Making War Difficult & Ideologies

The chapter “Making War Difficult” In Robert Ivie’s Dissent From War analyzes how war creates a casualty of conscience and makes war nearly automatic. Through propaganda and creating enemies, war becomes easier and easier to create, as well as make seem rational and habitual. America’s war habits then becomes extremely ingrained and as much as there is dissent on war in the country, it is crucial to begin to break these barriers, understand why war is so easy and automatic, and then revert our thinking to: why is war so easy and automatic, and can we make it more difficult?

Ivie explains multiple problems within our war tactics that make it so automatic, such as: using dehumanizing propaganda; militarism as “the mindset of [the] American empire”, which then allows Americans to support a state of constant warfare; creating a high-tech war image; and the idea that society cannot claim one administration or war to be responsible for the ease of war but rather that it is “deeply ingrained in political culture”. There are many reasons as to why war is made so easy and dissent is often overlooked, but I hope to focus on the solutions that Ivie proposes to the ease of war, and how these relate to “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses”.

Louis Althusser’s “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses” examines two thesis on ideologies: the first being that “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence”, and the second being that “ideology has material existence”, meaning that it always exists in an apparatus. Althusser uses both of these theses to explain the two ways an ideology can be used and is present in our lives. He explains that an individual acts a certain way, which is the apparatus on which depend the ideas of the ideology he has freely and consciously chosen. If an individual behaves differently than the ideology he claims to be a part of, then he is acting on different ideas. Althusser also brings up the idea of a subject, saying that ideology brings into being “individuals as subjects”. The existence of an ideology is only made possible through the subjects, and although subjects may often times feel they are outside of an ideology, they are truly in it. This relates to how American’s may not realize they are being taught through propaganda but in reality it affects their ideas on war.

Ivie spends time focusing on the idea of a “Terrorist Monster”, something that has been created in response to fear, which is a matter of social construction. He defines the terrorist monster as Islam, the Muslim, or broadly, the Arab. We see attacks on the terrorist monster everyday, in both the media and on the warfront. One of the most recent is the Trump presidency’s ban on all immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/

Even with dangerous propaganda and rhetoric throughout the media against Muslims, we have seen an increase in the public’s awareness of propaganda and their speaking out against it. Worldwide, there have been protests against any type of ban, which opens up the minds of the public to making war more difficult. This relates to “Ideologies and ideological state apparatuses”, as the subjects are consciously changing their ideologies and creating material existence to prove it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/global-demonstrations-over-trump-s-policies-heat-amid-anger-over-n716831

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/01/a-weekend-of-protest-against-trumps-immigration-ban/514953/

Ideology is also a big part of the agreement or dissent on war and the labels and ideas that propaganda put into the collective group thought of many Americans. Although we may not believe we are in an ideology as an individual, and therefore a subject, we are in reality a part of the ideology, whether it be towards who we believe terrorists to be, counterterrorism ideals, or fighting against stereotypes that create things such as the war on terror. Propaganda helps permeate these ideologies, both negative and positive, to put us into the mindset that either fight for or against wars. There has been much talk on America’s extreme counterterrorism ideologies and how it affects decisions surrounding war and politics.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/21/americas-virulent-extremist-counterterrorism-ideology-perpetual-war-islamic-state/

http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/07/ideology-and-terrorism/

(Sophia Bruce, Feb. 6)

33 Responses to "Making War Difficult & Ideologies"

Isaiah Duplessis says:

February 5, 2017 at 1:24 pm

In response to Making War Difficult, I read an article called Religion and War in the 21st century, by Jim Dator.

http://www.futures.hawaii.edu/publications/religion/TenriReligionWar2007.pdf

In it he describes modern warfare as a fundamentalist versus fundamentalist conflict of conflicting ideology. He says war is created by fundamentalist from one country against fundamentalist from another country and waged by lesser individuals.

However he describes a scenario in which war no longer becomes an issue. He describes a media world, where pop culture is the highest of any individuals concerns. He says this state operates where the internet is the strongest unification of people not a religious or nationalistic ideology.

It lead me to draw a parallel to this article, in which the media is fragmented and heavily influenced to make rhetoric that is in concurrence to war.

The globalization of the world has thus far prevented World Wars, but the have-countries continue ue to bully the have-not countries into submission to their ideology and their profit. The article describes a global consciousness towards democracy, but how can this happen when globalization is a national thing instead of a individual thing. Yes globalization affects us on a daily basis in small ways but this ethos is not present in our everyday decision making.

It’s curious to me what happened to penpals. How come in a world where socialization is seemingly very easy, I have no Facebook penpals. I suppose a preliminary step to ending war, is depowering governments and empowering human empathy through greater social connection. This can be encouraged by the organisers of social content, to push forward a greater human public. We need to get digital content and access to every person in the world, and we need humans to use the internet as a medium for conversations that are tough to have. For example, a powerful Amazon commercial features two religious leaders who became friends and sent gifts to each other. This powerful occurrence was brought about through social media. Propaganda would seem heavily inaccurate to them for the fact they have first hand knowledge of their counterpart. In this way we can encourage a global community of individual to individual connections to fight off war propaganda, on college classroom at a time.

In response to the essay on ideology.
Humans are sheep, and we need leadership to allow us to focus on the day to day while using silence to conform to societal norms. Yes while protests sometimes stand up to a wrongdoing, it occurs because of leadership. Is ideology synonymous with leadership, yes it has to be. How would we use this to oppose war? We should encourage and embrace dissent, and while this may appear to give a fragmented sense of the nation, it is better to let the sheep choose their leader, then give the sheep only one, because when their is only one voice in the realm of conflict all lambs go to slaughter.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:30 pm
  
  I appreciate that you sought out more information on these topics by reading separate articles. I think thinking about a world without war due to media is really interesting, and your comment on penpals is thought provoking. Is there a difference between private messaging penpals and larger political groups, such as Pantsuit Nation?
  1. Isaiah Duplessis says:
    
    February 18, 2017 at 4:50 pm
    
    To your question we need to see something cross ideological lines to form a unification. I feel pantsuit nation would boil over into large scale strong feminism as a sole ideology would be promoted within the group.
Helen Spiller says:

February 5, 2017 at 2:30 pm

The piece is entitled, “Making War difficult”, really did make war difficult for me. As I read through the piece I had to stop a couple times and think about my own thoughts on our current war abroad and the ease at which it seems to come. Honestly, the piece made me somewhat disappointed in myself. Robert Ivie makes you see the propaganda that our American government uses in order to support a foreign war effort. He referenced how politicians scare people into war with a current terrorist threat or how Americans love to use the moral superiority trick made you support the war. Towards the end, on one hand, I really liked how Ivie took an entirely different stance on war and national superior thought. I liked how he argued that war is weakness and that a sign of a good country is peace. But, on the other hand, I didn’t agree when he argued that the United States went to war in the middle east for more than just to stop terrorism. I don’t think it is a fair statement to say that America went to war to take down a place that, “had turned its back on political reason.” I think America truly did want to shut down terrorism, not change the lives of all living in the middle east. Overall, I thought this article was both challenging and interesting. It caused me to think more about the ease and automaticity of war at the hands of our governments messages.
In relation to Althusser’s piece on ideology, it is so easy to see how Americans go blind to the propaganda that our government displays. As Americans we would never think our country would use propaganda or try to trick our citizens, but that all plays into the ideologies from our country. Ivie is trying to break these ideological messages that are spread by our government. Thanks to Ivie and Althusser I am now more aware of, not only these messages being sent to me, but also how blind I have been to them.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:34 pm
  
  I agree with your emotions around the idea that a bad country is at war and a good country is at peace. How then can we differentiate between the country itself and the mindset the propaganda has put the people’s mindsets into? How do you think we become less blind to propaganda?
Sean Foley says:

February 5, 2017 at 3:41 pm

I agree with Ivie’s view that war has been normalized in American society. Examples of the normalization propaganda that romanticizes war is seen in Hollywood. Movies like Saving Private Ryan tell the proud American story of heroic soldiers dying for their country. Hollywood is great at proving Ivie’s points that “America is fair and noble, our leaders do everything they can to avoid war, the war is about human rights, and our soldiers are heros and theirs are inhuman” (Ivie, 205). When in fact we it truly seems that in the wars following WWII we have lacked nobility, humanity, and the wisdom needed to decipher if war is appropriate. Barring Jimmy Carter all of our presidents have been involved in a war post WWII and modern war has become even less romantic because of airstrikes and drone attacks that became the backbone of the Obama war machine. America has become a militaristic state which is why it must be frightening to be a Muslim or seen as an enemy of the United States.
The examination of ideology by Louis Althusser related closely with Ivie’s piece on Making War Difficult. Ivie’s whole idea of the influence of war propaganda has become an ideology in all Americans minds without them even meaning for it to be. I agree with Sophia that we have been influenced and in some ways contorted to agree with our government’s ideals through propaganda. However, I still believe that we are not forced into accepting the ideology. As Althusser points outs for an ideology to be successful it must have subjects. We can still choose to be the subjects that support the ideology or not. The most important of Althusser’s 4 points of ensuring ideology is their subjection to the subject. Once someone has given into the ideology and accepted its meaning than that ideology can be put into practice.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:36 pm
  
  I agree with your idea on how war has changed since after WWII. The idea of nobility and humanity in war is difficult to place because no matter what there will be some pain in war. I also agree that we can still choose whether or not we are supporting an ideology or not.
Caroline Zerkle says:

February 5, 2017 at 7:15 pm

It is important to acknowledge how common and normalized war has become in American society. For me, I cannot remember a time where America was not engaged in the conflict of war. After reading the “Making War Difficult” article, the extent of rhetoric and propaganda promoting war is hard to ignore. The article highlights phrases that show strategies such as pinning the blame on other parties and attaching modern day enemies to people like Hitler. I know that I am guilty of falling victim to phrases and propaganda like this. It is hard to have your own opinion or have a transparent thought on war with so much biased influence. Also, it is obvious that Bush and Obama are both guilty of using propaganda like this to draw support for their actions, whether it be a continuation of war on land or drone strikes.

Also what Sophia brings up about American opinion and prejudice towards Muslims is important. In today’s political climate, it is more important now than ever to let personal opinion and thought stand above ideologies coming from others. No matter what Trump or other leaders may be attempting to impress upon the people, it is necessary to stay true to what you believe. Stereotypes are only stereotypes if you continue to let them influence you. You can only let a negative ideology guide you if you let it.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:37 pm
  
  I agree with your idea that war has become extremely normalize in America. How do you think we can stop and rethink when we find ourselves falling victim to propaganda? How can these small actions possibly change the way propaganda affects us as a whole?
Madeline Tolsdorf says:

February 5, 2017 at 7:59 pm

This piece definitely raises emotions within the reader. As mentioned by my peers, the United States’ use of propaganda to influence human emotion becomes more prominent and less understandable throughout the chapter. War in American society is as common now as it can be: it is everywhere. We have normalized war to the point where the nation is never at rest. War is as much of our every day politics as some of the current news going on. We’ve allowed ourselves to let war be okay and acceptable in all forms of life rather than question it and give it a meaning.

Our presidents are guilty of pushing Americans to normalize and forget about war throughout the past twenty years. As both Caroline and Sophia mention, on top of this America has birthed a new negative ideology towards ‘outsiders’ – specifically the prejudice we have made against those of Muslim faith.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:38 pm
  
  I agree with your point that we have normalized war so much that the country is never at rest. How do you think we can change allowing war to be okay and how can we change the meaning we have given it?
  1. Madeline Tolsdorf says:
    
    February 16, 2017 at 12:30 pm
    
    Regardless of how we change war, there will always be people who desire to protest it. However, I do believe in the government was more realistic and upfront about the reasons we go to war, more people would be open to accepting it for what it is. If this happens, we can change the meaning we have of war to reflect our developing beliefs.
Michael Horan says:

February 5, 2017 at 8:43 pm

Althusser’s article on ideology makes several useful historical connections to war rhetoric without explicitly calling it out. I found the explanation for ideology’s material meaning very interesting. In religion, the actions we do such as attending mass, and receiving sacraments help to materially define our ideology. Some of these actions become quite routine, almost automatic. Likewise, America has grown accustom to war. We have become subjects who are fed certain ideas by our government so that it becomes overwhelmingly easy to succumb to the “fog of media war”, as Ivie points out. He says, “war is unimaginable without the galvanizing agency of propaganda.” America has also had the tendency to create enemies by labeling scapegoats.
To resist, I agree fully that peace needs to be placed as the highest value in our democratic society. For the same reason as mentioned before, the media portrays muslims as evil. The American people have to embrace the fact that most muslims are good, and to view other Muslims as their own brothers and sisters regardless of skin color and religious belief. While this process can be hard to reverse, it clearly will help to have leaders who wants to bridge the gaps between our cultures and reconcile with the population of the Middle East. Conversely, the safety of our citizens should be an equally important incentive. While 95% of Islamists are nonviolent, we still have to realize that 5% are violent. For now, hopefully planting the “mustard seeds” of peace, or war dissent, will be a positive solution to the prejudice and militarism that the U.S. still holds over their enemies.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:40 pm
  
  I agree with your comparison of habits/rituals or ideologies and America going to war. A common theme between these articles and especially the comments is that America has normalized war and it has become one of our group ideologies. If this is true, how do you think we can change the nation’s ideology to become one of putting peace first?
Corey Beutel says:

February 5, 2017 at 9:22 pm

To answer “why is war so easy and automatic, and can we make it more difficult?” I think we should look at America’s history with wars. There has been no fighting on American soil since the Civil War. Everyone alive today envisions wars as something that occurs overseas. The destruction does not happen in our country, but in the enemy’s. It is true that we have seen attacks on American soil such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11, but those pale in comparison to an all out war. Another part of our history with war is that America has won most of the wars it has been in. People go so far as to debate over who won Vietnam. Many people see America as unstoppable on the war front. This success on overseas front means that American civilians have always been relatively “safe” from the war. The carnage does not occur in our country so we have developed an ideograph of war. The American ideograph of war could be defined as fighting overseas that America will win no matter the cost.
We must change this idea. We cannot win every war. We are losing Americans even if it is occurring overseas. Winning a war is not defined by destruction. We did lose the Vietnam war, seeing as it caused massive dissent among our people and a huge loss in resources for little gain. We will lose the war on terror if we do not change our approach. Continuing to follow this ideograph based on the past will cause America to bleed itself dry.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:44 pm
  
  I agree with your idea that war has become so nationalized in America because the war is no longer on our territory. There have been many examples of organizations attempting to foster empathy for citizens of those countries affected by war, how do you think this type of anti-war propaganda has changed our viewpoint on moving war off of US soil?
  1. Corey Beutel says:
    
    February 20, 2017 at 11:29 am
    
    I think anti-war propaganda that preaches to empathy is somewhat successful. It does show the devastating impacts of us waging war overseas, but that does resound with many people here. No one in America really knows what it is like to live in a war torn area, so the propaganda is not as successful as it could be. I think something more tangible like proving that war costs U.S. citizens would be more beneficial because it is more tangible. While this sounds rather cruel I think it is the truth that people are more likely to take action for things that effect them than things that are far away, no matter what the scale of the problem is.
Emily Wu says:

February 5, 2017 at 10:29 pm

I thought “Making War Difficult” was a refreshing article as it reveals a pattern of desensitization to war and explores how people’s conscience can be reawakened to change the habit of war. The first step toward change is a public awareness of propaganda techniques; although this may seem simple or obvious, it is quite relevant. Having grown up amid two active American wars, I can say that it is hard recognize fallacies in war propaganda when it is so pervasive. The descriptions of the necessary role of a perceived or constructed enemy for war reinforced ideas from the past two class discussions. It seems like using language to create/define enemies is an important tool to justify waging wars in modern times. I wonder if for some wars in the past if enemy making was more common as a consequence of going to war rather than a basis for going to war. The article also provided evidence to challenge simplistic notions and stereotypes; being more informed and critical about issues is necessary to change war habits. I also found it ironic that there was an emerging belief even among jihadist radicals before 9/11 that “a moral society must evolve from the bottom up rather than be imposed from the top down by revolutionary means.” Clearly the US did not recognize such a principle and invaded Iraq to tried to impose its own American values. Most frustrating is that the US invasion seems to have inflamed rather than improve relations.

I thought it was interesting how Althusser writes that our ideas emerge in our actions, and explains what happens when the two are inconsistent. Such dissonance I believe contributes to many problems. Even the making war difficult article mentioned how different ideas in Christianity can leads to actions that support war or peace. I found the article to be quite philosophical and abstract and appreciated the concrete examples in further illuminating the concept of ideology.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:47 pm
  
  I agree with your idea of creating public awareness. In the way you describe creating and defining an enemy, how do you think similar propaganda for the refugees or citizens suffering in those wars works compared to that of the enemy? Why are those less powerful and how can we make them work to minimize the normalization of war in the US?
Steven Zhang says:

February 5, 2017 at 11:30 pm

The article “Making War Difficult” makes some insightful analysis about the habit of war propaganda. To me, the most impressive part of this article is how the author examines the problem of propaganda and describes it completely and accurately. He portrays the militarism as the mindset of the empire which deep roots in the nation. The propaganda, in every wartime, used strategies as distorting the image of the opposing part of the nation as evil enemies and stating that national security is urgently needed, change the image of the war from cruel to just. The key element of the propaganda is the fear lying within people. The propaganda in some ways manipulates people by fear. What’s more, he describes patriotism as it is based on an ideology of Americanism, which sometimes leads to moral superiority. All of his argument about precisely shows how the rhetoric works in war propaganda and how it drives people. This also correspond to the points made in the article about ideology, that it is realized in the society and each individual.

I also agree with his claim that people are more aware and more willing to express the dissent idea in these situations. I think that’s what a democracy country needs. The liberty, in this case the right to speak for the country, would gradually being realized while people come to understand the social context and hold the idea independent from the influence from others. From the different interpretation of the ideology, we are encouraged to speak, and along with the attitude to reconcile and compromise.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:51 pm
  
  I agree with the ways you describe propaganda, especially how it is deeply rooted in the nation. I also agree with your point that the main role of propaganda is instilling fear in the people of that nation. How do you think we can begin to separate the words of the propaganda and the fear itself? Where is this fear truly rooted?
Colin O'Donnell says:

February 5, 2017 at 11:58 pm

I think the Ivie article is very interesting because it talks about how many Americans are almost ok with war and how normalized it is. I can definitely see this in my everyday life as we have been at war for almost all my lifetime and getting involved with more wars doesn’t even seem like that much of an issue for me. I also think Ivie was spot on with sort of propaganda he described that the U.S uses when we go to war. One thing he mentioned which I found particularly striking, was how when we enter a war it is made to seem like it is completely to help about someone else and how we aren’t in it for our own gains. We paint a picture of the U.S as a sort of world police doing things out of the good of its heart when that really isn’t the case.

I also found the article by Louis Althusser to be very interesting. I think ideology is a very important subject to take a look at as I believe identifying with a certain ideology causes people to adapt certain views. For example some in class mentioned this when talking about Trump how people who liked him because they supported a couple of his policies started to adopt all of his policies just because they supported him. I think people at first find an ideology closest to them but then begin to adopt policies of that ideology that they did not originally agree with just because they started identifying with that ideology.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:53 pm
  
  I agree with your point that war is made to seem like an aid for others rather than a gain for ourselves. Why, then, would the US put so much money and time into wars? If we are such a proud nation, why don’t we fight these wars “for ourselves”?
George Clayson says:

February 6, 2017 at 12:34 am

I was not surprised when reading Robert Ivie. I agreed with many of his points on how war has become normal for the United States. As a country we have found ourselves involved in wars since even before the creation of the country. We have been at war almost all the time by becoming involved with or being brought into the rest of the world’s quarrels. In high school I took a class on the Cold War. We studied a lot of propaganda from before and during the Cold War, mostly made to encourage men to join the fight. While reading, I made the connection of how all of this propaganda that shows soldiers as heroes was also making war seem normal and ingrained in our culture.
Althusser’s piece on ideology confused me. The idea that an ideology has material existence was challenging to understand. It is understandable that people can practice their ideologies, which can be seen as a physical existence. However, this is not the ideology itself. For example, Althusser talks about religious ideology. People practice this by going to church, but to really prove the physical ideology would mean to be with God; to be able to see and touch.
In connection with Ivie’s chapter many citizens of the US support fighting wars and that soldiers are heroes. These pro-war ideas have formed an American ideology about war. Information has been fed to citizens through obvious and subtle propaganda to make them believe that the ideas are their own. This ideology has been put into practice by people who enlist and are then are sent over seas to fight in wars.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:55 pm
  
  The Vietnam War happened during the span of the Cold War. I agree with your ideas that soldiers were meant to be seen as heroes; how do you think this was different from the Vietnam War, where many soldiers were looked down upon and seen as terrible people?
  1. George Clayson says:
    
    February 15, 2017 at 8:34 pm
    
    I think that the fear of a war with the USSR made the United States want to have a ready and large military force ready at all times. Due to this, they created the propaganda showing soldiers in a good light, presenting them as heroes and saviors. This would have been more likely to attract people.
Claire Brown says:

February 6, 2017 at 11:04 am

I agree with Ivie on how Americans are unfortunately taught to view war and understand how we as a country are taught to view it as a commonplace and sometimes background activity. Having not known any other America, the idea of a “background war” always taking place is not something that seems out of the norm or strange to me. However, thinking back to history books and accounts of war-times in America and other countries, a country at war seems to form and alter the culture and society around it. This prompts the thought that I, as someone who has never known a different America, does not even really know what this country is like in it’s out of war condition. I do not know what it is like to live in a time without American soldiers overseas actively engaging in combat. Everything about the society I live in has been shaped by conflict and combat, something that, through propaganda and rhetoric, has become normalized.
It will be interesting to see how the coming years in America unfold and how the wars we are engaged in mold our society even more. If a more global conflict arises, how will Americans react and how will every day society be altered in this time of conflict? Will Americans continue to let war be relatively normalized or will the change of administration and controversially of President Trump help society to recognize the abnormality of America’s constant state of war? It is possible that because of the controversially of the change of administration more and more Americans will awaken to the conflicts America is engaged in and, as a result, reduce the normalization of constant war.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 9:57 pm
  
  I agree with your sentiment that “background war” is something that doesn’t seem out of place, and that everything we live in has been shaped by these wars. I am also curious about your questions, and am interested in seeing how propaganda changes over the next few years and if that, in such a short amount of time, will change the ideologies deeply rooted in our nation.
Nicolas Delvalle says:

February 6, 2017 at 11:18 am

I feel that while propaganda is an easy buzz word to slap on rhetorical language to paint it in a negative light, I feel that it is important to take a step back and recognize that we know very little about the motivations of those “at the top.” I think it is exceedingly easy to believe that they have nothing but self-interest in mind, yet it is imperative that their humanity be kept in mind as well, as that is another form of the same dehumanization that allows these wars in the first place.

On topic of Ivie’s chapter, I find it interesting to examine its implications instead of from the point of view of an anti-war protester, but instead as someone who backs the ties of international conflict, whether for economic reasons, international control, or otherwise. The concept is so foreign to me that I have difficulty putting myself in their shoes other than giving the excuse “I would have to be brain washed,” and yet there are millions of Americans, each with their own life experiences that led them to a path where they support the war effort. The chapter as well as last week’s reading about far-right ideologies illuminated truly how far out of touch I am with alternative points of view, and I believe that trait is something that I share with a significant portion, if not all, of the class.

On a short note about the reading about ideologies, I want to once again investigate our ties as a class to the anti-war movement, rather than applying it to Ivie’s chapter. It is exceedingly difficult to even get something close to resembling a pro-war statement out of this class, and yet when the Vets came in with the Mighty Pen project, we had nothing but respect for them and a great deal of questions (none I might add about political opinions). While there is obviously a separation between support of troops and dissenting opinions about war, it is important to recognize that all troops today make the choice to enter combat and are therefore in a way “pro-war.” If that statement is too extreme, I would like to hear anecdotes on the other side of the argument. While the soldier’s ideologies are perhaps more tied to the government, what are anti-war ideologies tied to?
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 10:00 pm
  
  Could we say that the thing that has led all Americans to this same place on war is the ideology of normalizing war? And how do you differentiate pro-war and pro-nation in terms of the soldiers? A soldier may not agree with the war they are fighting but still fight for their family, friends, and country.
Michael Paul says:

February 6, 2017 at 11:57 am

The two articles assigned have been somewhat eye-opening for me. Although I have always been aware about the connotations associated with war, I have never taken the time to reflect on America’s dependence of war. Following Althusser’s ideas, I have always considered myself outside of the influence of war propaganda, even though it clearly has shaped the way I, and many others live. The power of the “fog of war” has finally come to light to me and has made me aware of even the most subtle war propaganda, such as wearing camouflage, a concept briefly mentioned by Dr. Achter in the first few classes. I find it interesting that war in America is so shrouded by patriotism that those who oppose are considered unpatriotic, even though “the democratic role of citizens is not simply to observe and obey the exigencies of war” (“Making War Difficult” 204). Clearly, I have not been the only one affected by common American attitude towards war. Both articles tie nicely together to reveal the nature of how war changes our ideologies, which I see to be very evident in current America, and even me personally. By educating others on this concept, as we are now, we could change the way our nation views war, making less of a necessity for everyday life and avoiding the so-called military industrial complex. Propaganda can be used positively, since no path to addressing the problem of war is more direct than “countering dehumanizing propaganda with humanizing, peace building discourses” (“Making War Difficult” 208). By changing the way we treat propaganda, I believe we can successfully promote peace worldwide.
1. Sophia Bruce says:
  
  February 12, 2017 at 10:02 pm
  
  I agree with your idea of “fog of war”; this isn’t something that truly dawned on me until these readings. Could we question that anti-war is actually patriotic as the war may be detrimental to the nation itself? I also agree with your ideas about positive propaganda and the promotion of peace worldwide.
Virginia Thornton says:

April 22, 2017 at 4:28 am

I thought these two articles were very interesting to read together. While reading Althusser’s article I started to try and step back and identify the ideologies I am living in and what of my actions were related of them. I found this a very hard practice though, because, as Althusser discusses, people living in an ideology just think of it as the truth. Then I read Ivie’s article about how, as Americans, war has been normalized to the point that we almost find it automatic. Putting together the two articles it is easy to see how militarization and war has become a part of the American ideology. It has been so pounded into our lives that we don’t even notice it anymore. As individuals we operate in certain apparatuses, one of these is the apparatus that holds the American ideology. The material practices of an ideology that Althusser discusses, for Americans, include going to war. These articles together made me realize how important propaganda and rhetoric are to our lives. As Ivie discuses in his article it has been propaganda that has made war so automatic for Americans, meaning it has been propaganda that has made war part of the American ideology. I find it very disturbing knowing how powerful rhetoric can be mostly because now I can see that I have less agency over my own thoughts than I thought. We are exposed to rhetoric pretty much 24/7 and it’s a weird realization to know that and to see just what it can do.

Comments are closed.