‘War is the health of the state’ — but the death of the people who serve it

By David McElroy · August 7, 2011

We learned Saturday that 30 American troops (along with seven Afghans) were killed Friday night when Afghan rebels shot their helicopter down during a raid. The obvious question: Why are U.S. troops still there?

Afghanistan is no danger to the United States today, and it’s not our business to fix the country’s twisted political situation. I don’t see any evidence that it’s even realistically possible, especially considering that Afghanistan has a long history of humiliating invaders. Ask the British and the Russians about that.

So why are U.S. troops still fighting over this inhospitable piece of land where the people don’t like each other very much and like us even less? Many people would give many different justifications for the continuing war. (You do realize that it’s been going on for almost 10 years now, don’t you?) Some people would claim that if U.S. troops pulled out that terrorists would be able to go back to using the country as a safe haven. Others would say the U.S. needs to stay there to build a stable and democratic government. Others would be more honest and just say that since we started the fight, we have to gain a complete victory or else lose face.

All of the listed reasons are bogus. The real reason the U.S. military is still there is that war itself is good for the state, even though that’s not necessarily the conscious intent of the politicians making the decisions. In fact, many of them have spent their careers opposing U.S. involvement in wars, but when you reach a position of power — especially something such as the U.S. presidency — you frequently end up making decisions that reflect the permanent interests of the state.

There are a lot of things I wouldn’t agree with the early 20th century progressive writer Randolph Bourne about, but Bourne was among those on the left who broke from their fellow progressives (including John Dewey) who supported World War I as a way to spread democracy around the world. In an essay published after his death in 1918, Bourne explained why war is what makes the state so powerful:

“Wartime brings the ideal of the State out into very clear relief, and reveals attitudes and tendencies that were hidden. In times of peace the sense of the State flags in a republic that is not militarized. For war is essentially the health of the State. The ideal of the State is that within its territory its power and influence should be universal. As the Church is the medium for the spiritual salvation of man, so the State is thought of as the medium for his political salvation. Its idealism is a rich blood flowing to all the members of the body politic. And it is precisely in war that the urgency for union seems greatest, and the necessity for universality seems most unquestioned. The State is the organization of the herd to act offensively or defensively against another herd similarly organized. The more terrifying the occasion for defense, the closer will become the organization and the more coercive the influence upon each member of the herd. War sends the current of purpose and activity flowing down to the lowest level of the herd, and to its most remote branches. All the activities of society are linked together as fast as possible to this central purpose of making a military offensive or a military defense, and the State becomes what in peacetimes it has vainly struggled to become — the inexorable arbiter and determinant of men’s business and attitudes and opinions.”

War is what politicians use — consciously or unconsciously — to force people who live in the territory of the state to unite behind their rule. In times of peace, it’s easier for people to believe they don’t need the politicians and their control. But when people are afraid — as many in this country were after Sept. 11, 2001 — it’s easy to get people to go along with almost anything. (The various laws passed shortly thereafter which gutted many traditional protections of individual rights are perfect examples.)

You hear people mindlessly defending any war with the mantra that the military is “defending our freedom.” It frustrates me that people are willing to support pretty much anything done by the state as long as they’re told that it’s about “defending our freedom.” That’s simply a matter of allowing long-running propaganda (which starts in most schools, government or private) to override the ability to think. (As for “supporting the troops,” the best way to support them is to bring them home and let them get on with normal lives of supporting themselves as productive individuals instead of paying them to kill people in foreign lands.)

Returning to the deaths of the troops in the U.S. helicopter Friday night, I do feel for the families of the men killed. I seriously do. But I’m frustrated that people are so callous about the lives of the completely innocent Afghan people who are being killed over there — because of the U.S. presence — and nobody makes a big deal about them. It seems to be a tragedy when Americans are killed, but when innocent Afghans die, that’s seen as “just part of war.” That is an obscene attitude.

What people don’t understand — and don’t want to understand — is that the U.S. government has gone around the world meddling for the last hundred years or so, and that’s created a lot of enemies. People don’t want anyone (whether Americans or anyone else) to come to their countries and force their will upon the locals.

The U.S. government has done vicious and ugly things in our name — and then lied to us about it, in many cases. It’s no wonder so many people around the world hate us. It doesn’t justify their murders of Americans, of course, but it’s easy to understand what created their anger. Whether it’s accidental killings by the U.S. military or intentional killing of wounded and unarmed people, if people from another country were in the United States doing that to our friends and family, we would be angry and eager to strike back. If the foreign power were too powerful to fight, we would turn to some kind on unconventional resistance. Why are we surprised that people in other countries don’t like having their friends and families killed for no reason, either?

It’s time for us to quit making new enemies. It’s time to pull the U.S. military back to the territory it’s supposed to defend — and leave the rest of the world alone until and unless that territory is attacked.

Note: If you’re interested in the ways that the United States has used misused its military over the last 50 years or so, I highly recommend, “Why We Fight,” a 2006 documentary. You can watch it online here.

Share on Social Networks

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts