Skip to main content

Orthodoxy of War

On Canada’s military contribution to the campaign against Islamic state, Peggy Mason of the Rideau Institute said:

"We’re playing a symbolic military role, [within the context of ] a very short-sighted military strategy, when what we could be doing is playing a much more meaningful role in the broader political strategy that must be put in place if we are going to have anything other than a very long conflict, a quagmire."

Why would that be? Why would the federal government want to play a "symbolic" role instead of attempting to bring peace in such a dangerous area. How would we or the government of Canada benefit by this? What are we trying to attain?

William Astore in The Nation lists seven reasons why America will not be ending war anytime soon. That is to say that Washington intends to keep the war going on for as long as it can.

The reasons given in this article, are the privatization of war, embrace of the national security state by both major parties, "Support Our Troops” as a substitute for thought, fighting a redacted war, threat inflation, defining the world as a global battlefield, and the new "normal" in America is war.

We have seen how our federal government is eager to support Washington wherever it can.

The purpose of war is not to defend the people of a nation but simply to enable the war industry to get rich while the citizens, or taxpayers, pay for it with money and the lives of their children.

Andrew Bacevich writes in Tom Dispatch from his book How Washington Rules:

"By temperament and upbringing, I had always taken comfort in orthodoxy. In a life spent subject to authority, deference had become a deeply ingrained habit. I found assurance in conventional wisdom. Now, I started, however hesitantly, to suspect that orthodoxy might be a sham. I began to appreciate that authentic truth is never simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high -- whether by presidents, prime ministers, or archbishops -- is inherently suspect. The powerful, I came to see, reveal truth only to the extent that it suits them. Even then, the truths to which they testify come wrapped in a nearly invisible filament of dissembling, deception, and duplicity. The exercise of power necessarily involves manipulation and is antithetical to candor."

Which do we want? For the future of our children and the future of our planet? Peace or the threat of oppression by the centralized power of the arms industry.


Popular posts from this blog

About Humanity

"A chosen people is the opposite of a master race, first, because it is not a race but a covenant; second because it exists to serve God, not to master others. A master race worships itself, a chosen people worships something beyond itself. A master race believes it has rights; a chosen people knows only that it has responsibilities." Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Not in God's Name, Schocken, New York. 2015.

As someone who does not identify as a chosen people or part of a master race, I ruminate about how to respond to the world, particularly that part of the world I cannot endorse. So I am comforted by the people who have taken on ministry and who feel responsible enough to care for community.

How do I act on a feeling of responsibility without assuming that I know what other people should do, or what we should do? It's very easy to slip into a political preaching that suggests I know, or that my being a good example means that others should follow it. Or worse yet, create…

Creating Chaos

A very important article in The Guardian analyses the rise of hyper-masculinity and the phenomenon of Angry White Men.  "Sociologist Michael Kimmel is one of the world’s foremost experts on the phenomenon. - His recent research has looked at topics including spree killers (who are overwhelmingly male and white), as well as the relationship between masculinity and political extremism."

In the article there is a report on a study on testosterone where 5 monkeys are observed. The one who rises to the top beats up number 2 and number 2 beats up number 3 - and so it goes down to number 5. 

"So the experiment is: he takes monkey three out of the cage and he shoots him up with testosterone, off the scale, and puts him back in. What do you think happens? When I tell this story my students always guess that he immediately becomes number-one monkey. But that’s not true. What happens is that when he goes back in the cage he still avoids monkeys number one and two – but he beats the …

Albert Camus: Our task