‘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

Years ago, I heard a question that seemed very insightful at the time. You’ve probably heard it, too. What would you do if you knew you couldn’t fail? The question is intended to help you uncover things you really want to do, but which you’re afraid to try — for fear of failure. In an interview today, I heard the great marketing guru Seth Godin give a different point of view. He said the better question is to ask what you would do even if you knew it would fail. That struck me as far more insightful than the original version. We ought to be doing what we know is right, not what will maximize our success or praise from others. There are some battles that are worth fighting even if you believe you’re doomed to failure. Those battles are often for love or important ideas or our children. Some things are simply worth fighting for — and the truth is that you might win anyway. Do the right thing. Take the chance.

The more I understand about myself, about human nature and about the nature of reality, the more I realize I’m a radical by the standards of both Modernism and Postmodernism. Seeing the things which I’m stumbling toward makes me an enemy of many of the core ideas upon which contemporary culture is built. It exposes the culture as a monstrous lie — like a dangerous infection that’s slowly destroying what human were created to be. My “inner observer” has always known that truth was found in the ideas of the Enlightenment, but I’m slowly finding words to explain what has merely been instinct until now. The Enlightenment was humanity’s great leap forward, but shallow and arrogant thinkers for the next two centuries threw away the fruits of that achievement. We can’t go forward as a species until we go back to correct this intellectual and spiritual error — and part of that is acknowledging that our collective attempts to do away with our Creator will always fail.

I’ve come to believe that some of us — including me — aren’t very good at knowing how to be happy. I don’t mean that in the sense that happy talk and positive thinking should be able to make us happy regardless of the circumstances. I mean that some of us had so much experience with being unhappy when we were young that we were trained to be unhappy — and that being happy is an unconsciously uncomfortable thing. When I look at times in my past when I should have been happy, it rarely lasted. I believe now that I found reasons to be unhappy — and caused real problems for myself — because being comfortable and happy felt so foreign to my programming. If I’m right, this means that some of us have to do more than just change our circumstances. It means we have to learn how to accept the happiness that we unconsciously fear we don’t deserve.

After I wrote last night about being happy, I thought of an old song that mirrored what I was feeling. After listening to the entire album, I found it remarkable how well the emotions of that music match my own heart at this point in my life. Bob Bennett’s “Matters of the Heart” came out while I was in college. Even after all these years, it holds up really well, and you can listen to the entire album on YouTube. The specific song which matched my feelings last night was “Madness Dancing,” but I still find every song on the album to be strong with the exception of the eighth and ninth. (The song about his parents, called “1951,” is especially poignant.) In fact, the opening and closing songs paint a picture of my heart at its best now in these lines: “A light shining in this heart of darkness, A new beginning and a miracle, Day by day the integration of the concrete and the spiritual.” It’s old music that you’ve probably never heard, but it means a lot to me.

Narcissists tend to turn their children into narcissists — and since a narcissist doesn’t realize he or she is a narcissist, there’s no bad intent. How does this happen? I watched a YouTube video over the weekend from an Australian psychologist who does a nice job of summarizing how it works. None of this is new to me, but I thought it was useful for those who haven’t spent years digging through books and articles about it. The same psychologist has an excellent summary of something which confuses a lot of people about narcissism. You’ve all seen examples of the loud, boisterous and overbearing narcissist, but what about the ones who are more introverted and vulnerable? This type is called a covert narcissist (or a vulnerable narcissist), and this is what my father was. In the first video, I strongly see myself in the ways my father treated me and in the second video, I see what my father was almost successful in making me become.

Related Posts