DISCLAIMER: This topic is not against the nature or necessity of a military force. This topic addresses a disturbing social and political phenomenon that absolves armies from the same accountability that applies to every armed group. But then again, this world isn't a just and fair place. Moreover, take note that I do not support nor condone any military, militant group, or insurgent organization, nor any actions which - BS semantics aside - are clearly unjustifiable. Lastly, before you read on, I acknowledge my biases for "underdogs". This bias, however, does not detract from the gist of the topic itself.
After surfing over several political forums, mainly "politicalcrossfire.com" (where, as many of you might already know, I post occasionally), I've come across a rather disturbing trend. There is a prevalent notion that the military of a nation is somehow above the law and for some reason does not have the ability to commit acts of terrorism or war crimes. Equally disturbing are how some of those who follow suit also go as far as to praise the military's "victories" in completing its "objectives" and necessitating those actions. What it does doesn't matter: after all, from a rather nationalist perspective, the military is uniformed and part of a government, so it has to be legal.
My foolish attempt at sarcasm aside, what do these empty statements - devoid of any logic or objectivity for that matter - really mean to us as second/third-party observers of a violent conflict involving armies of one sort or other? (If you haven't read the disclaimer above, I suggest you read it. NOW.) Such discourse seems to have a large degree of polarization involved. The commanding and demanding nature of military jingo is being used - sorry, abused excessively in such statements defending such actions. Words like "confirmed kill" (think of the fleeing Iraqis who were shot in Falluja and Najaf a few years back; 1) and "collateral damage" (any Iraqi or Palestinian civilian caught in an American or Israeli military blast; 2) permeate such spheres and absolve the military or its individuals from any wrongdoing. Even claiming "victory" instantly shoves aside criticism, as is the recent case involving the Sri Lankan army's "victory" over the Tamil Tigers (3). The power of words in this discourse is therefore undeniable.
Why, then, does this happen? It is arguable that a lot of us have become so desensitized to violence that we can not empathize let alone sympathize with the "other" group that lies on the other end of the barrel (4, 5). As Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Renaissance humanist and Catholic theologian, once said, "War is sweet to them that know it not." Many of us have grown accustomed to the relative safety of our homes, communities, neighborhoods, towns, and cities that we couldn't - for one moment - think about what it would be like to have all our conveniences taken away from us in one fell swoop. There's also that disease "nationalism" (6) and its offshoot "patriotism" (7), sentiments that polarize our worldviews to a dangerous, inhumane extent (i.e. racism, racial supremacy, Social Darwinism, etc.). Think about it: if one is to worship a country, its government, and its people blindly, what's to stop said person from deconstructing any feelings towards human beings (originating) outside (of) his/her national borders, especially if this "other" group is embroiled in a conflict with the former's country's army? Another explanation (I'd be stupid not to leave this out) would be militarism in all its forms: "defensive", imperial, fascist, communist, colonial, aggressive, etc. (8). If the desire of a nation and its government is to maintain a strong military that defends and/or promotes national interests, it wouldn't question its military lest it appear "weak" or "inept". Finally, the discourse itself may necessitate such action by causing, instigating, or promoting any one of the above factors. One such discourse, Orientalism, highlights some sort of "eternal danger" posed by Muslims and Arabs ("Orientalsm") to the West, and why "they" must be constantly subjugated and subdued lest they pose a threat to the West (9).
To better picture this last possible reason, which I think is the most important as it pertains directly to actual glorifications of the military in writing, think of the Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion ended in April, 2003, yet their lives don't mean anything compared to the 4,000+ dead in the World Trade Center. Admittedly, many of us have it better off than many Iraqis and other people suffering the world over, but news of terrorist attacks that kill a group of civilians are seemingly failing to spark shock and outrage. To make matters worse, a culture of American nationalism and militarism that pervaded the Bush era seemed to justify these deaths in the eyes of many Americans and other people who supported this war, and this appeared in tons of discourse outlets, whether on television, the internet, newspapers, or any other form of media (10).
To better understand the ridicule, blindness, pomp, circumstance, and all-out smugness behind such glorification of military forces (whether they committed a war crime or not), let us now look from the "other" lens. We've seen all these words - "collateral damage", "victory", "confirmed kill", "precision", "military excellence", "strategic brilliance", etc. - in modern-day militaristic discourse. Some of it may have meaning when the parties involved are solely military and NOT civilian. Even then (and this goes especially to those who kiss rifle butts, if you catch my drift), ask yourselves:
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to suggest why such talk is cheap. First off, it is unfruitful when it comes to two conflicting sides being pushed towards (re)conciliation. The last thing you want to hear in such a situation is one side excusing violence on the "other". Second, it emphasizes the social decay defined by the factors that cause militarism and praise of the armed forces. For example, as much as desensitization to violence may catalyze or facilitate odes to the fatigues and camoes, so too does such lauding lead us to become more indifferent to violence. Third, such views greatly lend themselves to large degrees of subjectivity (obviously). Fourth, and foremost, it signifies a disbelief in justice. After all, a government and its attendant armed forces are only human, and as such need to be held to a higher standard; that is, they need to be accountable. Of course, such isn't the way of the world today, but no matter how many semantic facades they hide behind, that doesn't stop the government or the military from doing the blatantly unjustifiable. The same logic here applies to all armed groups - insurgencies, militants, rebels, etc. - and therefore any glorification of such should be treated with the same caution.
I would like to clarify one more thing: it is agreeable that war may be a part of mankind's history, but there have been many wars that have followed strict guidelines (such as that of the Koran; 13). I do believe that a "just war" - topic for another discussion - is possible, and such praise of the military might be deserved in such instance. Of course, one must be careful not to get carried away in such lunacy, else we end up with the same militaristic regimes that dominated Europe in the late 30's.
There is much to be said about "glorifying the military", but beyond the concerns I've raised, this concludes the topic for now. I strongly advise you all to abstain from all such empty rhetoric: it serves to fuel hate and friction between people, and that's the last thing we need. Moreover, over the long run, such shows of bravado and haughtiness sow seeds of hatred that can embroil and lengthen conflict. But what do you think? Can glorification of a military force in the face of what others deem as unjustifiable be justified let alone considered "objective"?
Salaam, from Saracen
After surfing over several political forums, mainly "politicalcrossfire.com" (where, as many of you might already know, I post occasionally), I've come across a rather disturbing trend. There is a prevalent notion that the military of a nation is somehow above the law and for some reason does not have the ability to commit acts of terrorism or war crimes. Equally disturbing are how some of those who follow suit also go as far as to praise the military's "victories" in completing its "objectives" and necessitating those actions. What it does doesn't matter: after all, from a rather nationalist perspective, the military is uniformed and part of a government, so it has to be legal.
My foolish attempt at sarcasm aside, what do these empty statements - devoid of any logic or objectivity for that matter - really mean to us as second/third-party observers of a violent conflict involving armies of one sort or other? (If you haven't read the disclaimer above, I suggest you read it. NOW.) Such discourse seems to have a large degree of polarization involved. The commanding and demanding nature of military jingo is being used - sorry, abused excessively in such statements defending such actions. Words like "confirmed kill" (think of the fleeing Iraqis who were shot in Falluja and Najaf a few years back; 1) and "collateral damage" (any Iraqi or Palestinian civilian caught in an American or Israeli military blast; 2) permeate such spheres and absolve the military or its individuals from any wrongdoing. Even claiming "victory" instantly shoves aside criticism, as is the recent case involving the Sri Lankan army's "victory" over the Tamil Tigers (3). The power of words in this discourse is therefore undeniable.
Why, then, does this happen? It is arguable that a lot of us have become so desensitized to violence that we can not empathize let alone sympathize with the "other" group that lies on the other end of the barrel (4, 5). As Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Renaissance humanist and Catholic theologian, once said, "War is sweet to them that know it not." Many of us have grown accustomed to the relative safety of our homes, communities, neighborhoods, towns, and cities that we couldn't - for one moment - think about what it would be like to have all our conveniences taken away from us in one fell swoop. There's also that disease "nationalism" (6) and its offshoot "patriotism" (7), sentiments that polarize our worldviews to a dangerous, inhumane extent (i.e. racism, racial supremacy, Social Darwinism, etc.). Think about it: if one is to worship a country, its government, and its people blindly, what's to stop said person from deconstructing any feelings towards human beings (originating) outside (of) his/her national borders, especially if this "other" group is embroiled in a conflict with the former's country's army? Another explanation (I'd be stupid not to leave this out) would be militarism in all its forms: "defensive", imperial, fascist, communist, colonial, aggressive, etc. (8). If the desire of a nation and its government is to maintain a strong military that defends and/or promotes national interests, it wouldn't question its military lest it appear "weak" or "inept". Finally, the discourse itself may necessitate such action by causing, instigating, or promoting any one of the above factors. One such discourse, Orientalism, highlights some sort of "eternal danger" posed by Muslims and Arabs ("Orientalsm") to the West, and why "they" must be constantly subjugated and subdued lest they pose a threat to the West (9).
To better picture this last possible reason, which I think is the most important as it pertains directly to actual glorifications of the military in writing, think of the Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion ended in April, 2003, yet their lives don't mean anything compared to the 4,000+ dead in the World Trade Center. Admittedly, many of us have it better off than many Iraqis and other people suffering the world over, but news of terrorist attacks that kill a group of civilians are seemingly failing to spark shock and outrage. To make matters worse, a culture of American nationalism and militarism that pervaded the Bush era seemed to justify these deaths in the eyes of many Americans and other people who supported this war, and this appeared in tons of discourse outlets, whether on television, the internet, newspapers, or any other form of media (10).
To better understand the ridicule, blindness, pomp, circumstance, and all-out smugness behind such glorification of military forces (whether they committed a war crime or not), let us now look from the "other" lens. We've seen all these words - "collateral damage", "victory", "confirmed kill", "precision", "military excellence", "strategic brilliance", etc. - in modern-day militaristic discourse. Some of it may have meaning when the parties involved are solely military and NOT civilian. Even then (and this goes especially to those who kiss rifle butts, if you catch my drift), ask yourselves:
What does these words mean to those (civilians) who died? What about their families? Those who lost homes, lives, and livelihoods b/c of these "acts of bravery"?To quote Gandhi again:
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?What are you going to tell the mother of (say, a Palestinian) child who got killed in a missile strike? That he was just "collateral damage" (11)? What are you going to tell the Tamils who lost their homes and loved ones? That the Sri Lankan army won a "victory" against the Tamil Tigers (12)? What about those who were firebombed indiscriminately in Falluja? I couldn't come up with a "good" "excuse" for this one, but I'd like to be "enlightened" on this matter. What about those who practice an unjust military administration and occupation? Do you want to necessitate it by calling those occupants who are made homeless, destitute, and desperate "scum of the Earth" or "savages"?
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to suggest why such talk is cheap. First off, it is unfruitful when it comes to two conflicting sides being pushed towards (re)conciliation. The last thing you want to hear in such a situation is one side excusing violence on the "other". Second, it emphasizes the social decay defined by the factors that cause militarism and praise of the armed forces. For example, as much as desensitization to violence may catalyze or facilitate odes to the fatigues and camoes, so too does such lauding lead us to become more indifferent to violence. Third, such views greatly lend themselves to large degrees of subjectivity (obviously). Fourth, and foremost, it signifies a disbelief in justice. After all, a government and its attendant armed forces are only human, and as such need to be held to a higher standard; that is, they need to be accountable. Of course, such isn't the way of the world today, but no matter how many semantic facades they hide behind, that doesn't stop the government or the military from doing the blatantly unjustifiable. The same logic here applies to all armed groups - insurgencies, militants, rebels, etc. - and therefore any glorification of such should be treated with the same caution.
I would like to clarify one more thing: it is agreeable that war may be a part of mankind's history, but there have been many wars that have followed strict guidelines (such as that of the Koran; 13). I do believe that a "just war" - topic for another discussion - is possible, and such praise of the military might be deserved in such instance. Of course, one must be careful not to get carried away in such lunacy, else we end up with the same militaristic regimes that dominated Europe in the late 30's.
There is much to be said about "glorifying the military", but beyond the concerns I've raised, this concludes the topic for now. I strongly advise you all to abstain from all such empty rhetoric: it serves to fuel hate and friction between people, and that's the last thing we need. Moreover, over the long run, such shows of bravado and haughtiness sow seeds of hatred that can embroil and lengthen conflict. But what do you think? Can glorification of a military force in the face of what others deem as unjustifiable be justified let alone considered "objective"?
Salaam, from Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment