|
that a war would be understood as a sociopathic environment from a non-war vantage point seems obvious. that there would be incomprehension going both ways about what that means is not surprising either: from the point of view of those who have been in a war situation---people need to feel justified in their actions--the difference between war and non-war would create trouble for people who had been in the former in creating a consistent narrative for themselves, one that would enable them to function in both places. that the narrative would get shifted from particular experiences (in these places, these situations i had to do x,y,z....) onto a level of vaguer concepts--the notion of sacrifice, of service to the nation, etc.---follows in a fairly straight line to me.
for people who had not been in that situation, the contrast between the rules that bind them in normal life and the rules that obtain in war is quite radical--it should not surprise those who have been through this that those who have not do not understand what it is like---but at the same time, it makes no sense to attack someone if they speak on the basis of not having been there about their incomprehension of war--and for the ways of forming judgements that follow from that.
much of what seems to have generated shock earlier seems easy enough to explain if you look at it from a distance, that is analytically:
if you accept the need for a military, and the bases on which it operates, then that acceptance comes with a price: the narratives that would enable people who had been in a war situation (i cannot speak to any complexity here---this transition is obviously deeply personal for each who goes through it) to leave it behind relies to some extent on the words/images that you cede a place to when you accept the need for these institutions in the first place.
so if there is a question about the political need for a military, or the actions undertaken by that military in a given context, then any approach that runs those questions across the personal experiences and ways of framing those experiences ex post
of those who have been in combat (in particular) seems bound to end up in something like this thread.
so questions about the military, its actions, etc. should be understood as political and posed in a different way, in a different register.
what i do not understand---at all--is the seeming disregard for the mental well-being of troops who are in combat situations, and particularly for those who find the transition back into civilian life to be difficult--i refer here back to the quote that art commented on. you would think that this would be an ethical imperative--if a government is going to send people into a war situation, it owes them enough respect to provide an adequate system of health care--often long and expensive health care--after the fact to help deal with the problems that can come (for many) from putting human beings into a war situation in the first place.
and what i object to--and this goes beyond the thread--is the use made in the context of the selling of this particular to the public of exactly the same terms (words/images) that i imagine matter to folk who have been in combat situations to mobilize political sentiment for the war. that a discussion about this particular war can so easily degenerate into this sort of non-conversation is sad--and it is the result of rhetorical choices made by this administration for its own purposes.
and that this adminsitration has been doing the latter while cutting back on the former is beyond my comprehension.
for the record, i have not been in the military--but i have had to think about the military quite in the course of my professional life---and have relatives/friends/acquaintances who have been in.
i gotta go.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|