July 20, 2012
in this moral void
War comes wrapped in patriotic slogans; calls for sacrifice, honor, and heroism; and promises of glory. It comes wrapped in the claims of divine providence. It is what a grateful nation asks of its children. It is what is right and just. It is waged to make the nation and the world a better place, to cleanse evil. War is touted as the ultimate test of manhood, where the young can find out what they are made of. From a distance it seems noble. It gives us comrades and power and a chance to play a bit part in the great drama of history. It promises to give us identities as warriors, patriots, as long as we go along with the myth, the one the war-makers need to wage wars and the defense contractors need to increase their profits. But up close war is a soulless void. War is about barbarity, perversion, and pain.more from Chris Hedges at Boston Review here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 05:08 AM | Permalink
Comments
Hedges is among my heroes, but I notice he gets beat up pretty bad in the comments thread. He's absolutely on target in the article, but fails to mention how important warriors are as a population to keeping their own numbers in check.
As someone drafted as a conscientious objector I saw the military up close and personal for two years. Prior to being inducted I was naive in believing that if enough people could just grasp the evil that is war civilization would be better off. I was very misinformed. There are large numbers of otherwise decent people who truly look forward to all that wars have to offer, even the rush of excitement and cascade of honors that result from killing an "enemy."
I came to the conclusion long ago that if I see our own soldiers, families and politicians who glorify war, there is no reason to think they don't exist anywhere else. And like predators in nature, the warrior class and their supporters need one another in the same way that nature needs predators in the food chain.
When I advocate a return of the draft the reason is not for the purpose of swelling the ranks of warriors but to infuse them with ordinary people who see military service as the hateful and disagreeable civic responsibility that it is, who do not buy that old lie dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori.
Posted by: John Ballard | Jul 20, 2012 5:44:15 AM
Impractical, cynical garbage. He complains that war is terrible, dirty and brutish, and then points out that military is brutish and testosterone filled. Well, duh. You can't have it both ways: you can't have soldiers pumping up on tofu and contemplating Sartre and then live in a dusty, dry Iraqi check point, risking their life against an unseen enemy in a country they don't care about.
At the same time, he points out that the military seems to prey upon the poor and disadvantaged, and then states that the educated and well-off don't even seem to contemplate military service. Again guy, you can't have it both ways. The military needs bodies, and they go where they are available. You gotta go where the market is. Got a better solution?
He doesn't like calling the Iraqi's hajis, or he's taken aback by the apparently lack universal humanism of American commanders. What do you want those commanders to do? Risk their soldiers' lives more than they already had so that we can relieve our moral concerns here at home? Maybe he would rather train soldiers to hesitate and second guess themselves at that moment of truth?
I'm glad this man is a writer -he's good at it. But if he was a military commander, he'd have to explain to alot of grieving families that his politics didn't line up with needs of his men.
Posted by: Stopher | Jul 20, 2012 10:23:45 AM
^ Chris Hedges has seen more action in war zones across the world than most soldiers. So it's not him who doesn't know what he's talking about, it's you. Maybe you should listen instead of being so reactionary.
Posted by: Ski | Jul 20, 2012 11:09:48 AM
Ski,
So he went, came back and all he has to offer are cheap reflections on that war sucks, soldiers are lower class and that the morality is questionable. If anything is a reactionary, its that kind of shallow, psuedo-moralizing cynacism that displays mere exhaustion with the topic than actual lessons learned.
Posted by: Stopher | Jul 20, 2012 12:08:40 PM
Stopher - You're in over your head here. If you go away, we'll just forget about your ignorant remarks. Deal?
Posted by: Ray Butlers | Jul 20, 2012 2:10:55 PM
I rest my case.
Posted by: John Ballard | Jul 20, 2012 6:05:53 PM
Ray,
What I don't understand about this article is what the author actually wants. Does he want the military to do away with awards and claims to honor and sacrifice? Does he want the military to undo its testosterone addiction? Does he want extra recruiters at those rich-kid schools? Does he want the military to baby and cuddle the fatties that clog its ranks? Does he want the commanders to hold a funeral every time a jumpy 18 year old kills a civilian? Maybe the rules of engagement aren't enough?
At least the previous article here about the military, "When the Army was Democratic," wanted something -however difficult and probably impossible to achieve in today's world. It at least tried, and toyed with the idea of a solution.
But hey, Ray, maybe you have the answers to all this. Perhaps I'm not the only soldier who follows 3quarksdaily and read that article. Please, come down to my level.
Posted by: Stopher | Jul 20, 2012 6:06:23 PM
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established."
-- James Madison, an author of the Federalist Papers, a President of the U.S., a Cabinet Member, a congressman, author of the Bill of Rights, also called "The Father of the U.S. Constitution".
When officials and soldiers take the oath, they swear to protect the Constitution, not the nation, their comrades, or themselves.
Posted by: Dredd | Jul 20, 2012 8:19:01 PM
Post a comment