“Only the dead have seen the end of
war”
War itself invades us every day
At home, at work and, yes, at play
We cannot escape while we have breath
Indeed, it stalks us until death
And worse, we paint a moral face
On architects and stars of war
As though killing offers grace
To reach salvation ever more
CEOs and generals support the cause
While cash and fame await
But blithely fail to mention flaws
That leave lesser folks a fate
Of separation, pain and gore
From wars to come and those before
The quote above is attributed to Plato, George Santayana and
sometimes to General Douglas MacArthur (who in turn claimed that Plato was his
source). Our governments and our leaders claim to seek peace, but the body of
work supporting peace is miniscule compared to the bodies that litter the
history of war. With key people on
this earth demanding war, how will we ever see its end? Even recent history
seems to place war on the highest level of human achievement, while relegating
peace to rhetoric and dreamers. I
want to examine some of the mythology of peace while we also review our process
for going to war and our penchant for self-deception. We currently are in international talks to guide Iran away
from nuclear weapons through negotiation, but if you were to examine the visit
of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, it seems clear that to our Congress as
well as to the PM, the overwhelming favorite policy is to threaten Iran with
force and that negotiation equals appeasement. Only the disaster of war can prevent the disaster of nuclear
weapons in the hands of Iran? Recall that Netanyahu was a strong cheerleader for Bush’s
invasion of Iraq. He declared
unequivocally (2002) that Iraq was building nuclear weapons under Saddam
Hussein. That clearly endorsed the phony intelligence foisted on us by the Bush
administration. Why should we
believe him now? He seems to have
no additional information.
Meanwhile, war drums today beat for further military
intrusion in Iraq, Syria and Libya and on. We seem to have forgotten that the 2003 invasion of Iraq created
the instability that gave rise to al Qaeda of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had
previously blocked. AQ has now
morphed into ISIS/ISIL bent on death and retribution, and now the cry for more
“boots on the ground.” Iraq was
not a perfect law abiding nation prior to our invasion, but 80s history is that
special envoy Donald Rumsfeld was instrumental in the sale of chemical weapons
of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein during the 80s under both Reagan and GHW
Bush. We didn’t sell the weapons
we wanted . We sold the weapons we
had, to paraphrase Rumsfeld. Were those sales for some humanitarian purpose? Didn’t Bush in 2003 cite chemical
weapons as a reason to invade Iraq?
Hmm? In the 20 years
between our providing chemical weapons to Iraq and our invasion in 2003 seeking
weapons of mass destruction, had there been some major change in Iraq that
required our invasion? Maybe our
Attention Deficit Disorder?
Despite Cheney’s intelligence the answer is no. We simultaneously say we hate war while
we deliberately promote it. Is it
ironic that our avowed enemy, Iran, does have boots on the ground fighting
Isis? Maybe we should thank them
just as they should thank us for destroying Sunnis in Iraq and making Iran and
Shia preeminent there.
My introductory verse alludes to two entirely different
views of war. War-makers see war
as their calling. It has been so
since before kings. Most of us see
war as inherently ugly, brutal and immoral. It requires active killing, deprivation of freedom and
property, anguish and pain. War
must therefore be uniquely morally justified in order to engage in it or wage
it. “War-makers” (my definition)
include those who profit personally from it. We have had profiteers who supported war for centuries
including thousands right here in these United States. They have been decried from the
Revolutionary War onward. We
compare virtually every competitive activity to war. This may serve as a lesson in itself as to why we tend to
accept war as natural and even wholesome.
Football causes thousands of permanent injuries for players from
children to professionals, but we seem to enjoy the macho competition while the
players literally smash their brains at play. Football offers a modicum of strategy and tactics; planning
and preparation; qualities we ascribe to war. There are other “supporting rationales” for war that seem
more insidious. We train our
soldiers “to kill or be killed,” therefore justifying killing as self-defense. We speak of far greater evils such as
loss of freedom with falling “dominos” that will cause our demise (Vietnam). We literally demonize our enemies to
both stir up anger and energy to defeat an enemy and to reduce the moral
questioning within a nation.
Almost laughably, Bush referred to the enemy as “evil-doers.” Perhaps Pogo was more accurate: “We have found the enemy and he is us.” We minimize the human aspects of our
enemy to justify killing for wars of choice as well as for wars of vital
defense. They become equal. Enemies become targets or objects as
well as monsters and otherwise inhuman beings and, yet, PTSD thrives. It is hard to fool soldiers
completely. War veterans are
killing themselves at the rate of 22 per day. Perhaps the stress of “kill or be killed” is more than the
human psyche can absorb without serious damage.
There appears to be still another “cover” to justify any war,
still harder to accept: the myth that the greater good is served by our “we
built that” pride. We build
“smart” bombs and weapons that spare non-combatants as though explosives and
munitions had human caring motives when, really, the profit motive of the
builders overcomes the conscience of reality. We only use these weapons as a last resort? When was the last time that we truly
tried anything but war to resolve a conflict? Even now, many “conservatives” are trying to derail
negotiations with Iran. We provide
fame and acclaim to our military leaders who help organize our killing for us,
with leaders like the now shamed General Petraeus. The power bestowed on military leaders is unparalleled in
human endeavor. But is power the
solution or the problem or both?
General Eisenhower warned of the “military-industrial complex,” but was
woefully optimistic in predicting what happens today when military leaders
retire to be lobbyists for military suppliers of arms and advisors who create a
revolving door of a political demand push for military spending. Power/War becomes an economic driver
that colors our political and social policies.
Smart bombs, dumb bombs; all cost billions. Is this trip
(back to the middle east) necessary?
Let us check your baggage.
Are you going to make money on this war? Are you pursuing justice, glory or just money? We created huge new private organizations
for logistical support of our combat forces. This would stun Ike were he alive, but it brought Cheney’s
firm billions that were not used to hire many loyal civilian Americans in war
zones, but rather thousands of Bangladeshi and other low cost labor that had no
loyalty to the US but increased Halliburton profits. Air Force aircraft that don’t work safely are on the
scale of $ 1 billion each, but the political-military-industrial complex buys
them with impunity and demands more.
Peace cannot survive in this climate of greed. Can we?
As a post note, we have seen a recent evolution of language
to support insane concepts.
“Conservative” is a case in point.
In my lifetime, a conservative was someone who cared about preserving
the environment, saving his/her money and other resources; reserved in social
interactions or interfering in another’s life. My father was a
conservative. He was slow to
accept checkbooks or sport shirts.
He would be appalled that “conservatives” now abused the planet for
personal gain; that denial of facts would be a status symbol or that
“conservatives” would start wars for money and lie about it. Listen to Senators Lindsey Graham or John
McCain for war coming to a neighborhood near you.
Peace,
George Giacoppe
10 Mar 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment