Crossposted with TomDispatch.com.
A new isolationism is metastasizing in the American body politic. At its heart lies not an urge to avoid war, but an urge to avoid contemplating the costs and realities of war. It sees war as having analgesic qualities -- as lessening a collective feeling of impotence, a collective sense of fear and terror. Making war in the name of reducing terror serves this state of mind and helps to preserve it. Marked by a calculated estrangement from war’s horrific realities and mercenary purposes, the new isolationism magically turns an historic term on its head, for it keeps us in wars, rather than out of them.
Old-style American isolationism had everything to do with avoiding “entangling alliances” and conflicts abroad. It was tied to America’s historic tradition of rejecting a large standing army -- a tradition in which many Americans took pride. Yes, we signed on to World War I in 1917, but only after we had been “too proud to fight.” Even when we joined, we did so as a non-aligned power with the goal of ending major wars altogether. Before Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Americans again resisted the call to arms, looking upon Hitler’s rise and other unnerving events in Europe and Asia with alarm, but with little eagerness to send American boys into yet another global bloodbath.
In the decades since World War II, however, “isolationism” has been turned inside-out and upside-down. Instead of seeking eternal peace, Washington elites have, by now, plunged the country into a state of eternal war, and they’ve done so, in part, by isolating ordinary Americans from war’s brutal realities. With rare exceptions (notably John F. Kennedy’s call for young Americans to pay any price and bear any burden), our elites have not sought to mobilize a new “greatest generation,” but rather to keep a clueless one -- clueless, that is, as to war’s fatal costs and bitter realities -- unmobilized (if not immobilized).
Such national obliviousness has not gone unnoticed. In a recent New York Times op-ed headlined “The Wars that America Forgot About,” former NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw asked the obvious question: Why, in an otherwise contentious political season, have our wars gone so utterly undebated? His answers -- that we’re in a recession in which people have more pressing concerns, and that we’ve restricted the burdens of war to a tiny minority -- are sensible, but don’t go quite far enough. It’s important to add that few Americans are debating, or even discussing, our wars in part because our ruling elites haven’t wanted them debated -- as if they don’t want us to get the idea that we have any say in war-making at all.
Think of it this way: The old isolationism was a peaceable urge basic to the American people; the new isolationism is little short of a government program to keep the old isolationism, or opposition of any sort to American wars, in check.
Americans Express Skepticism about War… So?
When you’re kept isolated from war’s costs, it’s nearly impossible to mount an effective opposition to them. While our elites, remembering the Vietnam years, may have sought to remove U.S. public opinion from the enemy’s target list, they have also worked hard to remove the public as a constraint on their war-making powers. Recall former Vice President Dick Cheney’s dismissive “So?” when asked about opinion polls showing declining public support for the Iraq War in 2008. So what if the American people are uneasy? The elites can always call on a professional, non-draft military, augmented by hordes of privatized hire-a-gun outfits, themselves so isolated from society at large that they’ve almost become the equivalent of foreign legionnaires. These same elites encourage us to “support our troops,” but otherwise to look away.
Mainstream media coverage of our wars has only added to the cocoon created by the new isolationism. After all, it rarely addresses the full costs of those conflicts to U.S. troops (including their redeployment to war zones, even when already traumatized), let alone to foreign non-combatants in faraway Muslim lands. When such civilians are killed, their deaths tend to take place under the media radar. “If it bleeds, it doesn’t lead,” could be a news motto for much of recent war coverage, especially if the bleeding is done by civilians.
Only the recent release of classified documents and videos by WikiLeaks, for instance, has forced our media to bring the mind-numbing body count we’ve amassed in Iraq out of the closet. If nothing else, WikiLeaks has succeeded in reminding us of the impact of our vastly superior firepower, as in a now infamous video of an Apache helicopter gunship firing on non-combatants in the streets of Baghdad. Such footage is, of course, all-too-personal, all-too-real. Small wonder it was shown in a censored form on CNN.
Where’s the benefit, after all, for corporate-owned media in showcasing others’ terror and pain, especially if it’s inflicted by “America’s hometown heroes”? Our regular export of large-scale violence (including a thriving trade in the potential for violence via our hammerlock on the global arms trade) is not something Americans or the American media have cared to scrutinize.
To cite two more willful blind spots: Can the average American say roughly how many Iraqis were killed or wounded in our “liberation” of their country and the mayhem that followed? In mid-October, U.S. Central Command quietly released a distinctly lowball estimate of 200,000 Iraqi casualties (including 77,000 killed) from January 2004 to August 2008. That estimate (lower by 30,000 than the one compiled by official Iraqi sources) did not include casualties from major combat operations in 2003, nor of course did it have any place for the millions of refugees driven from their homes in the sectarian violence that followed. The recent WikiLeaks document dump on Iraq held at least another 15,000 unacknowledged Iraqi dead, and serious studies of the casualty toll often suggest the real numbers are hundreds of thousands higher.
Or how about the attitudes of those living in parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan subject to the recent upsurge of U.S. drone strikes? Given the way our robotic wars are written about here, could most Americans imagine what it feels like to be on the receiving end of Zeus-like lightning bolts?
Here’s what one farmer in North Waziristan in the Pakistani tribal borderlands had to say: “I blame the government of Pakistan and the USA… they are responsible for destroying my family. We were living a happy life and I didn’t have any links with the Taliban. My family members were innocent… I wonder, why was I victimized?”
Would an American farmer wonder anything different? Would he not seek vengeance if errant missiles obliterated his family? It’s hard, however, for Americans to grasp the nature of the wars being fought in their name, no less to express sympathy for their victims when they are kept in a state of striking isolation from war’s horrors.
Analgesic War
Once upon a time, America’s Global War on Terror was an analgesic. Recall those “shock and awe” images of explosions that marked the opening days of Iraqi combat operations in 2003. Recall as well all the colorful maps, the glamorous weapons systems, and the glowering faces of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein interpreted and explained to us on our TV screens by retired U.S. military officers in mufti. In this curiously sanitized version of war, weapons and other military arcana were to serve to ease our pain at the tragedy we had suffered on 9/11, while obscuring the “towers” of dead we were creating in other lands.
In fostering analgesic war and insisting on information control, our elites have, yet again, drawn a mistaken lesson from the Vietnam War. In Vietnam, even if it took years, free-to-roam and often skeptical reporters finally began to question the official story of the war. Violent images came home to roost in American living rooms at dinnertime. Such coverage may not have stopped the killing, at least not right away, but it did contribute to a gutsy antiwar movement, as well as to a restive “silent majority” that increasingly rejected official rhetoric of falling dominoes and lights at the end of tunnels.
Iraq and Afghanistan, by way of contrast, have been characterized by embedded (mostly cheerleading) reporters and banal images of U.S. troops on patrol or firing weapons at unseen targets. Clear admissions that our firepower-intensive form of warfare leads to the violent deaths of many more of “them” than of “us” -- and that many of them aren’t, by any stretch of the imagination, our enemies -- are seldom forthcoming. (An exception was former Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal’s uncommonly harsh assessment of checkpoint casualties: "We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.")
“We don’t do body counts on other people,” said a cocky Donald Rumsfeld late in 2003 and, even though it wasn’t true (the Pentagon just kept its body counts to itself), an obliging Pentagon press corps generally fell into line and generally stayed there long after our new wars had lost their feel-good sheen. Clearly, military and political elites learned it’s better (for them, at least) to keep vivid images of death and destruction off America’s screens. Ironically, even as Americans seek more lifelike and visceral representations from ever bigger, brighter, high-def TVs, war is presented in carefully sanitized low-def form, largely drained of blood and violence.
The result? Uncomfortable questions about our wars rarely get asked, let alone aired. A boon to those who want to continue those wars unmolested by public opposition, even if a bust when it comes to pursuing a sensible global strategy that’s truly in the national interest. In seeking to isolate the public from any sense of significant sacrifice, active participation in, or even understanding of America’s wars, these same elites have ensured that the conflicts they pursued would be strategically unsound and morally untenable.
Today, Americans are again an isolationist people, but with a twist. Even as we expand our military bases overseas and spend trillions on national security and wars, we’ve isolated ourselves from war’s passions, its savagery, its heartrending sacrifices. Such isolation comforts some and seemingly allows others free rein to act as they wish, but it’s a false comfort, a false freedom, purchased at the price of prolonging our wars, increasing their casualties, abridging our freedoms, and eroding our country’s standing in the world.
To end our wars, we must first endure their Gorgon stare.
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), is a TomDispatch regular. His books and articles focus mainly on the military, technology, and society. Listen to a Timothy MacBain TomDispatch audio interview with Astore on what it felt like to come out of the military and learn how to write honestly about wars by clicking here or download it to your iPod, here.
He welcomes reader comments at wjastore@gmail.com.
Copyright 2010 William J. Astore
Peter Scheer: Unplug WikiLeaks? Enact a Federal Shield Law Instead
Robert Koehler: Pile of Skulls
Rev. Tyler Wigg-Stevenson: The Most Important Treaty You've Never Heard Of
It seems to me that economic factors or perceived financial factors within the U.S. population must have something to do with the isolationism you describe. No doubt the country gets an orchestrated view from mainstream media -- and may well prefer to leave blood and gore to Hollywood -- but the beast can easily survive on the fresh meat tossed continuously from a stretched and struggling economy. Seen from individual eyes ... with jobs scarce, educational costs rising, and medical and/or insurance costs beyond reach, especially when there are small mouths to feed ... the armed services may represent a steady if meager paycheck, a ticket to college (VA), and security in the face of illness (VA). Not to dispute the principles of service men and women, but there is a reasonable, practical connection there, especially for lower income individuals who always seem to find themselves in the heart of conflict on the nation's behalf.
Ostensibly, President Obama is engaged in programs to improve the job market, enhance access to higher education and mitigate the financial hardship of catastrophic illness. At the same time, he has not been shy about committing evermore boots on the ground. At some point, I wonder if the success of one impacts on the other, and what the ramifications will be.
many of us out here know about them, and our voices are drowned out everytime.
we need embedded reporters on the ground and real journalism, not sound bytes and hollywood banter as news.
They think there is a "war" in afghanistan. There isnt - its an occupation. The "war" in Iraq ended in 2004. Since then - an occupation.
Its understandable however. People speak about a "war" on Drugs. Toothpaste manufacturers are ken to promote a "war" on cavities. There is apparently a "war" on Terror.
The word has lost its meaning. And thus the decision to take military action is no longer precipitous, its run of the mill - and there are no boundries and no moral repugnance at the loss of civilian life - we are successfuly inoculated against the thought that non-americans are human too.
If you want to go to war , get congress to declare it.
As much as we Americans don't like kings , when a king went to war he led his army. From the front. Today's kings here seem to think war is....I don't know what , but something other than what it is.
Following the end of WWII in 1945, it has become easier and easier to talk Americans into going to war. The "stay tough" stance of presidents generally brings in more votes than it discourages.
This issue of a professional army is a dangerous matter. It can more easily be manipulated to serve corporate interests and destroy our image abroad. The additional hiring of companies of mercenaries (Blackwater/Xe) is even more dangerous--wild west shooters who have questionable accountability.
FDR brought in George Marshall to build a military as WWII approached. General Marshall, who had immense integrity, told FDR at the beginning of the war, "I'm going to be bringing you casualty counts every week. It's important for you to know how many lives are being lost." He wanted to make sure the president didn't lose touch with how much suffering is involved in war.
I have already been thru the hell of watching a kid go to Iraq. and was spit on by right wingers when I protested these occupations back when Bush was in office WHILE my son was in iraq
now i even have some dems screaming at me to stop protesting the occupations.
they should all go thru what our family went thru. they need a wake up call
We both know that if the draft were re-instituted on Wednesday, with no deferments, the wars would be closed down by Friday.
To me, since 9/11 American jingoism has been at an all time high. And this jingoism is supported by the silence about the war.
When this country decided to privatize parts of the military and descend into the abyss of hiring contractors to fight the war, we moved from a country with a military, to a country with a corporate military looking to maximize profits whether in food service or black ops. And we already know the results when a government caters to corporate thinking
With the numerous documented attacks and foiled plots around the world, and in the US, it is now clear that the Bush goal of wiping out terrorism has not succeeded. A big part of the sales pitch for the invasions was that it would make "the terrorists" think twice about attacking again.
While the US hasn't suffered a major attack since 9/11, there is no doubt that our military actions have steeled the enemy and created a whole new generation of future enemies. It's unfortunate, but it's just a matter of time before those so grossly violated in the "war on terror" successfully strike back. It won't suffice the next time around to say that they hate our freedoms, a specious attribution for the 9/11 attacks, but to call it blowback would be much more accurate.
The response to the 9/11 attacks lacked intelligent strategy and consideration, but was more an
ill- conceived reactionary strike back by an immature cowboy commander-in-chief who manipulated the world's horror at 9/11 to fulfill his childish fantasies of being a "war president".
But, I think the situation is larger, and more complex, than a lack of a draft. I think another thing we lack is a clear-headed understanding of the situation in some foreign countries that have problems that have not a thing to do with the US, and that's a 'battle' we can only win by learning, by better understanding issues and situations abroad. Otherwise, you're just sending hundreds of thousands of draftees to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, and that's sort of the textbook definition of insanity. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We need our scholars in this 'fight', too, explaining for the rest of us what's really going on, here. I say that it has as much to do with money, as it does religion, as it does with politics, and in this particular Gordian knot of B.S., all are roughly intertwined.
American Deaths on the other hand, even when the dead are armed, armoured and have invaded a foreign land - are supremely tragic.
And that is the only part we get right. We just can't accept that ALL the deaths are tragic.
Insofar as what you're saying about the British, well, THEIR empire is a picture in the scrapbook, ours is modern-day, sort of. But, as we learned from the Soviet Union, empires is how you go broke, as a country. NOW we face that Big Intelligence Test, are we smart enough to stop bankrupting ourselves to keep paying for a mega-military, the proceeds from which likely go overseas, anymore? Let's cut the puppet strings, here, and go back to being an independent country, wealthy, healthy, and successful, in its' own right.
Hundred Million every WEEK in AFGHANISTAN. How insane is that?
Thenfathers and uncles come to talk, and I cannot keep up with the rapid Arabic full of stories of suffering.
Western Elite Militarism
Destroy a nation at will
Who cares how many people we kill
Our Iraqi friend translates: Most people have lost their homes in the bombing.
Some have lost family members and neighbors.
All are angry.
After awhile we walk to another room, down the hall from the one bathroom that is shared by 40 families. A young man steps forward.
“We did not know evacuation deadline,” he says. “I left the city by chance on the day bombs began, and then I could not get back in.
“My brother, who is mentally handicapped, was left behind.
“When we went back after the attack, he was missing.
“I looked on the list of people killed, I asked at prisons, but there was no answer.
“ Americans told me to ask Iraqi National Guard, and I did, but they gave me no answer.”
“Please,” he says. “Tell this tragedy all over the world. There are whole families who were buried under the rubble.”
http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html
US Vet 1960-67