Get real about language, but get real about people, too
|March 19, 2010||Posted by Jeffery J. Smith under Uncategorized|
Get real about language, but get real about people, too
War in a Box
The conservative minds enthusiasm for war thrives on abstraction. Overlooking the concrete enables warmongers to cheer on activities that deliver terror, anguish, and death to innocents as well as to any real threats. This 2010 article was circulated March 11. Its author is national co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
by Norman Solomon
The event on the House floor March 10 was monumental — the first major congressional debate about US military operations in Afghanistan since lawmakers authorized the invasion of that country in autumn 2001. But, as Rep. Patrick Kennedy noted with disgust that Wednesday, the House press gallery was nearly empty. He concluded: Its despicable, the national press corps right now.
Sure enough, the Thursday edition of the New York Times had no room for the historic debate on its front page, which did have room for a large Starbucks ad across the bottom.
Despite the news media and the lopsided pro-war tilt on Capitol Hill (reflected in the 356-65 vote Wednesday against invoking the War Powers Act), antiwar organizing has a lot of hospitable terrain at the grassroots. National polling shows widespread opposition to the Afghanistan war effort — a far cry from the dominant lockstep conformity in Congress.
Apparently, as with many issues in Washington, Congressman John Conyers said in a written statement hours before the vote, those who are forced [to] bear the costs of war are the first to recognize a flawed policy, while those who profit from perpetual war do their best to blunt any change in course.
Yet the three-hour debate was a step forward, offering a basic clash of assumptions. Cogent eloquence came from many who spoke in support of the antiwar resolution, introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. The 65 votes for it should serve as a floor to build on.
But among the obstacles are snappy wooden constructs of language and attitude. Consider how a glib phrase now in vogue among Pentagon boosters and journalists — government in a box — mirrors the jaw-dropping arrogance of imperial power.
At the outset of its March 8 cover story Taking on the Taliban, Time magazine recounts that Gen. Stanley McChrystal developed a clever plan for the US-led counterinsurgency forces taking Marjah: He described how these troops would protect the town while a government in a box — a corps of Afghan officials who had been training for this moment for months — would start administering the town.
Three pages and 19 paragraphs later, the article gets around to a less uplifting fact: It can hardly be reassuring to the residents of Marjah that their newly appointed mayor, Haji Zahir, has only recently returned from 15 years of living in Germany.
Thats government in a box for you — akin to the illusion that war can be sequestered in some kind of container — the sort of feat thats possible only in fantasies.
Martin Luther King Jr. aptly likened the Vietnam War to a demonic suction tube. And demonic suction tubes cant be boxed. In the real world, wars ripple effects lead to a kaleidoscope of terrible consequences, near and far. You cant keep a war in a box any more than you can deliver a government in a box.
With enthusiasm for war thriving on abstraction, its facile backers are eager to cheer on activities that bring terror, anguish and death as a matter of course.
Thats what Congresswoman Barbara Lee was driving at when she spoke for a minute on the House floor just before the blank check for carnage in Afghanistan sailed through Congress with only her vote dissenting. As we act, she said, let us not become the evil that we deplore.
More than 100 months later, watching video of her prophetic statement may be enough to make you weep.
And it might strengthen your resolve to help end the military occupation that she tried to prevent.
www.normansolomon.com is where you can reach the writer.
JJS: However, since the movement seeking an alternative to war has failed (has it ever prevented a war or ended one in under one million deaths?), perhaps those prone to weeping and resolving might be willing to consider another strategy. Look. Generally, weak people dont get what they want, strong people do. Hence, why dont peace lovers first strengthen themselves, then demand that governments try alternatives to war?
Such a strategy could not take any more time than the current one that has not yet succeeded. Indeed, if empowering does work and merely protesting does not, then however long empowering takes, it will take less time than an impossible dream. Indeed, it may take less time than one may imagine since as protesters empower themselves, they weaken their pro-war opponents.
How would one person or one movement strengthen itself? Well, what is power? For humans, it is wealth. One rich person has a lot of power. And so do many well-off people whore banded together.
Humans respect wealth and power, not poverty and weakness. Thats why any movement of poor and powerless people can never win their goals, because they have not yet won their fellows respect. If pro peace people were all well off financially, then others would automatically respect them so much, they might not even propose to take them to war in the first place.
So, how could society become more prosperous? By adopting geonomics. By sharing the worth of earth instead of taxing our productive efforts while subsidizing our economic elite. Every place that has shifted taxes and subsidies even just a little bit has prospered. Do this geonomic shifting a lot more, and the spreading bounty and equity would create a context for a world without war.
Jeffery J. Smith runs the Forum on Geonomics.
Taliban’s strategy in Pakistan — drive out the landlords
Afghan Civilian Deaths Rose 40% in 2008
Deeper powers shape presidential policy
What are your views? Share your opinions with The Progress Report!