement and discounted as weakness. Withdrawal options are, in a pet phrase of Washington elites, invariably "off the table" when global policy is at stake, as was true during the Obama administration's full-scale reconsideration of the Afghan war in the fall of 2009. Viewed in this light, the president's ultimate decision to surge in Afghanistan was not only predictable, but the only course considered suitable for an American war leader. Rather than the tough choice, it was the path of least resistance.
Why do our elites so readily and regularly give war, not peace, a chance? What exactly are the wellsprings of Washington's (and America's) behavior when it comes to war and preparations for more of the same?
Consider these seven:
1. We wage war because we think we're good at it -- and because, at a gut level, we've come to believe that American wars can bring good to others (hence our feel-good names for them, like Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom). Most Americans are not only convinced we have the best troops, the best training, and the most advanced weapons, but also the purest motives. Unlike the bad guys and the barbarians out there in the global marketplace of death, our warriors and warfighters are seen as gift-givers and freedom-bringers, not as death-dealers and resource-exploiters. Our illusions about the military we "support" serve as catalyst for, and apology for, the persistent war-making we condone.
2. We wage war because we've already devoted so many of our resources to it. It's what we're most prepared to do. More than half of discretionary federal spending goes to fund our military and its war making or war preparations. The military-industrial complex is a well-oiled, extremely profitable machine and the armed forces, our favorite child, the one we've lavished the most resources and praise upon. It's natural to give your favorite child free rein.
3. We've managed to isolate war's physical and emotional costs, leaving them on the shoulders of a tiny minority of Americans. By eliminating the draft and relying ever more on for-profit private military contractors, we've made war a distant abstraction for most Americans, who can choose to consume it as spectacle or simply tune it out as so much background noise.
4. While war and its costs have, to date, been kept at arm's length, American society has been militarizing fast. Our media outlets, intelligence agencies, politicians, foreign policy establishment, and "homeland security" bureaucracy are so intertwined with military priorities and agendas as to be inseparable from them. In militarized America, griping about soft-hearted tactics or the outspokenness of a certain general may be tolerated, but forceful criticism of our military or our wars is still treated as deviant and "un-American."
5. Our profligate, high-tech approach to war, including those Predator and Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles, has served to limit American casualties -- and so has limited the anger over, and harsh questioning of, our wars that might go with them. While the U.S. has had more than 1,000 troops killed in Afghanistan, over a similar period in Vietnam we lost more than 58,000 troops. Improved medical evacuation and trauma care, greater reliance on standoff precision weaponry and similar "force multipliers," stronger emphasis on "force protection" within American military units: all these and more have helped tamp down concern about the immeasurable and soaring costs of our wars.
6. As we incessantly develop those force-multiplying weapons to give us our "edge" (though never an edge that leads to victory), it's hardly surprising that the U.S. has come to dominate, if not quite monopolize, the global arms trade. In these years, as American jobs were outsourced or simply disappeared in the Great Recession, armaments have been one of our few growth industries. Endless war has proven endlessly profitable -- not perhaps for all of us, but certainly for those in the business of war.
7. And don't forget the seductive power of beyond-worse-case, doomsday scenarios, of the prophecies of pundits and so-called experts, who regularly tell us that, bad as our wars may be, doing anything to end them would be far worse. A typical scenario goes like this: If we withdraw from Afghanistan, the government of Hamid Karzai will collapse, the Taliban will surge to victory, al-Qaeda will pour into Afghan safe havens, and Pakistan will be further destabilized, its atomic bombs falling into the hands of terrorists out to destroy Peoria and Orlando.
Such
fevered nightmares, impossible to disprove, may be conjured at any
moment to scare critics into silence. They are a convenient bogeyman,
leaving us cowering as we send our superman military out to save us
(and the world as well), while preserving our right to visit the mall and travel to Disney World without being nuked.
The truth is that no one really knows what would happen if the U.S. disengaged from Afghanistan. But we do know what's happening now, with us fully engaged: we're pursuing a war that's costing us nearly $7 billion a month that we're not winning (and that's arguably unwinnable), a war that may be increasing the chances of another 9/11, rather than decreasing them.
Capping the Wellsprings of War
Each one of these seven wellsprings feeding our enduring wars must be capped. So here are seven suggestions for the sort of "caps" -- hopefully more effective than BP's flailing improvisations -- we need to install:
1. Let's reject the idea that war is either admirable or good -- and in the process, remind ourselves that others often see us as "the foreign fighters" and profligate war consumers who kill innocents (despite our efforts to apply deadly force in surgically precise ways reflecting "courageous restraint").
2. Let's cut defense spending now, and reduce the global "mission" that goes with it. Set a reasonable goal -- a 6-8% reduction annually for the next 10 years, until levels of defense spending are at least back to where they were before 9/11 -- and then stick to it.
3. Let's stop privatizing war. Creating ever more profitable incentives for war was always a ludicrous idea. It's time to make war a non-profit, last-resort activity. And let's revive national service (including elective military service) for all young adults. What we need is a revived civilian conservation corps, not a new civilian "expeditionary" force.
4. Let's reverse the militarization of so many dimensions of our society. To cite one example, it's time to empower truly independent (non-embedded) journalists to cover our wars, and stop relying on retired generals and admirals who led our previous wars to be our media guides. Men who are beholden to their former service branch or the current defense contractor who employs them can hardly be trusted to be critical and unbiased guides to future conflicts.
5. Let's recognize that expensive high-tech weapons systems are not war-winners. They've kept us in the game without yielding decisive results -- unless you measure "results" in terms of cost overruns and burgeoning federal budget deficits.
6. Let's retool our economy and reinvest our money, moving it out of the military-industrial complex and into strengthening our anemic system of mass transit, our crumbling infrastructure, and alternative energy technology. We need high-speed rail, safer roads and bridges, and more wind turbines, not more overpriced jet fighters.
7. Finally, let's banish nightmare scenarios from our minds. The world is scary enough without forever imagining smoking guns morphing into mushroom clouds.
There you have it: my seven "caps" to contain our gushing support for permanent war. No one said it would be easy. Just ask BP how easy it is to cap one out-of-control gusher.
Nonetheless, if we as a society aren't willing to work hard for actual change -- indeed, to demand it -- we'll be on that military escalatory curve until we implode. And that way madness lies.
42 Comments so far
Show AllWell, I think #1 is a complete farce designed to lend false legitimacy to the intents and purposes of those invested in making war for obscene profits.
Astore mistakes the false cover for the true cause in his opening paragraph. However, his recipe for changes in the 2nd half of this essay is wise and well-taken.
Of course another way of saying it all, as I have, is Mars rules in the U.S.A. The dark irony that the nation's citizens define themselves as religious turns the teachings of Jesus into a morphed version of homage to the god of war. What other honest explanation when half the budget is casually directed at the ways and means to kill and maim others, while stealing their resources and future livelihoods... a recipe for disaster brought to us by the experts in Disaster Capitalism. They are to the human world what vultures are to the natural world. Any who espouse these policies of destruction should be fed to the vultures.
War is the health of the State.
This article could have been written in one sentence:
The one lesson learned from the Viet Nam occupation was that war is very profitable and eternal war is profitable eternally.
...very profitable for some....
Sioux Rose: As usual, you hit the nail on the head with your first two paragraphs. You made a very important point relative to the essay. Your comments were constructive, not destructive. Thanks Sioux Rose, I always look forward to your posts.
STEPHEN: You are a kind and considerate man who genuinely cares. I appreciate your posts and thought you did an excellent job of detailing the modus operandi of Western (US) culture on a collision course with the darkest of fates in your new book.
Of course, I will insist that ignoring the law that got us trapped allows the underlying insanity to go unquestioned.
Public Law 107-40 is the perfect stealth war law.
The title is innocuous, the wording vague and the victory conditions impossible to achieve. Thus, there is no exit strategy and there never will be one.
This insane war against future terrorists, against future enemies, is enshrined into law. That law has been ignored for 9 years, and thus this 'permanent war' continues.
- A desire to de-escalate and withdraw, on the other hand, is invariably seen as cut-and-run -
That's because America is at war, because of P.L 107-40. It always will be at war, as long as the law remains in effect and ignored.
Taking your advise, I read this law 107-40, and you are
exactly right, it is opened ended until forever.
It is funny how many pundits believe the War on Terror
is by executive order. with public law 107-40, congress
gave the executive all the war powers he ever needs and
they will all get funded as long as there is 107-40.
It worth noting that those leading edge figghters, the F35 and the F22 which have literally drained the treasury to develop and manufacture, are already seen as obsolete.
Like so many past weapons systems they will be useless.
The reason they cost so much is the stealth tech and avionics introduced to "protect the pilot".
The problem is they are OVERKILL against the types of wars the US Involves itself in. The Taliban do not have the capability of downing Aircraft designs of 20 years ago let alone these aircraft. That hi-tech is all but useless in insurgencies such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Much cheaper aircraft "do the job" for a much cheaper price.
We then have the first world countries such as a Russia a China or an EU.
Notwithstanding the fact if war ever made on those countries it likely to go "Nuclear" and end it for everyone, technologies to down these aircraft are generations ahead of the aircraft and are MUCH cheaper to produce.
There will be no "dogfights" for air superiority. Send one of these or 100 of these into Russian airspace and the 135 million per aircraft will all be downed by masses of cheap anti-air missile systems.
War is obsolete. If one looks at the "war machine" soberly from the perspective of a COUNTRY trying to do the best it can to gives its citizens the best lifestyle , war has priced itself out of the market.
The underlying problem is WAR is not about defending liberties and freedoms and "our way of life". Its sole purpose is to shift a nations wealth and the fruits of the labor of millions of citizens, into the pockets of a small handful of people.
They are already working on the designs for the "next generation" of aircraft (400 million per copy perhaps) to fight that next war that no country can afford to fight.
This addiction to "war" and "The machinery of war" is as harmful to a society if not more so then an addiction to Heroin.
Though war itself may not be an American inevitability . . .
It is, most certainly, an American inevitability. And hope and change do not fade because they were never there to begin with. THE GREAT CHOKING LIE that was Obama's '08 campaign was, morally speaking, an act of treason.
If we could realize that this Empire building madness just makes more enemies of those we are invading...would you be part of the insurgency if another country had designs on your resources and plant reasons to destroy what you know and love?...how about a predator drone destroying your neighborhood?...it's time that this so-called Christained country start acting like one and follow the Golden Rule, and Love your neighbor...saves alot of money at the very least, build trust and happiness and a decent life for all, everywhere...freedom and respect... SO SIMPLE!
Have you thought of running for Congress??? No seriously, why is killing the answer?
Because it's in the BOOK!.... You know the BIBLE; god is on our side and all we do is in service to him... Let HIM do his own dirty work!
>^^<
As an American, I sleep so much better at night knowing that our chaplains can beat up their chaplains. Ooorah!
Trylon
People have always killed each other for land or other resources they believe they need to prosper, sometimes just to survive.
Occasionally the USA has made war when we perceive the political balance of power is threatened, or to revenge a direct military attack. Those threats most always stem from other countries' need for land or resources.
Way back when the USA needed more territory to settle and convert resources, we made war against native Americans and Mexico to gain or secure land.
The USA makes war these days to preserve our sources of oil. Since it IS a root cause, it's only a distraction to focus on the symptoms described by Astore. Cure the cause -- our need for cheap oil -- and the symptoms will subside.
Plunder is a logical explanation, heres another. I think that it would be cheaper to buy the oil on the open market. The Thugs in D.C. have a crimminal enterprise with their buddies at the MIC (The Merchants of Death). By having war without end they can funnel endless amounts (The Fed) into the pockets of their cronies and keep the party going on for decades. Just one big crime family with unlimited power.
"Just one big crime family with unlimited power."
Not virtually a crime family. Not "like" a crime family. Not "reminiscent of" a crime family.
LITERALLY. The House, Senate, Executive and the Court, all of whom take their marching orders from their corporate masters, along with their corporate masters, constitute nothing more and nothing less than organized crime.
If the government has devolved into the structure of organized crime, and it has, where is the recourse? There are no government protections against crime when the government itself is the perpetrator of crime.
Exactly, dkshaw!
Government in a capitalist system IS organized crime. Really, literally "organized crime", as you so correctly point out.
Apparently this concept remains too mind-boggling for most citizens to process.
I used to treat the "(present-day) Amerikan government = OC" revelation as a metaphor, i.e. asserting that the duopoly is "like" competing crime families. But I eventually realized that this is a distinction without a difference.
And as a person whose grandparents all emigrated from various parts of Italy and Sicily, I assure you that I'm not just making this claim because "America" is an Italian name. ;)
Alexander Solzhenitsyn will tell you all about how great it works without the capitalist system.
Incompetent Crime Family... All those oil wells just begging to be tapped! 1$ gasoline again! Just think of it. I could run my big bayliner twin all day and night and never care about fuel!
But they can't even get that one thing right! effers!
>^^<
People consent to this, without consent the whole thing falls apart. Think of India with Gandi or the civil rights workers in the 60's. When people have had enough they will withdraw their consent. (also the collapse of the USSR)
Born in 36 the conflicts already on the horizon,selling papers on the waterfront bars in SF in 44-45;missed Korea by a year,hit Nam in 68,then a "little" war here and there across the globe.Commies,drugs,terror the all inclusive to take us to today and into the future.It is like this country was out there recruting every scumbag,pervert and any other asshole that ever lived and paid them to come here to screw all the "tired,lonely,hopeless and yearning to be free" peoples and then we elect these assholes to put their agenda into play and just sit back and watch tv or play with a new toy or whatever.It is like the battered wife or husband or partner syndrome and all of them do happen.It is sick,sick,sick. Tony
This is a very good article by William Astor, but why America goes to war is a very broad subject.
I think it is important to add some words from Andrew Bacevich's book "THE LIMITS OF POWER".
Andrew Bacevich begins by mourning the lost opportunities for peace after the Cold War. “Instead, the U.S. found this as an opportune time to expand and perpetuate the American Empire. In this expansion of the American Empire, the American people saw themselves as peaceful people and the conflicts in which they became involved in were seen not of their own making”’
The current global war on terror has been no exception. “Certain of our own benign intentions, we reflexively assign responsibility for war to others, typically malignant Hitler-like figures inexplicitly bent on denying us the peace that is our fondest wish”. The “Limits of Power” challenges this type of thinking to a very detailed degree.
To Bacevich, at the heart of this American blindness is the sense of American “freedom” and the American consumer way of like. This is the perfect fertile ground for government propaganda. The resulting sense of entitlement has great implications for American foreign policy. To quote Bacevich, “Simply put, as the American appetite for freedom has grown, so too has our penchant for empire. …....In an earlier age, Americans saw empire as the antithesis of freedom. Today with America’s efforts to dominate the energy rich Persian Gulf, empire has seemingly become a prerequisite of freedom”.
Your right that was a good book.
Bacevich's next book, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War published by the American Empire Project, also sounds like it will just as informative. My copy should be arriving in a few weeks.
"No body of men can be induced to do another man's killing for him unless he can convince them that they may honorably do so. The percentage of blackguards and sadists who enjoy cruelty for its own sake have to pretend that they are patriots and ministers of justice to secure the toleration of their fellow citizens."-George Bernard Shaw [1856-1950], Irish dramatist and political activist
We make our own enemies. I'm convinced we do it for the 'boogie-man' effect.
Some history: this country supported the dictator Somoza against his own country (Nicaragua) for 3 decades before they finally took their country back. This country supported the dictator Shah Reza Pahlavi against his own country for 2 decades before they finally took their country back. In both cases we see the damage that dictators do to their country. Somoza and the Shah anxiously stamped out all popular (read: moderate) opposition to their rule. With the moderates all killed, who was left to stand up to the dictator? The radicals, that's who. The guys that didn't care how horribly the dictator treated them. And how did America react to these anti-dictator forces, once they finally took back their countries? We were 'shocked, shocked!' to find there were radicals performing this duty (communist Sandinista's in Nicaragua, and radical muslims in Iran). So, of course, against these radical elements we stood, once again, with the dictators! Likewise we were 'shocked, shocked!' to find that some of these radical elements hated Americans so thoroughly they thought of killing Americans in their own backyard. Hence, the boogie-man effect is born, by which to terrorize ordinary taxpayers into funding the MIC and its endless wars. These are actually for oil, and mostly support people who aren't even American (let the 'free market' reign). But don't tell that to the Tea Partiers, so filled are they with the 'shining city on a hill' Beckian rhetoric.
Lest you think I'm talking ancient history, consider modern Egypt. America imposes a dictator against 100 million Egyptians, and has for 30 years. We sink $2 billion a year into the country, half of it is in the form of military hardware, and Mubarak uses it to destroy his popular (read: moderate) opposition. And this leaves who to take back the country?
9-11 isn't over. 9-11 has barely begun. The MIC must be licking their lips. Its all part of the plan.
Visiting Prof.
Very well said. Your comments are most cogently verified and basically substantiated by Susan Brewer [who is a Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point], by her book Why America Fights which, as her subtitle explains, centers upon Patriotism and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq.
Good comment but maybe "we" should ask ourselves, how deep does complicity go? are we living examples of peace and compassion? do we wake up in the morning filled to overflowing with love and calm? Does this state get transmitted to those that we come into contact with as we move about during the day? If not, then even though we may claim verbal anti war status, is that enough to escape the "we" category? many on this site claim they are for peace, yet rant often [ myself included] in a very aggressive manner against the war machine. this ranting may make some valid points about the evils of our government and military but certainly does not transmit waves of love, compassion and peace, that is so badly needed to subdue aggression.
a very large portion of americans are either paranoid or natural born killers. The paranoid can easily be manipulated into believing there is an ever present danger that can only be subdued by force [military]. The naturally aggressive, are the ones who sign up to keep the paranoid safe from their on going fears. It is a marriage made in hell. The power elite recognize these traits as an entitlement to do their bidding. The only hope is for a mysterious transmission of 'peace' [not the absence of war] to appear in the hearts of the fearful, enabling them to see how they are being manipulated by our government and its corporate benefactors.
The reason peace cannot be maintained in this world is because it has never been present. It has never been present because it has never been found. it cannot be found because no one is looking and no one is looking because it is believed that peace is the absence of war. The absence of war has no power to subdue war and so the cycle continues.
I take it you are neither American nor have been here, to see the real everyday people, because of the bizarre propaganda and lies you are saying about us.
I have lived here for 52 & 1/2 years. It is a total lie to say that "a very large portion" of us are "either paranoid or natural born killers."
No one I know wants these wars.
No one I know approves of these wars.
However, when people like me write my Congressmen about it, we basically get told, tactfully, to go stuff ourselves, that they do not agree with us and will not consider our positions.
Most of us a docile, quiet, and tragically, rather apathetic.
If we had the drive to be as vocal as the fewer lunatics who do scream pro-war jargon, our politicians would think twice, in general.
But those currently in power, in Congress, really don't give a S&#T what we say to them or think.
Remember this, we are NOT SUPPOSED to be "at war" UNLESS CONGRESS DECLARES WAR.
Hence, from a Constitutional standpoint, these wars (Afghan, Iraq) that Bush started, are ILLEGAL.
Of course, Congress didn't give a S&#T then about what we thought, and they don't now, either.
Lastly, although Obama is a wretched disappointment, and I make no excuses for his total apathy, neither is he a monarch. In other words, he cannot merely "order" these wars to stop, like a King could do.
However, Congress has it within its power to refuse funding, and demand they be stopped.
Next time you go of on a rant about "a very large portion of Americans" how about getting some facts, first?
Actually sirios is American and I have communicated with him from time to time. I believe that he has been to other nations as well to be able to do a comparison of this nation and others. Most of us may not take guns and shoot like crazy but firearm ownership gets a higher priority while health care, education, environment, general public safety and security, etc... get little priority if any. Paranoia is rather common in most Americans and being overprotective is certainly not a good thing.
"If we had the drive to be as vocal as the fewer lunatics who do scream pro-war jargon, our politicians would think twice, in general."
There were anti-war protests in record numbers but the media marginalized them.
"Remember this, we are NOT SUPPOSED to be "at war" UNLESS CONGRESS DECLARES WAR."
Presidents have been known to ignore that in the past.
"Hence, from a Constitutional standpoint, these wars (Afghan, Iraq) that Bush started, are ILLEGAL."
True but this administration chose to continue and own both wars so the ball is now in his court.
"Of course, Congress didn't give a S&#T then about what we thought, and they don't now, either."
In some ways, Congress reflects what people are looking for but you are correct that Congress often looks the other way when people protest asking that they stop at some point.
"Lastly, although Obama is a wretched disappointment, and I make no excuses for his total apathy, neither is he a monarch. In other words, he cannot merely "order" these wars to stop, like a King could do.
However, Congress has it within its power to refuse funding, and demand they be stopped."
The president has the power to veto any war funding Congress sends to his desk.
Legality, was the second thing to leave Americas daily interest. Civility was the first, caring for your neighbor as you care for yourself. The phony chtistians are the first to tell you how we need to rid of ourselves of the homless, the needy, and those barbaric trolls from other places, constantly making trouble. Thugs and riff-raff all of them.
9/11 which country declared war on us again? I missed it. I heard about this criminal Osama Bin-Laden, but for some reason, again I missed, instead of sending Interpol, maybe the CIA after him we sent the whole bloody ARMY. Air Force, Marines and NAVY after him. That always seemed wastfull, for a handfull of criminalls. We knew where his funding came from we could have frozen Saudi Araibian assets in an hour.
For some reason we needed to go back and attack Iraq, because we didn't finsh the job before? Near as i could from the media it was because Saddam! had sassed Shrubs daddy! and you don't do that to a Texan?
Oh well, by CongressCritters and Senemanders don't listen to me either.
>^^<
I'll apologize for my "attention getter" - "natural born killers". i was born in the USA in 1946 and have lived in approximately 50 different places in new york, iowa, california, washington and texas. In all of these places, i encountered about a 90% approval of war or "i guess it is ok in some instances or "soldiering/military service is an honorable profession" Killing is an honorable profession? on top of that those same people had little or no resistance to the death penalty. the acceptance of these things is so ingrained in the american psyche that when questioned on the subject, most look at you like, "well of course these things are ok, we as americans are protecting the world from evil." BULL ! Lies? i think not. Denial? Yes!
0's no monarch and cannot rule by fiat, but he is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and he could withdraw them, assuming nothing more than obedience to authorized command.
He would, admittedly, lose traction with his sponsors.
Of course all that is moot, since he does not want to return Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan to their peoples.
The voters got the hope. 0 kept the change.
Hope is what you get when you do not have what you want.
"it cannot be found because no one is looking and no one is looking because it is believed that peace is the absence of war."
Even on the solutions that can lead to peace, people left and right conveniently choose to ignore no matter how many times you or I try to bring it up with them. Maybe I'm wrong but it's not that people can't find peace but it's that they just won't choose to find it even if it were right in front of them ready to grab. I think that they fear that having peace would make their lives dull and boring. Even on most progressive and liberal blogs, verbal wars flare up and anyone trying to make the case and educate others on long term peaceful solutions are attacked. I know I was attacked for bringing up hemp so many times whenever there was an article on global warming, peak oil, oil disasters, etc... Of course maybe I went a bit too far on overemphasizing hemp and turning a few people off but how long are we going to sustain watching or even doing wars for oil? I don't know sirios but I guess nobody wants to find the path to peace and get the problem over with it.
Of course the United States is a war-mongering, militaristic society. It makes my stomach churn. Someday I'd love to shed my American citizenship. I'm a human being and world citizen first.
You know what would be really funny? If all the chickenhawks on Free Republic and DailyKos were drafted and sent over to the warzones they're so blissfully detached from. Most of these chickenhawks are working and middle class white men and women who have masturbatory fantasies about World War II. Most of them have never served in the military, much less have they ever seen combat or have been even remotely affected by war.
Yet these same chickenhawks talk like they're veterans and experts. They somehow believe that their cowardly war-mongering is patriotic, humanitarian and courageous... all from the safety of their living rooms. Sure, some of them may have family members who served, but typically their families rarely suffered any real war traumas.
What's even more outstanding is that most of the same chickenhawks are capable of enlisting. However, they choose not too for selfish and cowardly reasons. They love war and the military, but apparently they're "too special" to do any of the dirty work themselves.
I've also learned that chickenhawks come in both liberal and conservative varieties. I love it when liberal chickenhawks scream for "humanitarian intervention", but none of them are rushing to enlist or sign up as aid workers. They'll happily let other people die for their cause. It's easier for them to cheerlead from their living rooms! Just like how conservative chickenhawks ramble about national security and power projection, but none of them will do any of the dirty work either.
Pardon this large rant, but I'm just sick and fucking tired of militarism and imperialism. I hate chickenhawks and all warmongers in general. Especially people who think war is some wholesome institution. It's a disaster, and one that can be prevented.
I mentioned the other day, in another comment, that for a country founded on the principle 'Don't Tread on Me' the modern U.S. sure has its bootprints all over the world. I was being cute, but not entirely. The founders believed so much in the right to self-determination that they were willing to die for it. But our modern patriots are mostly just willing to kill other peoples to keep them from exercizing that same right. In this, they are profoundly at variance with the thinking that founded this country and can verifiably be termed 'unAmerican'.
To the extent we can, we need to hammer this point home to the 'patriots' among us. There's nothing intrinsically American about stomping all over the Iraqi's or Afghans. Quite the contrary, I honestly believe that were Washington or Jefferson alive today, they'd be fighting us, and making common cause with the Iraqi's and Taliban.
The absurdity of this article is overwhelming.
It analyses secondary or tertiary causes of militarism and fails to recognize the elephant in the room.
The US is in perpetual war because we are an empire.
War is at the foundation of our economy. It's how we make our money.;
We are born of conflict; we stole this property from the 'real' Americans, only a handful of whom survive.
A very smart person once said: "Follow the money." Money and it's asssociated status are the motivators behind virtually any US action.
Just go on TV and show the American people a picture of someone, somewhere burning an American flag and the idiot class in this country which has grown exponentially over the last thirty years, will start beating their chests, slamming their heads into the wall and foaming at the mouth. Then Presto, our elected officials can't vote fast enough to send other peoples kids to go and kill and get killed for the good of the uber wealthy in this country. Idiot class... ya, I suppose that is rather harsh. How about MORONS?
We need to make the production of arms illegal...and stop the insane 'war on drugs' which fuels so much underground gun running which fuels war all over the world. Yes, many people would be laid off. In fact, the only reliable source of income these days is the military/pharmaceutical industrial complex. They have a steady source of money; government budgets give them all the money. Unfortunately just because people would be laid off their jobs is not reason not to do these things. As we all know, as various ways of making a living disappear people get laid off and find other ways of making a living. It's been going on for centuries.
I shudder to think about all the great things we could do with all the money that gets spent on war. Think about it. Lots of schools, hospitals, transit, art galleries and community centers all free and accessible to everyone.
I agree with VisitingProfessor and others that this article misses the point with its constant reference to "we" and the US "as a society", as though we all sat down together with access to a wide variety of viewpoints and then decided how our resources were to be divided up and used. The US "as a society" makes about as much as sense as the references we always hear to "the American people". You know, the way politicians are always saying "the American people are patient/proud/resourceful/whatever", none of which means anything at all; it's just a way to curry favor.
My response to Astore's "we" is the line from the old Lone Ranger/Tonto joke: "What do you mean 'we', Kemosabe?". I am not to blame for your wars. You and your ilk have run this country and brought us the militarism that goes along with your empire long enough. And we (those of us who are committed to more just, more democratic, and more sustainable alternatives) will one day take it from you (not take it "back" as some CDers would say because we never had it in the first place).