Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 06-17-2005, 06:38 AM

i am and have been completely opposed to the war in iraq.
i tend to be suspicious of the military in general, both as a matter of politics and experience (watching the experience of friends and relatives who have gone through the machine), looking at the unfortunate history of "excesses" in modern warfare....

were i a pacifist, i would doubtless link the two above together and see in the "excesses" that have unfolded, were funding and will unfold on the ground in iraq as a kind of reflection of the illegitimacy of the war itself, and an inevitable outcome of war as such--and the latter would be the real point.

i do not see the problem with such pacifist arguments as such, even though i do not share the same premises.

what i find interesting is that a pacifist argument issued today floats into a strange tactical situation.

a significant aspect of the marketing of the war in iraq hinged on the line that "we" should support "our" troops. this is the most ubiquitous gesture of support for the iraq debacle--those goofy huge yellow ribbons you see stuck on the back of cars (mostly suvs it seems, but no matter) purchased from 711 etc etc etc. it has seemed to me from the outset that this support "our" boys line was floated first and foremost to create problems for opponents of the war.

this line is a direct reflection of the power the mythology of the vietnam period as it circulates in rightwingland--the myth of the returning soldiers being spat on, etc etc etc. which later turned into the delusion that the "real" america had been "stabbed in the back" by opposition to the war, that without it the americans would have won the war in vietnam.
which is self-evidently false on all counts.
but no matter. it is effective as a therapeutic narrative for conservatives. at least for those who are in a position to directly shape marketing campaigns.

that the military in vietnam committed horrific atrocities is not in doubt.
that the military--a bureaucratic system centered on the exercize of political power through the rationalization (in the weber sense) of killing as an extension of politics---would tend toward--let's say--excess--is evident as well.
that this tendency toward excess would seem to call out for feedback loops--be they political or journalistic--that would expose and seek to understand the conditions of possibility for such "excesses" would seem evident.
that the present tactical situation is designed to shut down these loops is also obvious.
that is a problem.

the idea that "we" should support "our" troops gets in the way.
if you are bothered by atoricity, and try to understand how they are possible--what kind of situations enable otherwise decent people to commit these acts--how exactly do you justify separating the military apparatus itself form consideration?

that "excesses" have occurred in iraq is not surprising.
that the response to "excess" would be the isolation of those who commit them from the logic of the system itself is clearly self-defense on the part of the military above and beyond anything else.
this is not to say that the inidividuals responsible should not be held to account: they obviously should--but it is absurd to pretend that these individuals on the ground can be seperated from the rest of the chain of command as a matter of principle. it would seem to me that this seperation would have to be demonstrated in war crimes trials. there is no a priori separation.

this is a much thornier problem than would be indicated by the response
tsk tsk tsk you are saying bad things about "our boys"
it is as if the systemic tendencies of any military apparatus toward "excess" is understood, but you can't say it.
tsk tsk tsk, you are not supporting "our boys"

i wonder about this.

a seperate question or two:
how did the conservative suspicion of state bureaucracy get diverted away from the military?
how is it that a conservative might understand something like--say--the welfare system as irrational because it is a state function does not get mapped directly onto suspicion of the military on the same grounds?
i dont understand--it seems inconsistent.

06-17-2005, 06:38 AM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am and have been completely opposed to the war in iraq. i tend to be suspicious of the military in general, both as a matter of politics and experience (watching the experience of friends and relatives who have gone through the machine), looking at the unfortunate history of "excesses" in modern warfare.... were i a pacifist, i would doubtless link the two above together and see in the "excesses" that have unfolded, were funding and will unfold on the ground in iraq as a kind of reflection of the illegitimacy of the war itself, and an inevitable outcome of war as such--and the latter would be the real point. i do not see the problem with such pacifist arguments as such, even though i do not share the same premises. what i find interesting is that a pacifist argument issued today floats into a strange tactical situation. a significant aspect of the marketing of the war in iraq hinged on the line that "we" should support "our" troops. this is the most ubiquitous gesture of support for the iraq debacle--those goofy huge yellow ribbons you see stuck on the back of cars (mostly suvs it seems, but no matter) purchased from 711 etc etc etc. it has seemed to me from the outset that this support "our" boys line was floated first and foremost to create problems for opponents of the war. this line is a direct reflection of the power the mythology of the vietnam period as it circulates in rightwingland--the myth of the returning soldiers being spat on, etc etc etc. which later turned into the delusion that the "real" america had been "stabbed in the back" by opposition to the war, that without it the americans would have won the war in vietnam. which is self-evidently false on all counts. but no matter. it is effective as a therapeutic narrative for conservatives. at least for those who are in a position to directly shape marketing campaigns. that the military in vietnam committed horrific atrocities is not in doubt. that the military--a bureaucratic system centered on the exercize of political power through the rationalization (in the weber sense) of killing as an extension of politics---would tend toward--let's say--excess--is evident as well. that this tendency toward excess would seem to call out for feedback loops--be they political or journalistic--that would expose and seek to understand the conditions of possibility for such "excesses" would seem evident. that the present tactical situation is designed to shut down these loops is also obvious. that is a problem. the idea that "we" should support "our" troops gets in the way. if you are bothered by atoricity, and try to understand how they are possible--what kind of situations enable otherwise decent people to commit these acts--how exactly do you justify separating the military apparatus itself form consideration? that "excesses" have occurred in iraq is not surprising. that the response to "excess" would be the isolation of those who commit them from the logic of the system itself is clearly self-defense on the part of the military above and beyond anything else. this is not to say that the inidividuals responsible should not be held to account: they obviously should--but it is absurd to pretend that these individuals on the ground can be seperated from the rest of the chain of command as a matter of principle. it would seem to me that this seperation would have to be demonstrated in war crimes trials. there is no a priori separation. this is a much thornier problem than would be indicated by the response tsk tsk tsk you are saying bad things about "our boys" it is as if the systemic tendencies of any military apparatus toward "excess" is understood, but you can't say it. tsk tsk tsk, you are not supporting "our boys" i wonder about this. a seperate question or two: how did the conservative suspicion of state bureaucracy get diverted away from the military? how is it that a conservative might understand something like--say--the welfare system as irrational because it is a state function does not get mapped directly onto suspicion of the military on the same grounds? i dont understand--it seems inconsistent. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-17-2005 at 06:42 AM..