Voting for War. Take Your Pick
Wednesday 05 May 2010
by: John Pilger, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: vissago; Edited: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t)
Staring at the vast military history section in the airport shop, I had a choice: the derring-do of psychopaths or scholarly tomes with their illicit devotion to the cult of organized killing. There was nothing I recognized from reporting war. Nothing on the spectacle of children's limbs hanging in trees and nothing on the burden of shit in your trousers. War is a good read. War is fun. More war please.
The day before I flew out of Australia, 25 April, I sat in a bar beneath the great sails of the Sydney Opera House. It was Anzac Day, the 95th anniversary of the invasion of Ottoman Turkey by Australian and New Zealand troops at the behest of British imperialism. The landing was an incompetent stunt of blood sacrifice conjured by Winston Churchill; yet, it is celebrated in Australia as an unofficial national day. The ABC evening news always comes live from the sacred shore at Gallipoli, in Turkey, where this year some 8,000 flag-wrapped Antipodeans listened, dewy-eyed, to the Australian Governor-General Quentin Bryce, who is the Queen's viceroy, describe the point of pointless mass killing. It was, she said, all about a "love of nation, of service, of family, the love we give and the love we receive and the love we allow ourselves to receive. [It is a love that] rejoices in the truth, it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. And it never fails."
Of all the attempts at justifying state murder I can recall, this drivel of DIY therapy, clearly aimed at the young, takes the blue riband. Not once did Bryce honor the fallen with the two words that the survivors of 1915 brought home with them: "Never again." Not once did she refer to a truly heroic anti-conscription campaign, led by women, that stemmed the flow of Australian blood in the First World War, the product not of a gormlessness that "believes all things," but of anger in defense of life.
The next item on the TV news was an Australian government minister, John Faulkner, with the troops in Afghanistan. Bathed in the light of a perfect sunrise, he made the Anzac connection to the illegal invasion of Afghanistan in which, on 13 February last year, Australian soldiers killed five children. No mention was made of them. On cue, this was followed by an item that a war memorial in Sydney had been "defaced by men of Middle Eastern appearance." More war please.
In the Opera House bar, a young man wore campaign medals, which were not his. That is the fashion now. Smashing his beer glass on the floor, he stepped over the mess, which was cleaned up another young man whom the TV newsreader would say was of Middle Eastern appearance. Once again, war is a fashionable extremism for those suckered by the Edwardian notion that a man needs to prove himself "under fire" in a country whose people he derides as "gooks" or "rag-heads" or simply "scum." (The current public inquiry in London into the torture and murder of an Iraqi hotel receptionist, Baha Mousa, by British troops has heard that "the attitude held" was that "all Iraqis were scum.")
There is a hitch. In the ninth year of the thoroughly Edwardian invasion of Afghanistan, more than two-thirds of the home populations of the invaders want their troops to get out of where they have no right to be. This is true of Australia, the United States, Britain, Canada and Germany. What this says is that, behind the media facade of politicized ritual - such as the parade of military coffins through the English town of Wootton Bassett - millions of people are trusting their own critical and moral intelligence and ignoring propaganda that has militarized contemporary history, journalism and parliamentary politics - Australia's Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for instance, describes the military as his country's "highest calling."
Here in Britain, the war criminal Tony Blair is anointed by the Guardian's Polly Toynbee as "the perfect emblem for his people's own contradictory whims." No, he was the perfect emblem for a liberal intelligentsia prepared cynically to indulge his crime. That is the unsaid of the British election campaign, along with the fact that 77 percent of the British people want the troops home. In Iraq, duly forgotten, what has been done is a holocaust. More than a million people are dead, and four million have been driven from their homes. Not a single mention has been made of them in the entire campaign. Rather, the news is that Blair is Labor's "secret weapon."
All three party leaders are warmongers. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats leader and darling of former Blair lovers, says that as prime minister he will "participate" in another invasion of a "failed state" provided there is "the right equipment, the right resources." His one condition is the standard genuflection toward a military now scandalized by a colonial cruelty of which the Baha Mousa case is but one of many.
For Clegg, as for Gordon Brown and David Cameron, the horrific weapons used by British forces, such as clusters, depleted uranium and the Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of its victims' lungs, do not exist. The limbs of children in trees do not exist. This year alone, Britain will spend £4 billion on the war in Afghanistan, and that is what Brown and Cameron almost certainly intend to cut from the National Health Service.
Edward S. Herman explained this genteel extremism in his essay "The Banality of Evil." There is a strict division of labor, ranging from the scientists working in the laboratories of the weapons industry, to the intelligence and "national security" personnel who supply the paranoia and "strategies," to the politicians who approve them. As for journalists, our task is to censor by omission and make the crime seem normal for you, the public. For it is your understanding and your awakening that are feared, above all.

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.
The voice of reason never
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 18:22 — Anonymous (not verified)The voice of reason never rules. Brute force is the foundation of social orders. The majority deserves what it gets but the thinking very small minority have to suffer watching the tragedy unfolding. Voltaire said it best "It is forbidden to kill, unless in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
In the distant future, if humans make it through the 21st century, they would wonder what enabled a bunch of savages to rule the human race for such a long time with brute force while they knew the alternatives and could change the course of rivers of blood!!!
Am glad there are people with sobriety to go beyond the socio-economic-political charades and show us what is happening to us.
ALMOST ALL OUR WORLD LEADERS
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 21:36 — Jasper Friendlybear (not verified)ALMOST ALL OUR WORLD LEADERS & POLITICIANS ARE THE PSYCHOPATHIC GRADUATES CUM LAUDA OF THE ATTILLA THE HUN UNIVERSITY
Thank you for this bitter
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 22:08 — NoOneYouKnow (not verified)Thank you for this bitter truth. I fear humanity is not sufficiently evolved to save itself, and, sadly, I think that may be the best thing for the rest of the world.
How pathetically naive, or
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 09:04 — David Couvillon (not verified)How pathetically naive, or maybe just utopian, you are. Yes, children's limbs appear in trees during war. Additionally, holes in the ground with hundreds of bodies also exist. These have led to war. I've seen both. War is ugly, brutal - and something to be avoided. Unfortunately, evil must sometimes be met and defeated by force. The simple REASON is that oftentimes evil just will not acquiesce to reasoned discussion or compromise.
Have wars been started and carried out for power and commerce (i.e. wealth). Of course (I hope I’m not naïve). But I’ll also point out that the opponents in such conflicts went to war to protect their interests, for the aggressors certainly did not want to reason, discuss, or conduct diplomatic negotiations. And to suggest that a war, campaign, battle or any skirmish is a “stunt” or a willing “blood sacrifice” premeditated for some perverse pleasure, is pure balderdash. You can certainly call politicians and military leaders incompetent (I’ve seen plenty of that, too!), but to boil all armed conflict down to stupidity and blood lust shows a measure of your lack of historical and human perspective.
I applaud your defense of the defenseless and concern for humankind in ugly situations. I also hope you’ll stand on the line with a blade rather than a pen when the situation calls for it. Sometimes, it’s the only way you or your family will survive.
When I find myself espousing
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 09:07 — Austin Loomis (not verified)When I find myself espousing the same sentiment as NoOneYouKnow, which is all too often, I try to look on the bright side: maybe once the domesticated primates wipe themselves out, their niche will be filled by an intelligent life form.
Well, certainly the
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 09:44 — basta (not verified)Well, certainly the aggressor in Iraq, namely the USA, did not want to reason, discuss, or conduct diplomatic negotiations. But the point of the article was that there is no reasoned discussion or compromise, just pro-war propaganda. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan we are slaughtering people in order to steal their energy resources. The fact is, for Australians, Britons, and Americans, the only time when it is proper to stand on the line with a blade is when you are directly threatened on your soil, not when oil profits are threatened.
One of the recent times I
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 13:45 — DJM (not verified)One of the recent times I saw this very clearly was at my daughter's college graduation in 2006. Each time it was announced that a graduate was entering the service immediately after graduating"to serve and protect" there was a lot more enthusiastic clapping than say for those that were going on to medical school, law school or the Peace Corps for example.... I felt sickened myself.
@ David Couvillon: what you
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 15:29 — Éder Géza (not verified)@ David Couvillon: what you believe in, that wars are most of the time started for more than power or commerce, is actually a lot more naive than the actual article :-(
Yes, the powers that be will
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 17:04 — Anonymous (not verified)Yes, the powers that be will certainly try scare you into believing that you must "stand on the line," i.e., sacrifice yourself and your family in order to save them, just as we are manipulated into giving up our rights in order to save them. The corporations and governments will push, have always pushed, all the buttons that they have. And the biggest button is fear. Whatever it is you fear, be it "the enemy" or fear of appearing less than a man or a patriot, whatever it takes to get you riled up and foaming at the mouth.
The insanity and cruelty of
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 22:17 — tioche (not verified)The insanity and cruelty of fascist amerika and britain are so mindbogling- seems to be no end. But truly the karmic wheel is turning ...the collapse of the amerikan and british empires- long overdue is near !
Is the will to war and
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 17:31 — Peter Anson (not verified)Is the will to war and murder partly a genetic defect in some of the human species? Will it disappear in 10,000 years? Intelligent reasoning will not overcome evolutionary deficiencies?
"The banality of evil"
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 22:46 — Anonymous (not verified)"The banality of evil" expression was actually first coined by Hannah Arendt, philospher and lover of Martin Heidegger. While Edward S. Herman may have explained the banality of evil with regard to contemporary war, I think it is equally important to note that Hannah Arendt actually coined the term in response to the Nazi party and our capacity as humans to commit terrible acts of evil.
Dear DJM: My son graduated
Tue, 05/11/2010 - 18:57 — Frances in California (not verified)Dear DJM: My son graduated college in 2008 - same thing: rousing ovation for those destined to serve in the Armed Forces (and probably die?). Yes, it was sickening; I ached for their families for what they would likely endure. So, when my son stepped up, his roommates' families and I made an unholy ruckus for him! He's now served two years in Americorps, helping the homeless . . . I'm sure you're as proud of your daughter! F in C.