More accurately, I shall try to sort through my thoughts and elucidate what I think is one reason why so many people protest the Iraqi War, and perhaps why so many people protested the Vietnam War.
We in America live extremely cushioned lives. This point has been driven home time and again, but it needs to be reiterated. The previous century left a bloody wake of genocide, starvation, political corruption, and moral degradation, the first two of which America missed almost entirely. Not for us were the mass executions in Communist Russia. Not for us were the racial exterminations in Hitlerian Germany or Milosevichian Bosnia. Moral degradation we received in plenty, but it was the soft kind of moral degradation, the kind that leads not to totalitarian regimes and brutal murders but to sexual promiscuity, materialism, and escapism. In short, rather than emphasizing what is violent and rapacious in man, America has chosen to do two things: either to channel violence and rapaciousness into neutralizing channels (e.g., organized sports, violent video games, movies depicting senseless violence and illicit or even aberrant sexuality, etc.) or done away with violence and rapaciousness altogether (e.g., New Age philosophy, environmentalism, pacifism, etc.). These are over-generalizations, but my purpose is not to explore all the exceptions to these rules, but rather to posit them as a key part of American culture today.
I ought not leave political corruption alone either. We have our share of that. The two primary political parties have, in most cases, set themselves in such furious opposition to each other that cooperation between them is difficult. This situation forces someone aligning himself with a particular party to subscribe to a whole host of issues in order to be truly considered "one of them." This is not so great an influence as (and is probably in great part a result of) America's moral state, but it does serve to exacerbate contention over the issue of the war, since we are so divided as to consider it a Republican enterprise, it being the Democrats' duty to oppose it without question.
Here is the point of all this. For good or ill, America is no longer used to war, and no longer wants it. America (in general) would rather continue with what Dorothy Sayers calls the "whirligig" of production, the materialistic, escapist, easy lifestyle to which most of us are used. Warfare does not fit into this scheme because war is proximate and frightening. War means taking a stand. War means being brave. War means doing your part and giving something up. Americans (again, in general) do not like to give things up. After all, how could we survive without cell phones, ipods, blackberries, soda pop and SUVs?
I find it a curious fact that this is the first war I have experienced as a cognizant person (I was about 1 during the Gulf War), and yet I have lived through it with astonishingly little recognition that any war is going on at all. There is no "home front." It is a war pursued solely by the military and the government. I am sure that the wives, parents, siblings and children of the soldiers at war are keenly conscious of what this nation is going through, but the rest of the nation, at least here in northwestern Oregon, seem to need a wake-up call to realize that we are AT WAR, and not only at war but simultaneously pursuing two wars in foreign countries for the purpose of eliminating terrorist insurgents and establishing a democratic government in the wake of a conquered regime. Maybe it's because I've never been involved in a war before, but I like to think that people back in World War I or II were more aware of what was going on.
Again, I think all this may simply stem from the fact that Americans don't want war. They don't like it. The logical consequence of fighting a war is privation. Fortunately, our country's economy is massive enough to absorb the cost of keeping tens of thousands of troops (not to mention aircraft carriers, helicopters, fighter jets, etc.) deployed in Middle Eastern countries. But I have often wondered what things in general would be like if we stopped spending so many billions on Halloween decorations and $99 inflatable lawn snowmen, $50,000 vehicles of questionable practicality, 4,000 square foot homes on 4,020 square foot lots, and so on, and started to wield our formidable collective purchasing-power on things that mattered. There are almost countless causes to which so enormous a cash flow could be directed, but perhaps the war effort could be one of them.
I know that many people say the war in Iraq was wrong. Is it maybe because some of them can't face a war? I doubt that many people who read this post will misinterpret me and assume that I want a war. I don't. The reality of the ugliness and aberrant, curse-inflicted misery of war has been brought home increasingly to me as my knowledge of human depravity, loss, deprivation, and even the nitty-gritty of combat has expanded. But maybe that is why I am also somewhat shocked (though not entirely surprised) at our reaction to our country's wars. The Federal army alone lost 110,100 men during the Civil War--in action. Factoring in disease, murder, suicide, accidents, drowning, death as prisoner's of war, etc., we arrive at 389,753 deaths for the Union army alone--and let us not forget the 289,000 deaths the Confederacy endured. Although the death of even one man is a tragedy, this staggering total of well over 700,000 deaths makes our losses in Afghanistan and Iraq look like a bloody nose.
I ask your forgiveness for a somewhat disjointed post, but do you see at least a glimmer of my point? 30% of Americans can't place the year of the September 11th attacks (Harper's Index, November 2006 issue). At least I remember it was 2001. How did we forget so fast? Iraq had a hideous government, one that tortured prisoners and slaughtered ethnic groups. Enormous numbers of Americans consider our war there not just a possible mistake, but a downright moral evil. Why? Am I missing something?
Do Americans just not want to face war?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yes, I do think that is there problem. They just can't face the fact that there is war, war could actually be nessecary, and what it involves.
The losses of previous wars do make this one look like a bloody nose. Yes, I mourn and cry inside for every lost soldier and their family. But those deaths still don't remove the fact that this hasn't been that bad of a war.
And....I think that it is again an issue of political parties. Because the Democrats and Liberals can't, in anyway, see themselves supporting a war supported by the conservative side.
I happen to know quite a few anti-war people. And they do seem to line up with your idea - they don't want to face war.
Very interesting post. I have been studying Rome lately, and especially the decline there of. It seems to me that all was going strong, all the way up through the second Punic War and everybody was pitching in and sacrificing and everything. But after the war, all the wealth which had been going to the war, now stayed at home, and the Romans lost there edge, their readiness for war.
I have a hard time knowing how we can decide whether to go to war or not. I don't know enough. And I have trouble believing what the media tells us. It seems like we are scared of everything, as Rome was. And we also have the notion that democracy should be spread throughout the world. Which is questionable to me.
So, I am not swayed either way. I cannot think that the government is doing it for either completely good or mainly bad reasons.
Just what I think.
Sam
This is an important topic, and I have some ideas, but the trouble is that they’re so complicated and interconnected and my powers of expression so limited that I must simplify them if I wish to exposit them. So you’ll have to forgive me for being more than a little incoherent.
I think a large part of it comes from the fact that most Americans have not been through a war of this kind before. Most living adults can only really remember Vietnam and the Gulf War, the former of which the general public has been indoctrinated to believe was an absolute mess, and the latter of which was comparatively speaking a walk in the park, especially to those at home. So this public has been led to believe war must either be a smashing success or a bloodletting disaster. When faced with a difficult war that lasts a few years, they assume it must be going the way of Vietnam, or rather the way they think Vietnam went. Then when the media reports almost nothing but American and civilian deaths, and then senators and others start saying that we’re losing (though none have defined the term), they believe their assumptions to be well-founded. At least that’s what my mom says.
This is aggravated by the humanist/materialist pragmatism we’ve sunken into. They think that if we’re not winning a war it should simply be dropped, and the Iraqis can go hang. Some have actually criticized supporters of the war as being “obsessed with winning” as if this was an outlandish concept. And, like you said, taking an unwavering stand is immensely unpopular in our self-centered, feminist, humanist, “enlightened” society.
And then, of course, if you believe there is no absolute truth, and that people are basically good (whatever that means), and only turn bad (however that works) when other people who have been mistreated mistreat them, then the natural conclusion is to not mess with anybody, and then everybody will get along perfectly. Most people have still not fully rejected the idea of evil, I think. The perception of evil, however, is disfigured and romanticized. “Evil” is generally reserved for the villains of action movies; applied to the type who wear black capes and execute dramatic villainous laughs. Most would not term a disobedient child as evil. But this is straying somewhat from the point. What I’m driving at is that I don’t think most Americans recognize just how evil our enemies are. They think there’s something we’ve done to aggravate them, and if we’d only stop doing whatever that is they’d all throw away their AK-47s and T-72s and go back to reading the peace-promoting Koran. Never mind the fact that they started the whole thing centuries before the Crusades.
And as you pointed out, we’ve forgotten what they did to us. We entered World War II over a far less devastating attack. Yet in those days people understood that we couldn’t get away with being spineless. As you’ve pointed out, for most of us there is little indication that we are at war, and practically none that we were attacked first. What rare mentions and memorials we do have of 9/11 treat it as if it was some horrible accident. Tragedy though it was, it was no accident. It was the result of purposeful evil, but no one will acknowledge it. One of the reasons I so appreciated United 93 was that it directly and honestly showed exactly why the hijackers did what they did. After the attack, there also seemed to be a notable lack of anger amongst Americans. Not mindless, childish, blind rage (there’s always plenty of that going around), but a mature, rational, and (if I may use so over-used a term) righteous anger at wickedness. But when someone has such a skewed view of what evil really is, I suppose he would find little cause to be angry at it, unless it hurt him in some way.
Added to this is the political partisanship. The Dems are all against the war, not because they genuinely care one way or the other, but because a Republican is president. They don’t care how many are killed (the more the better, actually); all that matters to them is getting and staying in power.
This situation is especially dangerous, because unlike the instant-gratification-seeking Americans, our enemies do have the patience to fight out a long war. They’ve been after the Western world for centuries, and are willing to keep it up for centuries to come. They understand that their objective will only be obtained at the point of a sword but here in America, we think the point of a document will serve well enough.
The America of today would likely have taken one look at World War I and decided it wasn’t worth it. The same with the following conflict. The attitudes of today would have given up after the first year of the Revolution. And here we are faced with a conflict more serious than any of our previous wars, except possibly WWII, and as a nation we don’t have the collective backbone to take a few hard knocks. We have the most formidable military in the history of the world, but a disproportionately tiny morale to back it up. We’re like a man with powerful biceps and triceps but no shoulders to lift them.
I’m speaking, like you, in the general sense. There are, of course, great numbers of American civilians who have the resolve to fight a war properly, but unfortunately they don’t seem to be the majority. There are probably at least as many people on the pacifist side, and what is worse is that they are more vocal.
One last point: the very reason that you can scarce tell that there’s a war being fought is perhaps an important reason why many Americans don’t realize the importance of the conflict. We encourage illogical thinking these days, and I believe that since the war effort has thus far been overall successful, and since we haven’t been attacked in nearly six years, people begin to assume that the war really wasn’t necessary.
So, I suppose a good deal of that isn’t directly related to the issue you raised, but I’ve been wanting to set down these ideas for some time, so you’ve just saved me a blog post. ;-)
Thank you Conner, for having common sense. It seems like that is a rare quality among Americans these days.
Sam said: And we also have the notion that democracy should be spread throughout the world. Which is questionable to me.
That is the real reason we went to war. It is part of a plan that the White House has been pursuing since before Bill Clinton. The plan is known as The New American Century and has been under development since the 1980s. In 1992, Bush advisor Paul Wolfowitz authored the initial blueprint called Defense Planning Guidance.
Basically, anything the government states is the reason for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan is not the full truth. The real reason is outlined in the Statement of Principles of this plan:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
These are the principles that drive the wars Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Pakistan. Am I a conspiracy theorist? I don't have to be, the plan is on the Web for all to see here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/
On this site they state that "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."
America is to be the world leader...utilizing a form of leadership that requires military force? This is Imperialism in the 21st century.
For a better understanding of this "The New American Century Plan" read this article: http://www.richardmaybury.com/bulletin-082506.html
Nick
Post a Comment