How to Replace the War System

Friday 01 October 2010

by: Michael N. Nagler, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

How to Replace the War System
(Photo: Kim Smith / US Army; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

About the murderous rampage of US soldiers from the 5th Stryker Combat Brigade, who killed and dismembered Afghani civilians evidently "for sport," the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reported on September 20, "Army officials have not disclosed a motive" for the outrage. Let me try.

Violence is puzzling when we can't see the forest for the trees. If we focus on just this event - and it's certainly a shocker - we may not realize that it's part of a much larger pattern. We must take a step back - in fact, two steps - and take in the whole picture.

What these men did is only one of many signs of breakdown in both of our long, drawn-out wars in the Middle East. In Iraq, for example, from a report filed by McClatchy's Washington Bureau on September 17:

Drug and alcohol abuse in the ranks, and the associated misdemeanor offenses, have risen alarmingly in the nine-year course of the war."Drug and alcohol abuse is [now] a significant health problem in the Army," stated a 350-page report the Army released in July.

Sexual assault tripled in the period 2001-2009; and most telling:

So did suicide. There were 148 Army suicides in the first six months of this year and the toll is expected to surpass last year's grim total of 160.

Moreover, record numbers of veterans from both wars are "broken" or dysfunctional - unable to work, maintain relationships or stay out of jail.

At least now the Army is starting to lend some humane attention to these men and women, after a decade of denial and neglect. Said Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the vice chief of staff of the Army:

We can't use these people up, have them develop a problem and then throw them away and not take care of them. There is no way. I can't be part of an organization like that. Part of the reason they're having the problem is the situation we put them into.

And what is that situation? These soldiers lose it because they were put into a war that should never have been fought. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - and our leaders knew it. Similarly, it was not necessary to destroy the entire Taliban movement - assuming that military force could accomplish such a thing - to capture Osama bin Laden (which, of course, has not happened anyway).

But to get the final answer, we have to step back yet again. We have to recognize that there is such a thing as moral progress. Slavery was considered normal from the earliest records of history down to the 19th century of our era, when a small band of Quakers in London started a movement that broke the spell and suddenly brought to light the horror of enslaving another human being. Slavery still happens, but that's because of other factors; it was formally abolished in the 19th century because the time was right for people to wake up and stop looking on a whole race of human beings as objects, as possessions.

Today, we are reaching a similar crisis with the institution of war. Despite appearances, people are becoming more aware that we cannot solve problems by waging war on them. If you are not aware that this is happening, you are not alone; watch any news or "entertainment" program and you'll see that competition, violence and war are still considered "normal." It's rare to spot nonviolent, alternative methods, since they are so rarely featured in mainstream media.

It is significant that a good number of the troubled veterans we just mentioned are not suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), exactly, but a variant recently uncovered by psychologist Rachel McNair that she calls PITS: perpetration induced traumatic stress. Simply put, when we do violence against others, we are in some psychological way hurting ourselves - and that pain is becoming more evident as the patina of glory surrounding war wears off. One brigade commander correctly pointed out that the drug problem is "just a symptom of the disease." But the name of the disease is not dysfunctional leaders or lax discipline or a particular conflict that should not have been fought; it's war.

Back when he was campaigning, soon-to-be President Obama said that we must "not only end war [in Iraq] but end the mindset that leads to war." Of course, he did nothing of the kind. And, so, it's up to us.

I encourage anyone who hasn't already done so to familiarize him- or herself with the alternatives to war that fall into three broad categories: 1) living more lightly on the earth, since most wars today are fought over its diminishing resources; 2) diplomacy, mediation and international institutions that can keep disputes from turning into wars; and 3) nonviolent mechanisms to deal with the wars that nonetheless break out, like the unarmed interventions just mentioned that are helping to reduce violence in trouble spots all over the world now.

I recommend that we all learn about these things and talk about them with family, friends and our Congressmen or women. You may not get anything but raised eyebrows at first, but remember what Gandhi said about a real innovation: "First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you - and then you win."

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

That's the GORY of

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 09:22 — Vic Anderson (not verified)

That's the GORY of (Bush/Shadow) wars and it's Getting OLD; precisely because of the lying DEM serial reneger's Manifest INSANITY!

no, it's all true. the

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 10:43 — jk bennet (not verified)

no, it's all true. the testo culture is too easily turned in on itself being the protective watchdogs that just start chewing up anything they can BECAUSE in the war culture they CAN - with impunity. The 'war' wasn't a war. It was a takeover and an occupation, let's correct the terminology. If our troops were on peacekeeping missions side by side with troops from all nations under a global imperative instead of being empire enforcing stormtroopers their work would make sense.

Until this government

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 10:51 — Anonymous (not verified)

Until this government addresses the BUSINESS of war there will be war & we will not balance a budget or truly invest in future of our society. Who profits? To which private corporations do we send our tax dollars? We are in the vise grip of the military's self perpetuating agenda.

Human beings are an

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 14:56 — Anonymous (not verified)

Human beings are an inherently warlike and aggressive species. Much of the reason for that is biological, the genetic heritage passed down to us from our ancestors (contrary to popular belief, early tribal societies were often extremely violent places). Unfortunately, any admission that humans behave this way partly because we're hardwired to plays into the hands of right wing militarists, who would use it to justify the idea that there are enemies everywhere waiting for us to show the slightest weakness, so liberals are often forced to try and awkwardly make the BS case humans are inherently peaceful. Don't get me wrong, I hate war and want no more of it, but if we're going to move humanity away from a life of constant conflict we need to come to terms with our biological heritage and devise ways to minimize those aggressive tendencies within us.

Great article. Great

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 15:10 — Anonymous (not verified)

Great article.
Great writing.
Refreshing and sincere. There is hope !!!

It is easy to understand the

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 17:54 — Richard Pietrasz (not verified)

It is easy to understand the US troops who took pleasure in slaughtering civilians. They were trained to be that way, not necessarily quite that far over the edge, but certainly close enough that normal statistical variation guarantees that many will be over the edge. When this is combined with the other aspect of their training, that loyalty to their buddies is the primary virtue, it is explainable that the worst ones are rarely caught and punished.

The problem is not just in the US military. So much of the US population has voluntarily supported these wars, and many more took less than minimal steps to stop them. The former group are mass murderers, and the latter group negligent. A process needs to occur which involves recognition of the crimes, acknowledgement of guilt, and meaningful penance.

I always loved Kucinich's

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 18:13 — Natasha (not verified)

I always loved Kucinich's proposal for a Department of Peace. After all, peace is our goal, right? Theoretically, we good people want to end war.

peace,

Natasha

A semantic disaster of the

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 18:34 — Anonymous (not verified)

A semantic disaster of the war is the term "war on terror". It was rolled out easily in the manner of the "war on poverty" and the "war on drugs", which just indicated a comprehensive effort and a lot of spending on those projects. But the war on terror actually involved bashing two countries with troops and bombs, but with no valid reason nor objective. And certainly no formal declaration of war by Congress. These pretend wars were crimes, perpetrated to increase the power of the Executive and to make profits for big corporations. Of course it makes our troops highly stressed and morally compromised.

It's always interesting to

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 22:12 — goobagooba (not verified)

It's always interesting to me that when our government wants to do anything about things that afflict us unnecessarily, it feels that assuming an aggressive stance will do at least half the job.

So we get the "war on poverty," one result of which has been the mushrooming of agencies to suck up funding directed toward programs that might be effective, not to mention legislation to further limit or geld anything doable.

The"war on drugs?" Please. Between the Iran-Contra shenannigans of the 70s and 80s, and the protection of opium poppies in the Middle East, more has been done to make drugs available and actually drive down the street price than might have happened without such a declaration of intent.

The bottom line is always this: who profits from all this bellicosity? We need to wake up and follow the money if we want to accomplish anything.

The war in Afghanistan was

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 23:50 — Lawrence Seib (not verified)

The war in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden. Since the Taliban would not turn him over, perhaps we were justified in going after him and in the process getting rid of the Taliban rule. But how much punishment is enough? It is obvious we can do no good in Afghanistan, it is far past time to leave them alone.

The war in Afghanistan is

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 00:54 — Anonymous (not verified)

The war in Afghanistan is about control, the lie was we needed to "get Bin Laden". It still is. The Taliban offered to turn him over in 2001, if Boosh would show proof and stop bombing. Some alledge there's not much evidence connecting Laden to 9/11 anyway. But facts never really matter, just the ones that you're supposed to believe when a Nation State screams "defense" and starts attacking the hell out of the "guilty country." It's all a grandiose lie, to conquer a strategic mineral rich parcel of land.

i quote: 'to capture Osama

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 01:15 — stan van houcke (not verified)

i quote: 'to capture Osama bin Laden (which, of course, has not happened anyway)'

1. osama bin laden is not on the fbi list of most wanted for the attacks of 9/11 as we all can see. so the invasion of afghanistan lacks legitimacy.

2. if around 43 percent of the u.s. federal budget is spent on something vaguely called 'the national security', you need wars to legitimize this huge spending.

As much as 54% of the

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 08:59 — Anonymous (not verified)

As much as 54% of the federal budget goes to military spending, when you include hidden interest payments on past conflicts. We need to reprioritize. Invest much more in what is beneficial rather than destructive.

Just because the United

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 10:14 — Anonymous (not verified)

Just because the United States illegally invaded and now occupies Iraq and Afghanistan does not constitute war. What the United States is engaged in is good old fashioned plundering. America is a splendid example of a criminal enterprise no different than the Romans, Napoleon or Nazi Germany.

In America, the government keeps the population in line with draconian measures worthy of the old Soviet KGB.

But then what does one expect from a government that permits its so-called "health care industry" to kill 45,000 Americans every year.

BTW, if you're going to

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 10:17 — Anonymous (not verified)

BTW, if you're going to write about Afghanistan keep in mind that an Afghani is Afghan currency - not an Afghan citizen.

This kind of senseless

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 20:11 — Anonymous (not verified)

This kind of senseless violence happened in the Vietnam War as well. Keep soldiers there long enough, in sparse, hot, and disconnected conditions and they begin to wear. They are still human after all, and for those who call such violent actions inhuman you're missing something. Humans have always done these things. It is very human to be violent, even excessively so for no apparent reason. It would be inhuman to act like a robot, devoid of sense and emotion. These guys are not robots. They are taxed to the breaking point. Who the enemy is begins to blur with civilians, even friendlies. Excessive, mutilating violence isn't out of the question when your psyche is maxed out.

Nobody has offered a

Wed, 10/06/2010 - 15:57 — Marianne (not verified)

Nobody has offered a sensible explanation of the real motive behind these small wars.

They are imperialist wars, but not wars for empire in the same sense as the brutal but successful action in the Phlippines at the turn of the last century.

Vietnam was fought to perpetuate the lies that FDR told to get us into Wiorld War II. The goal: the permanent militarization of the US. Its purpose was to control us, not to "win."

Iraq/Afghanistan show the final decadence of that concept. We do not today control the oil wealth of Iraq or the hypothetical mineral wealth of Afghanistan. Nor are we fighting international Islam. Those countries were, and will remain, Muslim no matter what we do. The more brutally we attack their civilian populations, the more "terorists" there will be for us to fight.

The sole purpose of those conflicts, besides enriching the malefactors of the military complex, is to justify dictatorial repression and totalitarian control of the political situation at the heart of the crumbling Empire.

The appropriate phrase for the attitude of our plutocratic masters is "depraved indifference."

That is the sentiment that our soldiers have detected and are acting out with their massacres.