As a follow-on to my post from a couple days ago on "The Punishment Doctrine," it’s also occurred to me that America is a country that loves declaring war on things. (Although it’s also to be noted that ever since WW2, such declarations on the part of the Executive branch have consistently sought to avoid the usual Congressional budgetary and oversight restrictions, as well as the legal ramifications of ‘war’.)
Actual wars are called something else. In the case of Korea, it was "a police action." For Viet Nam, it was "an intervention" — and our troops there were often euphemistically referred to as "advisors." For the latest Iraq war, it’s an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)."
The things America does "declare war" upon are now concepts, practices, and ideas that cannot truly ever be defeated. Or where there really is no lasting and cohesive will and concurrent opinion that it’s a goal worth pursuing as relentlessly as one does a ‘war.’
We’ve had a war on poverty — that’s been given up in all but name. If you blame people for being poor and don’t actually help them become un-poor (like helping with education, employment, housing, and healthcare), people won’t stop being poor.
War on drugs? That’s been the ultimate "all stick, no carrot" approach, and when there are substances out there that people can take and feel good, they’re going to use them. No matter how well-off, how happy and wealthy a society, there will always be some who gravitate towards artificial means for mood alteration. This behavior isn’t even limited to humans. There are stories here in India about elephants seeking out fermenting fruit, and then going on berserk drunken rampages. Moreover, if you declare war on some drugs but not all, the inherent hypocrisy of the situation causes the entire thing to collapse. No marijuana or cocaine — but tobacco and caffeine are fine, even though both of the latter two have distinct physical addiction qualities. And our old friend alcohol… its history is likely as old as or even older than agriculture in human society. One famous Constitutional attempt to prohibit alcohol in America was given up a decade later as a really bad idea. As well as essentially unenforceable.
The Bush/GOP people weren’t satisfied with a mere ‘war on terror’ — they decided to up it to a "Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)". Given that terrorism is a tactic probably even older than agriculture, and literally anybody can pick it up, and as a tactic it has consistently WORKED for occupied peoples and/or those in an inferior strategic position as regards a more powerful foe — it literally cannot ever be stomped out. Someone, somewhere will get angry, get the idea that they should strap on a bomb and go blow up a marketplace as a ‘message’…and terrorism goes on.
The point I’m trying to make though is that there really does seem to be something inherently flawed and deeply disturbing about this American tendency to declare ‘war’ on ideas, concepts, and practices deemed undesirable or wrong. At least with the so-called ‘war on poverty’, there could conceivably be a measurable, verifiable target: The raising of personal and family income levels above some defined ‘poverty level’ number. (I won’t get into how that number is determined, or the games the gov’t is now playing with faking real inflation numbers.)
A war on drugs? How do you win that? There will always be some who seek out mind-altering substances, even if it’s my habitual large mug of coffee in the morning. Does anybody think Starbucks is gonna go out of business anytime soon? Or Jack Daniels? Or Coors or Budweiser? Or all those vineyards worldwide? Moreover, as long as it remains possible to grow some plant or combine some chemicals and get a result that, when ingested in some form, makes the human brain experience any kind of altered state — human psychology is that some (sometimes lots of) humans will seek it out.
As for winning a ‘war on terrorism’, there’s only a couple ways that can come to a conclusion. Either we’re all dead, every one of us (which could happen, sadly enough), or else we humans so evolve, so evolve and transcend that the concepts of conflict, strife and war itself becomes unthinkable.
You don’t ever win a war against one tactic of war by shooting people and dropping bombs on them. All it does is encourage even more people to turn that way.
The War On…
As a follow-on to my post from a couple days ago on "The Punishment Doctrine," it’s also occurred to me that America is a country that loves declaring war on things. (Although it’s also to be noted that ever since WW2, such declarations on the part of the Executive branch have consistently sought to avoid the usual Congressional budgetary and oversight restrictions, as well as the legal ramifications of ‘war’.)
Actual wars are called something else. In the case of Korea, it was "a police action." For Viet Nam, it was "an intervention" — and our troops there were often euphemistically referred to as "advisors." For the latest Iraq war, it’s an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)."
The things America does "declare war" upon are now concepts, practices, and ideas that cannot truly ever be defeated. Or where there really is no lasting and cohesive will and concurrent opinion that it’s a goal worth pursuing as relentlessly as one does a ‘war.’
We’ve had a war on poverty — that’s been given up in all but name. If you blame people for being poor and don’t actually help them become un-poor (like helping with education, employment, housing, and healthcare), people won’t stop being poor.
War on drugs? That’s been the ultimate "all stick, no carrot" approach, and when there are substances out there that people can take and feel good, they’re going to use them. No matter how well-off, how happy and wealthy a society, there will always be some who gravitate towards artificial means for mood alteration. This behavior isn’t even limited to humans. There are stories here in India about elephants seeking out fermenting fruit, and then going on berserk drunken rampages. Moreover, if you declare war on some drugs but not all, the inherent hypocrisy of the situation causes the entire thing to collapse. No marijuana or cocaine — but tobacco and caffeine are fine, even though both of the latter two have distinct physical addiction qualities. And our old friend alcohol… its history is likely as old as or even older than agriculture in human society. One famous Constitutional attempt to prohibit alcohol in America was given up a decade later as a really bad idea. As well as essentially unenforceable.
The Bush/GOP people weren’t satisfied with a mere ‘war on terror’ — they decided to up it to a "Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)". Given that terrorism is a tactic probably even older than agriculture, and literally anybody can pick it up, and as a tactic it has consistently WORKED for occupied peoples and/or those in an inferior strategic position as regards a more powerful foe — it literally cannot ever be stomped out. Someone, somewhere will get angry, get the idea that they should strap on a bomb and go blow up a marketplace as a ‘message’…and terrorism goes on.
The point I’m trying to make though is that there really does seem to be something inherently flawed and deeply disturbing about this American tendency to declare ‘war’ on ideas, concepts, and practices deemed undesirable or wrong. At least with the so-called ‘war on poverty’, there could conceivably be a measurable, verifiable target: The raising of personal and family income levels above some defined ‘poverty level’ number. (I won’t get into how that number is determined, or the games the gov’t is now playing with faking real inflation numbers.)
A war on drugs? How do you win that? There will always be some who seek out mind-altering substances, even if it’s my habitual large mug of coffee in the morning. Does anybody think Starbucks is gonna go out of business anytime soon? Or Jack Daniels? Or Coors or Budweiser? Or all those vineyards worldwide? Moreover, as long as it remains possible to grow some plant or combine some chemicals and get a result that, when ingested in some form, makes the human brain experience any kind of altered state — human psychology is that some (sometimes lots of) humans will seek it out.
As for winning a ‘war on terrorism’, there’s only a couple ways that can come to a conclusion. Either we’re all dead, every one of us (which could happen, sadly enough), or else we humans so evolve, so evolve and transcend that the concepts of conflict, strife and war itself becomes unthinkable.
You don’t ever win a war against one tactic of war by shooting people and dropping bombs on them. All it does is encourage even more people to turn that way.