It is a common misconception that progressives in America are anti-war. While this may be true in detail it is not generally true. Rather the unifying theme for progressives is that they are against conducting the business of war badly. That may mean many things- bad objectives, bad tactics, bad strategy.
Given the phenomenal energy of war it must be used only of necessity, and with great caution. War is an exercise of perfection. Anything less is suicidal. War however is also a necessary business. It cannot be done away with entirely. It must remain always as a tool of state- but one the state uses only with great care. This hammer harms the wielder as easily as the nail.
So how do you conduct the business of war well? How do you fight a progressive war?
__________________________
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The first step is to disabuse ourselves of a number of fallacies regarding war in general and the US military machine in specific. War is not a solution to just any problem. Nor is it a weapon that can be trained upon any enemy. Drug addiction, poverty, and terrorism are not things we can "war" upon. They are abstract nouns. Thinking of them as if they were a physical opponent is dangerous and sloppy.
Secondly, no lasting victory is born of crushing an enemy. It comes from co-opting them. A military victory is merely defeat delayed.
The purpose of military might then is not to crush an enemy but to keep them from crushing you while you undermine their entire ideology. It is a delaying tactic and nothing more. Any other use is a waste. If you war upon a people with no intent to co-opt them then you cannot win in any meaningful sense. Even if you scour the world of your enemy you will become so hated and feared that you will have produced an unending supply of hatred both within and without. The world does not operate according to force. It operates according to perception.
Our most recent lasting victory was 60 years ago. WW2 was nothing more than a prelude to the Marshall plan and the domination of European media by american sources. That is where we fought and won our great victory over the factionalized and warlike history of Europe. We didn't massacre our enemies to a man. We co-opted our enemies. We infected them with our culture through seeming generosity and sophisticated marketing of ourselves.
And today Germany is a strong ally and trading partner of the US. France, Germany and England are generally friendly, certainly much more so than during the ten centuries that preceeded the current one. The idea of a current bitter war between the three is virtually unthinkable. They squabble over minor issues of course, but bloodshed? No. And we sit by and profit enormously from this.
Compare WW1 to WW2. The similarities and differences are striking. In each we won a clear military victory, but after WW1 we engaged in punitive measures designed to humiliate the Germans. So that barely two decades after "the war to end all wars" we were fighting again. Were it not for the Marshall plan we might very well have already fought WW3 and 4 versus some slight variation on the Axis and be currently winding up WW5 against these same opponents.
WW2 was a lasting victory. Our military misadventures since then have been exercises in idiocy. We've bombed wide swaths of south east Asia and the Middle East. We've set up petty tyrants and armed the worst paramilitaries in South America. To what end? With what return? None. Worse than none! We've engendered significant hatred of ourselves. We've threatened our very image, the single greatest weapon in our arsenal. We have embarked on these crusades with no thought as to how to co-opt the people of these regions and worse have often undertaken the tasks as if desiring to offend and make them hateful of us.
And so we lose. We lost Vietnam, because we put ourselves in a position where we could not win, and the enemy was smarter. They coopted us while we were busy trying to bomb them out of existence.
We are clearly losing Iraq for the same reason. We have the vaguest tenets of a plan to coopt them (spread democracy) but it has no structure, no underlying mechanic to make it work, and has been pursued with such bumbling idiocy as to make it a joke. So we lose again. And the usual people scream about American fifth columns and traitors.
In a way they are right. We are being suborned by the enemy. We are being co-opted by them, because we let them. Because the prosecution of this war has been so abyssmally bad that it pushes reasonable people away. To complain about it is like complaining that the other team has scored a goal just because your own team is too coked out of their heads to play. Perception is what matters. If we win it is because we have molded perceptions sufficiently, and skillfully, as to create the kind of world we want. If we lose it is because we have either not tried or tried and failed compared to the enemy efforts.
There are no-win situations in life. There are mate-in-one positions. Success then depends a great degree on not letting yourself fall into these traps. And certainly not constructing the traps and then throwing yourself in them! Iraq is a giant no-win trap that we have labored decades to build just so we can feel it's teeth close on our throat. It has been bungled from start to finish and at every opportunity inbetween. Whenever we have had opportunity we have attacked them, starved them, humiliated them, provoked them, and ridiculed them. We have formented their internal power struggles and encouraged their sectarian rifts. And now we have voluntarily (!) chosen to stake our reputation on being able to form a healthy government from this damaged, and angry, land.
Idiocy of the highest order.
Idiocy we cannot afford.
This brings us to the third misconception: the US military is not all powerful. It is not omnipotent. It cannot do simply any task given to it. It does have many strengths. It is unbelievably well funded and of substantial size. It has some of the most advanced technology in the world. It has a supporting mythos that is drilled into the soldiers and, to a lesser extent, the citizenry. Its infinite might is part of this mythos. While that message is valuable believing your own press reports is always a mistake. We want the other guy to think we can't lose but if we begin to believe it ourselves we will only lose.
If we want to maintian the illusion of omnipotence (while not falling victim to it ourselves) we must be sure to only task the military with the kinds of objectives they are capable of achieving.
War has a very specific window of operation. It is not a cure all. It cannot do the things we have often asked of it. And in the process it will do us irreparable harm. War, for instance, cannot force a truly democratic system of government upon a people who do not want it. War cannot prevent abuse of the weaker elements of society. It can tie up enemy resources. It can also be used to destroy certain types of power structures (especially highly centralized organizations like nation states). Those can be very useful things while attempting to co-opt an enemy.
So for instance with war we were able to smash the German state but we were not able to destroy anti-semitism. It persisted and flourished despite our victory in WW2, precisely because it is not a target that a military victory can score. We often inflicted great casualties on the North Vietnamese Army but could not smash the people's infatuation with communism. It was immune to our bullets and enflamed by our aggression.
There is a final misconception to expose. Hollywood is by no exaggeration our most powerful weapon. It is through the enormous power of our media machine that we indoctrinate the world with our manner of thinking. Hollywood is the biggest portion of this. It produces the spectacles that allow us to subtly sell our values overseas. It gives us enormous leverage and helps to put us in front of the world in a positive way (as non-threatening entertainment). This is where America's power lies. Right in that same Hollywood that is so derided and hated by the militant factions of this country. It is certainly true that Hollywood produces films that are not patriotic. Films that expose or exaggerate hypocrisy on our part. Even films that shame us.
Good!
Hollywood then acts as a public display of the American conscience. When they make a movie like "Platoon" they are broadcasting to the world that we have concerns and worries about our actions. That's a message that the world desperately needs to hear. They are painfully aware that we have a formidable military machine. What they need to see is that we also have a conscience that guides our use of it and that deeply regrets our abuse of it. They need to see that we regret a catastrophy like Vietnam so they can sleep easy at night.
Fear will get you only so far, and only at the cost of constantly giving cause for fear. Respect will serve us much better. Barring that then contempt is best. A feared enemy is inevitably attacked, openly or otherwise. A contempted enemy is ignored in favor of bigger problems (and there are always bigger problems).
If we cannot be respected (and in some portions of the world that is pretty much impossible for the forseeable future) then let us appear benign and impotent so that we are merely contempted. And while they dismiss us with contempt continue to saturate their lives with our subtle forms of influence.
BTW
this is a slightly edited version of a similar post of mine at
__________________________tlaloc.gnn.tv
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm kind of busy
at the moment, but I wanted to let you know what an impressive diary I find this to be. I wish I could carry you around the screen on my virtual shoulder as a celebration for speaking wisdom with so much clarity.
Your argument presents the thoughts I've been trying to formulate for a while: might makes right. Might is not physical power in this sense. I mean it in a Foucauldian way in which the 'might' is the framing of the war in a 'power discourse' way. In other words, it is the battle for hearts and minds, and we are losing the war on this level. Revenge and destruction, bullets and tanks, bombers and even votes are not remediating the situation.
One of the most striking parts of your diary is this line:
You don't see this idea in a discussion of war very often, but Hollywood portrays our image, the discourse of America, to the rest of the world. This idea carries over to ourselves as well, which is why I believe many conservatives dislike Hollywood. It does have the ability to create empathy, sympathy, and mutual understanding.
Bravo on your inaugural diary, and I look forward to more.
Very interesting diary,
I love this comment, especially:
I think, as a culture, we've been so blinded by the successful aftermath of WWII that we forget just what it cost us to accomplish that aftermath. But people dying in a trench makes for drama, while funding the rebuilding of infrastructure does not. Which is a pity.
Speaking of which, I'm so-so on your portrait of Hollywood, whose war film industry has cranked out far more patriotic fluff than not. I read a fascinating article years ago that analyzed the way Hollywood treats WWII and Vietnam - how nearly every entry in the first is about how war makes heroes, and how nearly every entry in the second is about the moral degeneracy of war. Yeah, go figure. It's to our detriment that we can't think outside of those boxes and acknowledge that people did heinous things in the former and heroic things in the latter. But, we're all a little tainted by the dream factory.
I'm also not sure how to read this:
Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? I agree with the latter, but not necessarily the former. There are some circumstances you just can't win, no matter what you do. I don't think Iraq is one of those circumstances, but I do think there are positions that offer us no winning solution.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
no win situations
I don't see them as contradictory. The no win situations develop
they don't just exist from the get go. So in order to reach such a bad end you have to either not pay attention or pay attention but not react intelligently. In other words a situation becomes "no win" when you let the enemy mold perceptions, or mismanage them yourself.My point really was that if this mismanagement of perceptions goes far enough it is possible to reach a place where you simply can't turn things around.
I do think we are there in Iraq, and I worry that we are close to that precipice across much of the middle east.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
danke
Thank you for the recommendation btw, to whomever recommended it. I admit I'm not very familiar with this system so I don;t know who has the authority to do that.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
any registered user can
recommend a diary by someone else. I am not sure if you see a link on the right to see who it is recommended by.
Thanks for a thoughtful diary.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
ahah
Yes, I do see the link now that you mention it. Thanks.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I know you are just being kind
to the newcomer, but do you have any criticisms?
I think pico has a point about the " portrait of Hollywood, whose war film industry has cranked out far more patriotic fluff than not." I think there are plenty of action/war films with a one-dimensional, patriotic aspect about them.
I see two responses to this objection. The first is that those around the world still cheer for the protagonist, so they end up following the perspective of the 'American' hero anyway. This still creates a positive image of America and endorses our ideology, maybe not in the same (and more powerful) manner of showing our human side, but nevertheless creates a positive image of even our baser actions. For example, who did not embrace Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) or Vincent (John Travolta) in Pulp Fiction, even though they are technically bad guy mobsters. How you frame things can lead us to feel sympathy/empathy even with those we despise.
Secondly, these type of films, though popular for a short span of time, do not have any lasting significance compared to the'second generation', war as moral degeneracy and self-introspection films that often become international blockbusters and award-winners.
I do have one question after rereading the post. When saying, "A military victory is merely defeat delayed," do you mean there are no true victories or just that it is a battle of ideologies (or power discourses) which are never permanent victories? For each of these, what leads to the impermanence (besides just empires rise and fall).
good questions
In regards to Hollywood, I certainly don't mean to imply that every film churned out is useful in terms of spreading and popularizing the american mindset. Rather I just mean that taken as a whole, the net effect is very positive. I would posit that there are three main forces that have driven the spread of english around the world. The first was the very widespread British Empire. The second is the industrialized business might of the US and England. And the third (and by no means least) is the US media machine.
I had a coworker from France who told me that at least half of all the TV and movies in France are from the US. She guessed closer to 70%. Think about that. France is a first world industrialized nation with its own native media companies and a culture that is, if not contemptuous, at least snooty towards America. And yet they are inundated with messages from the US. It is fantastic what a huge propaganda machine we have built virtually by accident.
As to your second point, what I am saying is that winning a physical victory may delay defeat but without coopting the enemy it is nothing more than that. Hence the WW1/WW2 comparison. We won the physical war in WW1 but the ideological war was basically a draw. You cannot physically defeat an opponent and win any meaningful victory because all you've done is set an appointment for future clashes. Europe had centuries of warfare and no few crushing defeats. Yet the warfare went on and on and on. Decade after decade.
It wasn't literally until this last century that they have known any form of real peace (again among the major players), because it wasn't until this century that there existed a force that actually fought and won the ideological war. It happend to be us, and we have vastly benefited from it.
Fundamentally it works like this- if there is an ideological basis to the conflict then you cannot win the matter physically. Even if you wipe out those who follow the idea it remains within the public discourse and if it was attractive enough to infect some once it will do so again. And that is assuming you actually managed to wipe out the opponent to a man, something that is virtually impossible.
Ugh, I don't feel like I'm answering your question very well. Let me know if this helps.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'll write more
a bit later when I have some time.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
here is my response
I am certain that this statement "no lasting victory is born of crushing an enemy" is false. Did we coopt the indians? Did the North coopt the South? USSR beat Germany in a much more convincing fashion than the West. Was that not tangible when they saved themselves from being annihilated?
You are guilty of trying to fit the events of the past into your preconcieved notions of what is right and good. I can understand that because you are trying to believe something different about your fellow human beings. It is true that convincing your enemy of the superiority of your ideology or way of life would be the preferable resolution of the conflict but ultimately killing your enemy works if you are willing to do it right.
What we have lost is the understanding of how to win. We no longer see our enemies as clearly as we had in the past due to the dilution of our sense of morality. When push came to shove Washington defeated the British by force, Abraham Lincoln went for the South's jugular, and Truman dropped the bombs. Throughout history, nations and peoples gave up in face of overwhelming odds and crushing defeats and they did not rise to fight again or keep fighting. Usually it was not because the stronger side coopted their enemy but it was through brutal domination and humiliation.
"A military victory is merely defeat delayed"?... War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery. I am sorry but that is only superficially deep.
Vietnam marked the beginning of the subversion of the American will and in response the rise of spineless politicians. Have there always been such gutless cowards not willing to defeat the enemy when victory was clearly possible? Yes, but there have almost always - at least in American history - strong leaders acting as counterweight.
I agree about the lack of a plan to "coopt them" well but unfortunately the need to coopt came because we the actual destruction of the enemy did not occur. After the initial victory we almost immediately failed to address the rising insurgency. And the failures kept worsening. These failures I lay at the feet of President Bush and Rumsfeld who controlled both response, level of troops, and the desire to win. Also I lay these failures at our new political culture that does not allow true Heroes to come through the ranks. True Heroes who can actually have a goal and pursue it with full devotion without being distracted by the gutless gnats screeching about inhumanity of war. It seems that the time of Heroes is almost at an end in the modern ultra-sensitive, feminized culture of US. It is a temporary phenomenon that will hopefully end once America is actually struck strong enough to wake us up. I fear only millions of dead Americans would be enough to bring us back to life - until then we will keep dying this slow death of a genetically mutated superpower.
War is not a cure all. "So for instance with war we were able to smash the German state but we were not able to destroy anti-semitism." - Another meaningless semi-truism. The goal of our participation in WW2 was not to destroy anti-semitism, nor was that the goal of the Russian side. Nor really was it the desire of the jews. The goal was to destroy the nazi/fascist/imperialist aggressors and to stop their abominable campaign of extermination. And we've fully succeeded in those goals. The goals of wars are rarely mental and usually have very tangible physical repercussions. Tangible and completely valuable.
Consider Israel and the wars it had gone through. Do you really think that the Arab or Israeli goal is or will ever be to coopt the enemy? No because neither side has achieved your level of progressive enlightenment and are still fighting on that basic level of trying to destroy the opponent in the most crushing possible manner. Those wars are fought with specific goals in mind and the side that wins is generally better without any attempt or care for cooping their enemies.
WW1 and WW2 examples are poor because the Germany example is more of an exception. Do you really think if we did not expend any energy in cultivating the new Germany after their ww2 defeat that they would in time rose up to be a worthy enemy? We would've crushed them again and nuked them for good measure. They knew what was in their best interest (alignment with the west and democratic reforms) and went with it. Same with Japan. We had crushed them so completely and imposed our will on them to such a degree (coopted?) that they had no choice but to bow to our military superiority.
I am sorry to say it but your main points are invalid.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I recommended your diary
because it was thought provoking :) Not because it has much objective truth.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I have to disagree
"Did we coopt the indians?"
Oh yes, very much so. We removed them from their lands, severed their traditions, forced different tribes to live side by side sometimes with their enemies, and introduced them to alcohol.
It was not an intentional attempt to coopt them but what does that matter? We did absolutely poison their ideology.
"Did the North coopt the South?"
Uh yeah! It didn't happen during the civil war by any means. In fact we are still in the process of coopting the southern slave culture. The civil war is a perfect example. Afterwards not much was different than before, precisely because the war couldn't effect the change that either side wanted. It was the later change of the southern economies, the slow advancement of rights for blacks, and the popular acceptance of same that coopted them. Southern culture is not yet dead but it is massively weakened and will die out here eventually.
"USSR beat Germany in a much more convincing fashion than the West."
And yet Germany moved into the western camp. Almost as if the military victory were of secondary importance. Hrrrm, maybe I should write a diary about that. Oh wait...
"but ultimately killing your enemy works if you are willing to do it right."
Can you give me an example of someone "doing it right" then? So far every example has supported my thesis.
"The goal of our participation in WW2 was not to destroy anti-semitism, nor was that the goal of the Russian side."
I agree which is precisely why WW2 was a war we could win and the "war on terror" is one we can't. My point was simply that had we been trying to war on anti-semitism we would have lost.
"Consider Israel and the wars it had gone through. Do you really think that the Arab or Israeli goal is or will ever be to coopt the enemy?"
No, indeed not, but both sides are foolish in the extreme. They've locked themselves in a struggle that neither side can hope to win.
"Do you really think if we did not expend any energy in cultivating the new Germany after their ww2 defeat that they would in time rose up to be a worthy enemy?"
Dude they said the exact same thing about germany after WW1. Remember the war to end all wars? There would never again be a conflict of that scale? that lasted only two decades and the germans were ready again. Yes, had we not coopted them then they would have been a threat again.
"Same with Japan. We had crushed them so completely and imposed our will on them to such a degree (coopted?) that they had no choice but to bow to our military superiority."
Uh Japan wasn't even remotely crushed. Remeber that's why we nuked Hiroshima and Nagisaki. Japan was going to be an insanely hard fight so they gambled that if we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy that it would intimidate them into surrender. High cost but it worked. Japan was not crushed by any stretch of the imagination.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Washington did not destroy the British army
At the end of the war for independence, Britain still had a powerful military, but they decided to stop fighting. Part of that decision was driven by US sympathizers in Britain such as William Pitt. It was also aided by Washington's insistence that the war be fought in a civilized manner.
I think the point here is that military victory is often necessary, but not sufficient, to win peace.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas