A Warring Nation
Sometime ago, following an interview with Dr. Christina Romer, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers on Meet the Press I haphazardly listed the figurative and real wars waged in this country in the last 100 years which is to say, only last 4 generations:
The War on Journalism, the War on Christmas, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, the Kosovo War, the Persian Gulf War, the military invasions of Panama, Grenada and Bay of Pigs, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, WWII, WWI, Philippine-American War .
Without a pause or a blink and with the benevolent smile of a good-natured aunt, Dr. Romer agreed with Warren Buffet’s dooming diagnosis. In a day, what was known as an economic crisis is now referred to as “economic-war”. In her chirpy, upbeat voice punctuated by assertive nods, she called the chain of desperate government measures to halt an utter collapse of the economic order as we know it - “a wonderful battle”.
In the midst of the War on Terror, the unfinished War on Drugs, with physical military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan (presently spilling into Pakistan), the thoughtlessness with which the American press turns “war” into an American meme is off-putting. Adding to my sense of unease is the full list of United States military history which on a close examination showcases that not a single decade has gone by without America being at war abroad and in its early days at home or more accurately, what became its home turf following armed assault and engagement.
The terminology of “war” as applied in an attempt to solve the nation’s social problems, was first introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson who declared War on Poverty in 1964. As president, he was also responsible for escalating the Vietnam conflict into a full fledged war following the events in the Gulf of Tonkin. Since, emblematic wars of all kind appear to be springing about as a matter of fact. Richard Nixon, no doubt wanting to replicate the initial support and momentum of the War on Poverty, applied the term to War on Drugs in 1969. The War on Terror initiated by president G. W. Bush after September 11th 2001 is another one without a foreseeable end. Eight years after the destruction of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks have been taking place across Africa, the middle East, south west Asia, Europe and Russia and it is now generally accepted that terrorism cannot be contained or fought with traditional military tactics; 40 years since the War on Drugs - illicit substances of abuse and the related crime have not disappeared from the United States, instead in its escalation, the problem of drug trafficking north and gun trafficking south has brought the neighboring country of Mexico to its knees and bloated the US prison population beyond sustainability; 45 years since the War on Poverty - still anywhere between 12%-17% of Americans struggle to feed their families in a country of plenty which boasts the world’s highest GDP .
Yet time and time again, whenever progress in any one of America’s ongoing wars is assessed, a trite and predictable question echoes in the media - “Are we winning?” It is interesting to note, that the only generally acknowledged defeat in the continuous string of America’s historical military battles, is Vietnam. Culturally, in line with the national delusion of grandeur and the idea of American Exceptionalism it appears that a lack of success - is not perceived as an outright failure. Perhaps this is the reason why president G. W. Bush could insist for years that American troops were making progress in Iraq. As long as the boots stayed on the ground and the country did not pulverize itself in sectarian struggle - American occupying forces “did not lose” and therefore by simpleton’s logic - were winning.
The United State’s propensity towards war is well documented by great scholars like Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson . Their combined books and essays on the topics of permanent war economy, the military industrial complex and Pax Americana speak loud and clear. The pervasive and gratuitous usage of “war” as a metaphor for struggle underscores what I believe is a deeply entrenched American phenomenon not dated, but recurring and highlighted daily in the headlines. Most recent such examples hot off the press are from Local New Jersey News: Morris County contest wages war on waistlines and the Delta Democrat Times: Relay for Life helps fund war on cancer.
The receptiveness with which the US citizenry rallies towards a cause and rolls up their sleeves in order to tackle challenges head on is admirable. It is reminiscent of the early days of the Republic and the somewhat mutated but very well alive spirit of Go West Young Man. Sadly the effects of expansionist settlement on native population were always neglected in the fervor of nationalist pride and “can do” sentiment. American history was and to this day still is written by the hands of white men, in the past conquerors and colonizers, men who adhered to the idea of Manifest Destiny and in recent history those who subscribe to the doctrine of Interventionism. The colloquial acceptance of “war” in all its possible permutations in the American speech and comfort with which the public accepts and never critically rejects this formal abuse point to the fact that “war” is more than an issue of foreign policy, it is in fact a national state of mind and a widespread common mentality.
I think this is a trite article.
I agree calling ‘war’ on social issues or other vague issues dilutes and needlessly expands the term.
But I have no reason to believe this somehow confined to the USA, instead it is more likely confined to English speaking states - who very much share the same culture - or anyone who wants to express the obvious concept. If you are on a war against cliches, that is itself an endless and unwinnable task.
The article descends into simple criticism.
You must be speaking in willful ignorance if you say that Americans believe the drug situation in the US is not a failure regardless of it not being a success. How can you have lived in California and assumed Americans share a common complacency about the current drug situation?
Likewise, you are speaking in absurdly ironic ignorance when you say the public never critically rejects the concept of war, linguistically or platonically. It is ironic in part because the well-documented ‘great scholars’ you reference, are in fact American. It is likewise ironic in that criticism of war, drugs, health care, etc, has become so mainstream it supports a large section of pop culture’s entertainment. Perhaps this article itself was spawned as a result of being under the influence of purely American self-criticism?
The concept of the fluoride-drugged, thoughtless, germanic-minded American is a very satisfying one to those who want a simple and personal answer to why one nation has influence over other nations. The things you can do with a nation of zombies! How easy to feel superior in this case! I would argue this though more simplistically reactive then perceptive.
In the end, Americans and their government are much less unique from other countries then people like to think. It is not just that we are less uniquely evil, it is also that we are less uniquely perfect.
I speak not to go to the defense of America, but because I am surprised at how many nations put aside criticism of themselves in favor of the easy target, and it is very common that this outward pointing of American national failures leads to blinders when the nation looks at itself. On the other hand I’d suggest America, hardly aware of other countries, expends the majority of criticism on itself.
For example of the bias, it’s not abnormal that lists such as the ‘full list of american military operations’ are not mirrored by lists of other nation’s activities.
To sum, I think this leads towards a simplistic cultural outlook, and trite commentary.
Comment by matthew — 5/18/2009 @ 6:29 am
Hello, by the way!
Comment by matthew — 5/18/2009 @ 6:39 am
Well Matt, you don’t mince words. This comment alone deserves a blog of its own. Thanks for the time and thought you put into this commentary. You don’t see that we agree in some of what you’re saying. I am well aware that not all Americans are warmongers. The weakness of my essay may be that I mentioned scholars like Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson but did not expand to explicitly include the “left leaning latte sipping intellectuals” who are numerous enough to have become archetypes in themselves or the audience of the Daily Show of which I myself am a fan. I thought of describing the formidable anti-war movement which thrived in the 60s and 70s and listing present day opposition efforts but decided to stay narrowly on topic.
The point I am making having watched and listened to Meet the Press and CNN (to balance out the MSNBCs Rachel Maddow and Democracy Now) is that people do not stoop down deep enough to consider the meaning of the word “war” in their daily usage or the bloody history of this country. I am particularly shocked by the ignorance of the reporters, anchors, writers and editors in the media who are supposedly the better informed tier of our society. You can cry foul here too because I am making another gross generalization. Clearly, not ALL media persons are unaware, as well as not ALL Americans are out of touch with the spirit of my text. You’re right, more agree with me than what I may have implied in my text.
I am surprised at you for painting all English speaking countries in such broad brush strokes: sharing the same culture. I wonder how you are getting along with the Kiwis making such statements.
Comment by Rolling Red — 5/18/2009 @ 10:13 am
I disagree that Americans do not consider the wars (bloody history) the US has fought in. A common complaint is that the US is the policeman for the entire world. A common refrain is that you should support the troops because they fight (present tense) for your freedom (with obvious bad logic). Nearly everyone in the US has close family that has fought. Vietnam, Korea, WWII, all bloody, much moral ambiguity. A great deal of Americans join the military, and there are plenty of vets on the street.
I don’t think people are being unaware of the word war, I think they are using the ‘war on’ jingoism in the same fashion as people have always used ‘fight’, ‘battle’, etc. It was a catchy thing to say, and sounded a little bigger. And people far outside of the US all use these terms. I don’t see that language as a significant reflection on Americans.
I do not watch CNN, or MSNBC, unfortunately, so I’m not aware of what the talking heads are saying, though I do watch the Daily Show when I can.
Actually, I’ve found that the British tend to react more strongly when you suggest that we share the same culture then Kiwis. Kiwiland, apart from Canada, is the least different place I’ve ever been. It could almost be another state in the US. It reminds me a lot of Alaska. The differences don’t make for a significantly unique culture. That’s not a bad thing, I don’t mind English speaking Western Civ.
Much of the cultural bickering between countries is along the same lines as bickering between neighboring cities in a single country. You just have to live across a mountain range or on the other side of a valley and suddenly you are the stupid rednecks.
I’ve gotten into some good arguments here but I get along fine with Kiwis. This place is actually much lower key then the UK. Then again, I was in the UK when Bush got re-elected — that was an experience.
Comment by matthew — 5/20/2009 @ 5:14 am
Matt,
Had you read my post carefully, you’d notice that not once did I use a phrase: “Americans are” or “Americans do”. Those words appear frequently in your comments and point to the root cause of your irritation with my essay. You accuse me of flat generalization. It is unavoidable to some degree when one sets out to describe a general mood of this country and its peculiar relation with war. America at its inception was a country grounded on conquest and dispossession. First of the Native Americans and later of Mexicans. The last war fought on the US soil was the Civil War in the 1860ies. Why, as you say, in 2009 “nearly everyone in the US has close family that has fought” - is very well worth examining in my opinion.
The fact that other countries may have no less bloody or colonial history is irrelevant to my point.
I said that “war” is used as a colloquial alternative to “struggle”, you added: ‘fight’, ‘battle’, etc. I see the language choice to be not accidental but indicative of the fact that for over 150 years civilians in the US have not seen the bloodshed, rape and mutilation that real war brings. The Burmese for example, do. I doubt that they’d come up with a ridiculous construct such as “war on waistlines”.
I can’t claim to have traveled everywhere, but I have been around and had the benefit of living and integrating into a few different cultures not restricted to English as their official language. I can assure you that nowhere is the word “war” used so lightheartedly and so thoughtlessly as it is here in the United States.
I won’t delve into the specifics of British, Kiwi, Canadian and American cultural comparisons. It is a huge topic in itself. I am afraid that you are being rather superficial in drawing your analogies.
Comment by Rolling Red — 5/20/2009 @ 12:31 pm
Superficial? I’m making generalizations.
Comment by matthew — 5/21/2009 @ 7:13 am