Dru Blood - I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings: Why I Still Oppose War

DruBlood

Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact

Feed the Bleed

Full Bleed Fundraiser

Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5

Search

Syndicate this site (XML)

Special thanks

adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru

Powered byMovable Type 1.5

« Thanks, Ms. Lauren. | Main | Long Distance Freecycling »

Why I Still Oppose War

April 1, 2004

I've been listening to the news and reading warblogs and newsblogs more than usual lately, and it has only solidified my opposition to war.

Yes, WAR. Not THIS war, but war in general.

There are a couple of things that I haven't seen mentioned in the media OR in the blogs recently, and it's really making me wonder if anyone is paying attention.

First of all, it is not a given that war is a requirement for stomping out EE-VUHL and ending terrorism. I do not believe that the war in Afghanistan=good and the war in Iraq=bad. I simply do not believe that war is the best way to gain security from terrorists.

Those who wish for me to explain in full detail how NOT waging war will work are welcome to explain to me in fine detail how war has worked thus far. And those who want to tell me that the war is inevitable and that is just the "way things are" should really please explain to me how in fuck the way things have been done to achieve the "way things are" is somehow a good model for deciding future action.

The truth is, I don't have a however-many point plan to save America, or the rest of the world...but what we're doing right now isn't fucking working. Or is only working for a handful of privileged individuals. The new currency for oppression is fear. They can't consign us all to a life of indentured servitude, so there has to be an element of fear to keep us scurrying about like little ants, staying in line, and arguing with each other enough to dilute our collective power.

The second major point that is not being addressed is the cost of war in pure fiscal terms. Yes, in general, the war has been and will continue to be expensive. The fact that we are still there trying to "keep the peace" is probably the most worthwhile expense, even though I still disagree with our being there. What I'm wondering is why no one has even bothered to question the fact that we spent BILLIONS of dollars dropping bombs on the same worthless targets OVER AND OVER again. Yeah, I know....drop in the bucket, yadda yadda...but we spent an awful lot of money on using extreme force to make a point that, over a year later, still hasn't been made yet.

If it is true that those who are rising up in Iraq to kill our armed forces and businesspeople are terrorists and not actual Iraqi civilians, this only proves that our tactics of shock and awe were unsuccessful, and have bred more violence. If it's true that those who are rising up are Iraqi civilians, it only proves that our tactics of shock and awe were unsuccessful, and have alienated people to the point of violent hostility. Either way, it was the wrong decision. And it was a very expensive wrong decision.

To be sure, the spread of non-state Fourth Generation threats, like al-Qa'ida, around the globe represent increasingly dangerous threats, but the forces needed to counter these threats do not require the large numbers of high cost, hi-tech weapons or the large standing armies needed to fight the industrial wars characterized by Second and Third Generation Warfare among nations. Nevertheless the overwhelming bulk of the defense budget, together with the current combat force structure and supporting modernization programs, continues to be devoted to conventional and nuclear forces designed to fight Second and Third Generation threats. Only a small portion of the defense budget is allocated to developing, building, and training forces for the irregular requirements of Fourth Generation Warfare, like the war on terrorism.
Clearly, current levels of defense spending are driven more by the legacy of the Cold War and the internal dynamics described in Part 1 than by the external threats we face.

Of course, our president doesn't "do nuance:"

President Bush once famously told Senator Joe Biden, "I don't do nuance." But the struggle against Islamic radicalism is a festival of nuance. It is not quite a war, and it doesn't yield easily to simple notions of good and evil, friend and foe. We need the limited cooperation we get from the Pakistanis, and we certainly need Saudi oil. Even those, like Graham, who see the Saudis as the root of the problem, are calling for little more than a public statement of the facts—in the hope that the Saudis will be shamed into modifying their dreadful behavior. Bush has called for even less. His war of choice has featured lots of bombs and boots, lots of highfalutin moral rhetoric and patriotic visuals, but absolutely no public sacrifice—no steps to make America less dependent on Saudi oil; not even the taxes needed to pay for the occupation of Iraq. He is having trouble defending his dangerously simple policies, for good reason.

Hm...I wonder what would happen if I told my boss I don't "do" outreach...The fact is that NUANCE is a freaking REQUIREMENT of the job of president.

And there's still the horrendous and tragic loss of human lives. On Michele's blog the other day, there was an argument that sprang up about the body count of Iraqi civilians who have died in the war thus far, and those who were arguing for the war were careful to try to exclude Iraqi soldiers from the total count. Why? Are the soldiers in Iraq somehow subhuman? How is it any different for a soldier from another country to die? How is it any less tragic? Certainly, the soldiers aren't the ones who are at fault, any more than our soldiers are - so why on earth would it make you feel better to quibble over whether they warrant a tick mark on the body count meter or not. Why would we have to take pains to differentiate?

Of course, according to Michele, *I'm* the hateful one. Me and "my kind" (as Monk would say.) I'm the hateful one, but she has people responding to yesterday's violence by saying "Rope it off. 24 hour warning, then bomb it into a parking lot. Pieces of shit." (I'm assuming this person is talking about Iraq and not Michele's blog, although the latter is an intriguing idea, and far less hateful and violent.) and "I am with you, Bob..if it's us or them..I pick them. Carpet bomb the damn place." Somehow THAT is acceptable, but referring to the Bush administration as "the Bushies" is on par with a freaking hate crime or some shit.

What people aren't seeing is that war is still pointless. War is still DE-evolutionary. War is divisive by its very nature - on all fronts. And, as far as I've seen historically and in the present, war is waged by the wealthy elite for purposes that are drastically different from the excuse that is given to those who ultimately have to sacrifice for it.

I oppose war because I'm tired of the lies. I'm tired of the killing. I'm tired of the fucking circular arguments. I oppose war because, as a parent, I have brainwashed myself into believing that you don't hit someone to get your way, even if the other person hit you first. I oppose war because it doesn't make any sense. I oppose war because I love people, and I believe that all people are inherently good...

even those dimwit commenters at A Small Victory. HA!

Posted at April 1, 2004 8:19 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.riceweevil.com/tb/1469

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why I Still Oppose War:

» Sometimes, Anti-War means Anti-Peace from A Small Victory
The discussions about Fallujah have convinced me of something I've suspected all along: The hardcore anti-war people are incredibly selfish. Allow me to explain. As soon as the media released the pictures of the horror that happened in Fallujah, the... [Read More]

Tracked on April 2, 2004 8:59 AM

Comments

Awesome post overall.

But I'm going to nitpick :).

The fact that we are still there trying to "keep the peace" is probably the most worthwhile expense, even though I still disagree with our being there.

I think one of the things hurting the antiwar movement is tripping over terminology that prowar folks have thrown out there like this. They throw out vague things like "stability" and "keeping the peace" but they don't talk about the reality of what it means to do that.

Of course no one is against either of those ideas, but that's not what's happening.

"Stability" = U.S. soldiers in a hostile place having to make decisions about whether they come home alive (someday) or whether they kill Iraqis. Is it any wonder the choices they are making?

I talked with a guy from the Bronx that just cycled out. The way he got himself home was getting himself shot in the leg. He's got a fake knee now, but he's home. But he put it this way, "I'm a soldier. What do you think we're put there to do? We're there to kill people."

That's what "stability" looks like.

It looks like young men wearing flack jackets with no night goggles shooting anything that moves in order to stay alive. Only later it turns out in the dark they shot a little kid.

It looks like soldiers deciding it's easier to conduct house-to-house searches by busting through walls because that way snipers can't get at them.

It looks like soldiers pouring strictnine in water wells and destroying crops because any Iraqi could be part of the resistance.

And as awful as all that is, I can't blame them for doing that. They're scared. They're forced by the government to make a choice between their lives and the lives of Iraqis. That's not a hard choice.

This is the what the "peace" looks like.

And we're supposed to be shocked and appalled when Iraqis shoot back?

I don't think so.

Posted by: zagg at April 1, 2004 10:50 AM

That's not nitpicking, Zagg...that's good editing. Thanks.

Posted by: drublood at April 1, 2004 10:58 AM

The thing that drives me crazy is that I know there are lots of people responding to the news of attacks on American forces in Iraq by thinking, "Those Iraqis want us to pull out of their country, but we're not going to back down! We'll show them what happens if you mess with America!" and so forth. (Well, they're not just thinking it, I'm sure they're writing it on a jillion nasty little warblogs.) But no Iraqi has done anything that Americans wouldn't do if their country was forcibly occupied by another. Some people will take these attacks as another excuse to demonize Iraqis to justify the occupation, but they're just emulating the people they revile--Iraqis who don't mind killing Americans because that demonizing process works both ways. Having seen The Fog of War a few weeks ago I have Vietnam on the brain, and I just keep wondering if anyone even remembers that war or if we learned anything from it. I just hope that people recognize this quagmire for what it is, and pressure the government to get out of there.

Posted by: susan at April 1, 2004 11:04 AM

Not that I think that's likely.

Posted by: susan at April 1, 2004 11:05 AM

Susan. I agree with that 1000 percent.

It's always amusing to me how the story about the oppressed revolting against the oppressor is such a common storyline (or a permutation of that) in big movies, but people don't make that connection when the country they live in is doing the exact opposite thing.

I'm thinking, like, Independence Day or Braveheart or Lord of the Rings or Gladiator. Nobody argues against the Americans shooting back in Independence Day or the Scottish killing the Irish in Braveheart or the slaying of Orcs in LOTR. People identify with the idea of national liberation.

That's why the Left in the U.S. needs to humanize the resistance. It's a very difficult argument, because on the other side the resistance is killing Americans. But it was a link that the Left was able to forge in the 1960s.

There's also a fine line in supporting Iraqi's right to resist because fundamentally you are defending the killing of American soldiers. People are not going to flock to that easily. But what must be won is that American lives are not worth more than the lives of everyone else.

As I said, I don't begrudge American soldiers for shooting at Iraqis. But I also dont' begrudge Iraqis for shooting back.

And I support the troops.

I support them coming home alive.

I support them disobeying orders.

I support them shooting at their higher-ups rather than Iraqis.

I support them rebeling and making it impossible for the U.S. to wage war or occupy nations.

Posted by: zagg at April 1, 2004 12:17 PM