Tuesday, August 30, 2005
War, Who is it good for?
Deep into the third year of the Iraq war, and coming up on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the War on Terror (I mean global struggle against extremism,) the nation has adapted to a constant state of conflict. Tolerance for the War in Iraq is based on the fact that 1) not too many people are dying 2) of those that are dying, they come from the faction of the divided United States that supports the War, 3) if you think the policies of the President and company are ludicrous, you can sit at home and avoid getting killed, if you happen to be a young male such as myself.
Most importantly, of course, the American people pledged support for four more years of war by voting W back into office. Bush’s greatest weakness, and the characteristic that makes him so scary to people like myself, is his unwavering support to his own ideology and self-belief in his people’s policies. Some people see this as a key strength in uncertain times, and Bush’s campaign policy was based on selling this characteristic as a strong point. But an inability to admit fault, combined with increasing power, is costing people lives. Even as support for the war and the President deteriorates to all time lows, the President refuses to budge from his team’s stance on Iraq. Nothing will stop him from changing his current policy.
Why is their such strong support for the War from this camp? Are their larger forces at play that benefit from the state of War, and the state of the Middle East? I aim to answer the question in the title of the post, to try and understand why we continue this fight.
First the cynical, that the war is being fought simply to gain access to Iraq and subsequently, the Middle East’s oil, which of course will satisfy Dick Cheney and his Halliburton cohorts. This is probably not the ultimate reason for the war, but simply a convenient corrolary. It’s clear that the administration didn’t understand the difficulties of extracting oil from a war-torn country, remember Wolfowitz’ statements that Iraq would be able to pay for its reconstruction through oil exportation. How’s that going? Not so well? Of course there is a chance that Wolfowitz knew this was crap at the time he made this statement. Regardless this is just another example of the Bush Administration either being incompetent or misleading. I can’t decide which is worse.
Regardless higher oil prices as a result of the war should stand to benefit oil companies. However I don’t see this as necessarily a bad thing. Gas prices may be high, but people keep buying, showing that low prices may have been in need of a market correction. As gas becomes more expensive, other fuel sources, ones that are more environmentally efficient, become relatively more affordable.
The real reason for our state of war derives from the additional power such a state gives to our leaders, in terms of an ability to accomplish their goals. We are at war because the state of war gives power to the machinery of the executive branch of the government, particularly the department of defense, the department of homeland security, and the state department. The idea of War captures the human mind, especially when one doesn’t have to fight in it. There has been a shift within the public eye from the post-Vietnam culture of war as chaos and absolute horror back to the post World War II mythology of war as noble, where men show absolute courage they cannot in any other situation, the enemy is faceless, evil, and eminently killable, and none of the main characters we fall in love with end up underground. Look at the war movies being made, even before 9/11: Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, your generic prison rescue movie…what happened to the Apocolypse Now’s and Platoon’s? How have we forgotten the dark side of conflict?
This idea of the nobility of war, and the abstractness of the idea of a War on “terror,” allows those that control war to propogate it indefinitely and use it as a justification for whatever they desire, be it removing Sadaam Hussien from office or drilling for oil in Alaska. President Bush, when he wants to make himself look good, often remarks that “we are succeeding in the War on Terror.” But the war on terror is a straw man, for it is an immeasurable quantity, since the enemy we are fighting is incapable of surrender, since it has no physical form. How does Terror surrender to the U.S.? How does the War end? It can’t and it won’t. Of course the Bush Administration cannot say we are at war with Al Qaeda, since its leader and organization remain out there, which implies a failure on the part of the Bush Administration.
But moreover, it is not in the interests of the Bush Administration because the state of War allows them to excuse themselves from accountability and act as a blanket justification for any policies they wish to pass. Everyone knows that in times of War, we must all make sacrifices, and most importantly, support our government and leadership, as they must know what’s best for us. In War, we must see ourselves as part of a struggle greater than any individual, even as War continues to benefit some (oil companies,) over others. In the spirit of “togetherness,” that followed 9/11, Congress was hoodwinked into passing destructive measures such as the Patriot Act and entering into Iraq. And the inertness of America makes it extremely difficult to revoke laws once they are passed.
If we as a people, a mass of fat, lazy, entitled Americans obsessed with celebrity and wealth, can recognize that there is no glory in war for those who sit at home, and that death and destruction are the realities of those that fight, and that the state of war we think we live in has not been forced upon us by a shadowy enemy, but by the leaders that we rely on to protect us, we can change the tide of where our country is going. For as long as it is beneficial to our politicians and leaders for them to tell us we are at War, then we will be. Even if, we really aren’t.
Most importantly, of course, the American people pledged support for four more years of war by voting W back into office. Bush’s greatest weakness, and the characteristic that makes him so scary to people like myself, is his unwavering support to his own ideology and self-belief in his people’s policies. Some people see this as a key strength in uncertain times, and Bush’s campaign policy was based on selling this characteristic as a strong point. But an inability to admit fault, combined with increasing power, is costing people lives. Even as support for the war and the President deteriorates to all time lows, the President refuses to budge from his team’s stance on Iraq. Nothing will stop him from changing his current policy.
Why is their such strong support for the War from this camp? Are their larger forces at play that benefit from the state of War, and the state of the Middle East? I aim to answer the question in the title of the post, to try and understand why we continue this fight.
First the cynical, that the war is being fought simply to gain access to Iraq and subsequently, the Middle East’s oil, which of course will satisfy Dick Cheney and his Halliburton cohorts. This is probably not the ultimate reason for the war, but simply a convenient corrolary. It’s clear that the administration didn’t understand the difficulties of extracting oil from a war-torn country, remember Wolfowitz’ statements that Iraq would be able to pay for its reconstruction through oil exportation. How’s that going? Not so well? Of course there is a chance that Wolfowitz knew this was crap at the time he made this statement. Regardless this is just another example of the Bush Administration either being incompetent or misleading. I can’t decide which is worse.
Regardless higher oil prices as a result of the war should stand to benefit oil companies. However I don’t see this as necessarily a bad thing. Gas prices may be high, but people keep buying, showing that low prices may have been in need of a market correction. As gas becomes more expensive, other fuel sources, ones that are more environmentally efficient, become relatively more affordable.
The real reason for our state of war derives from the additional power such a state gives to our leaders, in terms of an ability to accomplish their goals. We are at war because the state of war gives power to the machinery of the executive branch of the government, particularly the department of defense, the department of homeland security, and the state department. The idea of War captures the human mind, especially when one doesn’t have to fight in it. There has been a shift within the public eye from the post-Vietnam culture of war as chaos and absolute horror back to the post World War II mythology of war as noble, where men show absolute courage they cannot in any other situation, the enemy is faceless, evil, and eminently killable, and none of the main characters we fall in love with end up underground. Look at the war movies being made, even before 9/11: Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, your generic prison rescue movie…what happened to the Apocolypse Now’s and Platoon’s? How have we forgotten the dark side of conflict?
This idea of the nobility of war, and the abstractness of the idea of a War on “terror,” allows those that control war to propogate it indefinitely and use it as a justification for whatever they desire, be it removing Sadaam Hussien from office or drilling for oil in Alaska. President Bush, when he wants to make himself look good, often remarks that “we are succeeding in the War on Terror.” But the war on terror is a straw man, for it is an immeasurable quantity, since the enemy we are fighting is incapable of surrender, since it has no physical form. How does Terror surrender to the U.S.? How does the War end? It can’t and it won’t. Of course the Bush Administration cannot say we are at war with Al Qaeda, since its leader and organization remain out there, which implies a failure on the part of the Bush Administration.
But moreover, it is not in the interests of the Bush Administration because the state of War allows them to excuse themselves from accountability and act as a blanket justification for any policies they wish to pass. Everyone knows that in times of War, we must all make sacrifices, and most importantly, support our government and leadership, as they must know what’s best for us. In War, we must see ourselves as part of a struggle greater than any individual, even as War continues to benefit some (oil companies,) over others. In the spirit of “togetherness,” that followed 9/11, Congress was hoodwinked into passing destructive measures such as the Patriot Act and entering into Iraq. And the inertness of America makes it extremely difficult to revoke laws once they are passed.
If we as a people, a mass of fat, lazy, entitled Americans obsessed with celebrity and wealth, can recognize that there is no glory in war for those who sit at home, and that death and destruction are the realities of those that fight, and that the state of war we think we live in has not been forced upon us by a shadowy enemy, but by the leaders that we rely on to protect us, we can change the tide of where our country is going. For as long as it is beneficial to our politicians and leaders for them to tell us we are at War, then we will be. Even if, we really aren’t.
# posted by Marmaniac @ 10:34 AM 
