Hey folks, been a while since I rapped at ya đ
I am currently living in Romania again. Â The weather has recently turned cold and rainy but itâs been a great summer and Iâve had a lot of fun traveling, meeting new people and generally UNPLUGGING from both the internet as well as the news in general.
But every once in a while I peep in on the blogs to see whatâs going on, and that most definitely includes ye olde Frog Pond.
So why am I writing this diary, other than to say âhowdyâ?
Well because thereâs something that bothers me quite a lot. Â I remember a couple of years ago a book called âWhatâs the Matter with Kansas?â was getting a lot of chatter. Â I never read it but I got the gist of it â how things are FRAMED is extremely important.
As someone who has shuttled in and out of the USA a bit, Iâve seen the myopia that pervades my native land and it gets so insidious sometimes it makes my teeth hurt. Â Hereâs a perfect example:
The Iraq War otherwise known as the war we or the United States is fighting in Iraq. Â Also known to right-wing circles as the âWar against Terrorism being fought in Iraqâ.
Folks, we all know there is NO war being fought in Iraq. Â If thereâs a war being fought in Iraq then the USA fought a âwarâ in Somalia in January and is fighting a âwarâ in the Philippines as I speak and fought a âwarâ in Haiti during the Clinton era and fought a âwarâ in Panama under Poppa Bush, etc.
Yeah, I know it seems like hair-splitting, the difference between an âofficialâ war and a âpolice actionâ or whatever legalistic term you wish to use. Â But it isnât hair-splitting at all. Â Thatâs because an official war entails a lot of things that a police action does not.
Even more simply put, a war is an armed engagement against a fixed opponent with the PURPOSE being the military defeat of said opponent. Â Therefore the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 actually was a genuine war and in this case, the said opponent (Saddamâs government) was defeated. Â This is what gets all the play on the Military Channel. Â But this was where the war ended.
A âpolice actionâ in Iraq or Haiti is no different than a police action in Los Angeles. Â It is a government using force to REDUCE crime and MAINTAIN law and order. Â The purpose of this is to STABILIZE society. Â In the case of the Clinton-era Haiti âpolice actionâ, it worked. Â In the case of Iraq (and poor old Afghanistan), itâs been a complete disaster.
But the righties continue to use the word âwarâ because to them, it actually IS a war. Â It is the war on âterrorismâ or âAl-Qaedaâ or just plain old âterrorâ. Â They honestly think (or some quite dishonestly frame it) in terms that a couple of countries (mostly the USA) and itâs military are engaged in armed conflict to defeat a specific opponent.
To call it a âwarâ is therefore completely disingenuous. Â Terrorism and terrorists are literally no different than armed gangs in Los Angeles. Â Terrorism is fueled by the ideology of repression, funded by illegal activity and perpetrates violence for one reason and one reason only: to preserve its existence.
It is incredibly myopic to frame Al-Qaedaâs (or the Badr Brigades or PEJAK or Mahdi Army or Hizbullah, et al) motivation for violence as one based on IDEOLOGY. Â Thatâs like saying the barons and kings of Europe fought in the Crusades for the IDEOLOGY of reclaiming the Holy Land for Christianity. Â Yes of course there is an ideology present, but thereâs also an ideology present for members of the Latin Kings or La Costa Nostra.
A drive-by shooting in Los Angeles never happens because the perpetrators are outraged that someone in the next block over is an âunbelieverâ. Â If the Crips released press statements, it would sound completely ludicrous to say such and such person was gunned down due to his blasphemous idolatry of a false gangâs signs. Â But every day weâre supposed to accept this âframeâ that terrorists âhate our freedomsâ? Â Ludicrous.
A gang commits violence to deter attacks on itself, to defend its territory, to defend its illegal money-making activities and most importantly to DESTABILIZE the local government. Â Gangs are always comprised of disenfranchised people. Â If the government (or society at large) provided a better alternative, people would never join a gang. Â Destabilizing the society is simply a recruitment INCENTIVE.
In the last 50 or 60 years, LOTS of countries have faced terrorism and theyâve tried every method under the sun. Â In the few cases that have worked, from Senegal, parts of the Philippines to the much better known case of Northern Ireland, itâs always been a âpolice actionâ that ended up getting the job done and NEVER a war. Â Countries like Colombia, Sri Lanka and Myanmar clearly show the utter futility of fighting a war against terrorists.
I suppose right wingers would actually love it if Bush called out the Army to fight gangs in Los Angeles or other large urban cities. Â But imagine just for a minute if martial law was declared, the Army moved in and an actual war was waged. Â Itâs like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun, only when itâs real and not a cute metaphor it causes untold suffering and is completely ineffective in the long run.
Police die every day in the line of duty. Â Brave Americans and other foreigners are dying every day in Iraq too. Â But calling it a war and not a âpolice actionâ doesnât take away anything from their bravery or (hopefully) valiant actions.
Calling it a war though when itâs not? Â Well that leads to a whole HOST of terrible and erroneous frames. Â It leads to a focus on killing rather than stabilizing a government. Â It leads to ideologies like âdefeatâ or âvictoryâ as if one day a weary Chief Terrorist is going to wave a white flag and sign a document of surrender. Â It leads to homicidally foolish decisions to militarily occupy entire cities at gunpoint and consider brief reductions in the death count as âsuccessesâ. Â It leads to crap like âbring it onâ and arming different factions to fight opposing factions, etc., etc.
Once the actual âwarâ was over, the âpolice actionâ shouldâve begun. Â Soldiers shouldâve been trained to âserve and protectâ. Â It happened in WW2 in both Germany and Japan once those actual âwarsâ were over and it couldâve happened again.
Instead of course we got a wholesale looting of the country at the tremendous benefit of very few. Â And of course we also got the wholesale looting of the American treasury to finance the looting of Iraq and a whole lot of people have died, become maimed, homeless or injured to make it happen.
A police officer serves and protects and arrests and tries âwrongdoersâ in a court of law in an open and transparent process. Â A soldier does his best to kill the enemy until the leader of the enemy gives up.
As far as Iâm concerned, calling this a âwarâ provides semantic and semiotic cover for nothing more than a modern day version of a Viking flotilla pillaging medieval Paris.
Pax