Growing Up Into War Culture

With the release of the film American Sniper, which chronicles the life and military career of Chris Kyle, an American sniper in the US military, I sat down to think of what are the effects of growing up in what I call "War Culture"? What influence does the constant barrage of pro war and pro military images, songs and the almost mandatory glorification and appreciation that must be bestowed upon those who "serve" have on individuals.
How does the use of militarism and imbued detached emotional conditioning in entertainment lend to this culture?

I think first I need to explain what I see as "War Culture"
War Culture is the constant inoculation of militarism and perpetual war to the people of the world. It is not an isolated subject and is seen in just about every country on earth. It is the conditioning through various means to make war seem as just another aspect of life. It is the systematic conditioning to raise new generations to believe that the only way man has lived is in this perpetual state of alarm or conflict. Through the entertainment industries we see video games, movies and music that revolve around the occupation of the military or its missions, in essence Propaganda. Through the political sphere it is a constant stream of fear manipulation and the misuse of resources for destruction rather than diplomacy. The schools teach the military conquests from their home countries and gloss over the destruction that resulted. Again this is not an isolated occurrence, it happens all over the world.

Those that were born in the US after 2001 have never known a time when the US military was not engaged in a conflict, war, occupation or mission in one or another Middle Eastern country. Those who were born after 2001 may never know of a time when the US military will not have some sort of presence or installation in these countries.

Those that were born in these Middle Eastern countries after 2001 have never known a time when there wasn't a foreign military moving into their homes and communities. They would not know a time when their family were not targets for violence by men from far away. They grow up into a system of seeing this everyday, their family fighting for their own homes and their own way of life and they follow into this mindset. It doesn't take too much of a leap of logic to see that when someone sees this behavior day in and day out from childhood that they would continue on with the cycle later in life.

Then too we can think of the child soldiers from some other countries. Those who have entered this "service" by voluntary means have also been in large part brought up into this War Culture. They have never known a time, most of them, that their fathers were not at war, that their homes have not been threatened or even that their minds not set to these actions by the learned behavior or expressions of their religious leaders.

Kids, in the US especially, are approached early in their lives to consider joining the gears of the war machine. They are fed the scripts and lies of recruiters who have to fill new boots as fast as they fill caskets. By high school age in the US a person is to have been familiarized to the concept of war, used to the blind obedience to authority and have had their heads filled with the idea of protecting freedom by killing whoever their government is fighting with at the moment.

The media and entertainment industries play a major role in this idea. Think about this past year, how many movies were released that were based around military and war themes. Unbroken, Monuments Men, The Boys of Abu Ghriab, Seal Team 8, Jarhead 2,Fort Bliss, Good Kill and many many more. Now what about the gaming industry. In recent years with the rise in military actions around the world the gaming industry has turned into putting out more and more titles that deal with war and militarism. Now there is a lot of debate about the effect the games have on the players, if they turn out to be any more or less violent than those that do not play those types of games. But the theory is still valid, as far as the desensitizing effect it may have. Getting used to shooting at another human, destroying homes businesses, taking orders from authority and doing so unquestionably. Titles like Call of Duty, Destiny, Fallout, Titanfall, all lend to this issue. Again this is still a disputed theory and has not been determined to be viable at all. It is only in mentioning this that I hope to illustrate the tendency of entertainment companies to follow events happening in the world and to bring about some sense of entertaining qualities of war and the military theme to each new generation.

{ Speaking with a friend on this theory as I am writing this he makes a notation that this theory, that violent images from games or movies can have an effect on the minds and responses of individuals, makes the case that if the theory were incorrect there would be no reason to sit your child in front of a television or use and audio program to help them learn certain traits or characteristics. Sesame Street being an example, it is said that the majority of parents feel that by allowing their child to view this show they hope to reinforce good behaviors and learning skills. IF this theory were true in this instance it would be true in the case for picking up violent behavior as well. }

Even before some kids make it to an age that playing these games or watching these movies become an option they are brought into the war culture through their public and private educations. The National Anthem in America is a song of the battle at Fort McHenry in Baltimore MD September 7th 1814. It is a song about battle, of war, glorifying the action and triumph of the American colonies from the invading British troops. This anthem, being recognized as a National Anthem of the US by a law signed on March 3, 1931 by President Herbert Hoover. This being one of the first encounters with the theme of war even on a subconscious level. But this isn't just left to schoolchildren any more, no the national anthem is played at most if not all major sporting events, public ceremonies, political events, funerals, weddings, birthdays, national holiday celebrations and in some areas just because people love to sing a song of war. Many other nation's national anthems depict war themes as well. Many calling for rivers of blood, domination over enemies, revolutions, the firing of weapons to defeat foes and the beating of war drums and superiority of the country in battle.

 The anthem of Algeria is a example of this: "We swear by the lightning that destroys, By the streams of generous blood being shed" 

"When we spoke, none listened to us, So we have taken the noise of gunpowder as our rhythm, And the sound of machine guns as our melody"

For more on Anthems used as the drums of war see here.

http://users.dickinson.edu/~history/product/perry/national_anthem.html

Then there are those parents that raise their children with an expectation of joining the military. With parents that wish to ship you off to either kill someone or die trying to do that, who needs enemies? Often heard are the pro war people, "I would be so proud if my son/daughter joined the military." Under this implication they are under a false impression that 1. the military fights for freedom or security and 2. that their career choice is somehow a service to the country. 

That being said, what do we see from the culture of war?

Being raised and seeing the media portray the figures and images of war, without the true nature of destruction that it leaves in it's wake has left us, the world, desensitized to it all. The ability to be entertained by the use of violence has disconnected us from the real tragedy of the brutality of war. The constant barrage of subdued tones of Patriotism means serving in the military, the threats of violence from those the defend the institution of war and of the military's that wage them to those who seek peace through diplomacy and free and open trade. The boogie men created by institutions of government that turn into the very real monsters they were meant to look like. All of these things have added to a culture that sees war as the health of the state, that sees heroism in being able to kill another human being, that sees patriotism and nationalism as the wanton release of all personal morals or beliefs in the name of orders.

The Glorification of soldiers and the illogical justification for actions that in any other setting are immoral and unjust is a hard barrier to break. Any attempt is usually met with a onslaught of defenders and a constant stream of physical violence and threats of violence, again a product of the culture. The almost mandatory subjection of oneself to a life of praise and glory being bestowed upon those who "serve".

*I used quotation marks when mentioning the word serve in relation to military members. This is because the false sense that they are serving a nation, a country, the citizens of a certain land. Their service is to the government imposed over that land and those people. It is true that the paycheck does come from the citizens but not by voluntary means, not as a signal of worth or seen value but it is coerced and forced from them by government mandate.

 

War begets War it is said. And it would be correct given the history of the world SO FAR. But we do have the capability to end the cycle of perpetual wars, unneeded killing and dying, destruction and conquest. I refuse to glorify or propagate a system of despicable behavior under a twisted logic. Hero's are not those that go along with immoral orders, they do not revel in killing other human beings, they do not use a justification cooked up by some other person or entity to inflict destruction and death.

We Don't Speak To Evil - Why Is America Afraid Of Iran?

Reblogged from carsonspost.wordpress.com

“WE DON’T SPEAK TO EVIL”
Ted Rall

The nation is Iran. And the reaction is ridiculous.

“The Evil Has Landed,” shrieked the headline of the New York Daily News on the occasion of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches at the United Nations and Columbia University. A “madman,” Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post spat, setting the tone for a week of Bizarro News. On “60 Minutes,” the Iranian president said there was no reason his country and ours couldn’t be friends–even the best of friends.

“La la la la–we can’t hear you” was the response.

“Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon?” CBS News’ Scott Pelley asked Ahmadinejad.

He replied: “You have to appreciate we don’t need a nuclear bomb. We don’t need that. What need do we have for a bomb?”

Pelley followed up: “May I take that as a ‘no,’ sir?”

Ahmadinejad: “It is a firm ‘no.'”

Some Americans would pay good money to hear an answer as honest and straightforward as that from their leaders. Yet, minutes later, Pelley kept badgering: “When I ask you a question as direct as ‘Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?’ you dance all around the question. You never say ‘yes.’ You never say ‘no.'”

Weird. Is Pelley hard of hearing? But what I really can’t figure out is how Iran qualifies as our–Very Big Word coming–“enemy.” We’re not at war with Iran. Neither are our allies. What gives?

Capitalizing on the reliable ignorance of the American public and the indolent gullibility of its journalists, the Bush Administration regularly conflates its numerous targets of regime change, pretending they love each other to death and are united only in their desire to slaughter innocent American children. There are gaping chasms in this narrative, but they vanish into our national memory hole.

After the 9/11 attacks turned the U.S. against the Taliban, U.S. media outlets put footage of a handful of jeering Palestinians on heavy rotation. Meanwhile, “In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute’s silence at Tehran’s football stadium.”

Wondering why you never heard that? The above quote comes from the BBC. Fox News didn’t report. American news consumers didn’t know, much less decide.

Finding an opportunity for rapprochement and a mutual foe in the Taliban, Iran became a silent America ally after 9/11. The Iranian military offered to conduct search and rescue operations for downed U.S. pilots during the fall 2001 war against the Taliban. It used its influence with the Afghanistan’s Dari population to broker the loya jirga that installed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan.

Everyone expected U.S.-Iranian relations to thaw. There was even talk about ending sanctions and exchanging ambassadors. A few weeks later, however, White House neocons had Iran named as a member of an “Axis of Evil” in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address. “We were all shocked by the fact that the U.S. had such a short memory and was so ungrateful about what had happened just a month ago,” remembers Javad Zarif, now the Iranian ambassador to the U.N.

Bush accused Shiite-majority Iran, a mortal enemy of Sunni-dominated Al Qaeda, of offering sanctuary to Al Qaeda fighters fleeing Afghanistan. “Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror,” Bush railed. “Either you’re with us or against us.” The allegation was BS. No one–not the CIA, not one of our allies, no one–believed that Iran would harbor, or had harbored, members of Al Qaeda. “I wasn’t aware of any intelligence supporting that charge,” says James Dobbins, Bush’s special envoy to Afghanistan. But we never took it back.

In May 2003, Iran shook off its annoyance and again tried to make nice. The Iranian overture came in the form of a letter delivered to the State Department after the fall of Baghdad. “Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table–including being completely open about its nuclear program, helping to stabilize Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah,” reported the BBC.

U.S. officials confirm this overture.

“That letter went to the Americans to say that we are ready to talk, we are ready to address our issues,” says Seyed Adeli, an Iranian foreign minister at the time. Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, says the Bushies made a conscious decision to ignore it. “We don’t speak to evil,” he recalls that Administration hardliners led by Donald Rumsfeld said.

In the minds of the hard right, the case for Iran’s evilness rests on three issues: the 1979 hostage crisis, its opposition to Israel, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Readers of Mark Bowden’s “Guests of the Ayatollah” can’t help but sympathize with the American embassy staffers who spent 444 days in captivity from late 1979 to early 1981. But the right-wingers’ real beef over this episode concerns our wounded national pride.

What they fail to mention is that President Carter brought the mess upon himself, first by continuing to prop up the corrupt and brutal regime of Reza Shah Pahlavi long after it was obviously doomed, and then by admitting him to the U.S. for cancer treatment. Carter knew that his decision to coddle a toppled tyrant could stir up trouble.

“He went around the room,” said then-Vice President Walter Mondale,” and most of us said, ‘Let him [the Shah] in. And he said, ‘And if [the Iranians] take our employees in our embassy hostage, then what would be your advice?’ And the room just fell dead. No one had an answer to that. Turns out, we never did.”

Iran finances and arms Hezbollah, the paramilitary group-cum-nascent state based in Lebanon that wages sporadic attacks against Israel. If proxy warfare and funding Islamist terror organizations that despise Israel were a consideration, however, the U.S. would cut off relations with and impose sanctions against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (Can we stop talking to ourselves? We supported the Afghan mujahedeen.) It is possible to maintain friendly relations with nations that hate one another, and we do.

There are two points missing from most discussions of Iran’s nuclear energy program and whether it’s a cover for a weapons program. First, Iran ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. Leaders of the Islamic Republic inherited the NPT from the Shah. The revolutionaries voluntarily chose to honor the agreement after they threw him out.

Second, the U.S. practices a double standard by threatening war against Iran while ignoring Israel’s refusal to obey a U.N. resolution calling for a nuclear-free Middle East passed in 1996. As of the late 1990s, U.S. intelligence agencies believed Israel to possess between 75 and 130 nukes. Iran has zero. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there’s even less evidence against Iran than there was against Saddam’s Iraq.

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the government of Iran. They’re just a regional rival in the Middle East–another frenemy.

(Ted Rall is the author of the new book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.)

Afghanistan War is Officially Over: The Take Away

13 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day

The Afghanistan War is finally over at least in the sense that there will no more US combat missions for the time being. The take away from this ordeal is trillions of dollars (US) have been used and 2,356 American soldiers have died.  This is not to mention other nations service members that that died in combat. And it does not include the thousands of service members that commit suicide every year, an average of 22 per month in the US. These numbers do not include the medical costs to injured troops and the care they receive after injury. This does not include the pensions and retirements received by service members either. 

In September of this year (2014) a Bilateral Security Agreement was signed by the US and Afghan Governments allowing the US to continue funding, arming and training the Afghan Security Forces for another 10 years. 

"The deal stipulates long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and access to numerous bases and installations in the country, including facilities located in Bagram, home to the notorious U.S. military prison. The pact does not detail the exact number of U.S. troops to remain, but Obama has previously stated he plans to cut U.S. troops down to 9,800 by the beginning of 2015, then cut that number by half at the end of next year, with further cuts slated for the end of 2016. As of earlier this year, there were approximately 50,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, 34,000 of which were American." Writes Sarah Lazare, staff writer for CommonDreams.org

Also from that article.

According to Peter Lems, Program Officer at the American Friends Service Committee, "That's one of the biggest problems with the War on Terror since September 11: these wars don't end," said Lems. "We have this crazy situation where we have undeclared wars and, perhaps because of the nature of undeclared conflicts, it's easy to look at them as dissipating but never-ending."

The deal also allows the U.S. to pursue "counter-terrorism" missions as long as they "complement" those of the Afghan military and "authorizes United States government aircraft and civil aircraft that are operated by or exclusively for United States forces to enter, exit, overfly, land, take off, conduct aerial refueling, and move within the territory of Afghanistan." Critics warn that the stipulation is likely to allow the U.S. to continue its covert drone wars against the region, including neighboring Pakistan.

Under the agreement, the U.S. is to play a critical role in "advising, training, equipping, supporting, and sustaining" the Afghan military, as well as "developing intelligence sharing capabilities; strengthening Afghanistan’s Air Force capabilities; conducting combined military exercises." Many warn that "training" is in fact cover for holding onto bases and other geopolitical footholds.

According to Lems, this provision sets the conditions for long-term U.S. domination. "To have the U.S. fully fund that apparatus will lead to dependence, but also encourage Afghan officials to use force and violence the way the U.S. has," he said."

So while the US has decided to pull out a large proportion of the troops in the country, this deal allows more to stay and the continuation of the funding and arming of this foreign army. It also allows immunity to US forces still in the country. This is a hotly contested aspect of the US presence in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of Afghan campaigns US service personnel were granted a certain immunity to crimes against Afghan civilians, including murder. With an estimated 21,000 civilians killed since operations began it seems immunity is getting it's use. Sadly.

So the take away on Afghanistan is this.

The US has put it's citizens into deeper debt with it's central bankers. It has made millionaires of designers and builders of machines that maim and kill. It has subjected it's citizens to death in the name of war. And it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.