Week 2 Readings “Endless, Continuing, Forever Wars”
The authors of this week’s readings bring into question america’s tradition of continual war. For many of us this is not an introduction to this understanding, but rather a more critical approach to comprehending not only the significance of our involvement, but also the problem’s and motivations associated with it. One of the greatest problem’s posited by these authors is not our military involvement, but our citizenry’s passive acceptance that surrounds these military endeavors.
Andrew Bacevich in his work “Barack Obama’s Crash Course in Foreign Policy” provides a fairly biased account of our involvement in the wars in the Middle East. I found Bacevich’s language surrounding Obama’s perceived failures to demonstrate his right wing bias most, and as a result found it difficult to consider his work worthy of true academic consideration. For example, in discussing Obama’s accomplishments he likens removing the Cuban Embargo to sweeping up elephant defecations in a circus… He does, however, provide some fairly useful contextualization into Obama’s legacy and involvement in the wars in the Middle East.
The NY Times’ Editorial Board’s opinion piece “America’s Forever Wars” provides a solid foundation of this continual military presence. The editorial board asserts that post 9/11 the United States has remained at war. Interestingly enough my understanding prior to this article was that the United States has almost always been at war. According to a Freakonometrics’ article the United States has been at war 222 out of its 239 years of existence. They are right in that our military efforts have been literally continual since 9/11, but I think a greater historical scope would further benefit their point. The article discusses several reasons for our continued involvement including low risk of drafting, low casualty rates, and the threat of terror. William Astore’s article “War Is the New Normal: 7 Deadly Reasons Why America’s Wars Persist” further expands upon this line of inquiry. Astore’s article provides a more in depth examination into what he sees as the economic, political and ideological reasons we participate in endless military conflict. The military industrial complex is noted as a primary cause, as well as the embracing of the importance of national security by both political parties. Astore also discusses the “Support Our Troops” ideology and argues it is a “substitute for thought”. I attempted to find where the term had originated, but was unable to. Noam Chomsky does, however, have some interesting things to say about its effectiveness as a meaningless slogan for wartime propaganda. Ultimately, both the NY Times Editorial Board and Astores’s article highlight the problematic nature of these endless war efforts and how normalized they have become in our American culture.
Heidi Hamilton’s article is likely the most rhetorically focused of this week’s readings. Her work focuses on how the pro-war effort has manipulated perceptions of patriotism through ideographic associations. The ideograph according to McGee (1980a) is a “one term sum of an orientation” thus becoming the “building blocks of ideology”(15). She asserts that Ideographs reflect larger ideologies and resultantly indicate how actions like supporting the war effort should be seen. Through connecting the symbolic with the material, the ideograph of patriotism not only defines the acceptable actions in response to the war effort, but also creates a sense of culture that surrounds it. Astore’s “Support Our Troops” would be a good example of one patriotic ideograph. Hamilton’s article discusses the ideographic response to notions like “Support Our Troops” by contextualizing the anti-war effort and its characterizations since the 1970s. She begins by discussing the characterization of the anti-war effort as young and radicalized. She argues, in response to these accusations, that the majority of americans actually opposed the war and this was a strategic move to limit public association with the anti-war effort. I find the anti-war movement’s response to these problematic characterizations enlightening for one hoping to understand rhetorical strategy. The anti-war protesters embraced patriotic ideographs of their own, choosing “love of principle” over “love of country”. Through this rhetorical shift, the anti-war movement aligned itself with our country’s founding values in place of its current legislators. While not entirely effective in preventing war, such a patriotic association was needed to ensure the anti-war effort was not seen as anti-soldier. I find it quite interesting that embracing patriotism was seen as the only way around these negative views, but also that they failed. Does this mean that the ideographic associations for the pro-war movement are just significantly more powerful? Or rather that the economic and political justifications are simply too great? It it likely that we will have to find incidences where nations, through rhetorical strategies of ideographic composition, succeeded in preventing war to answer these questions.
Collin, I want to focus on your third analysis of this week’s readings (Heidi Hamilton’s article), and particularly the question you pose towards the end of your post: Does this mean that the ideographic associations for the pro-war movement are just significantly more powerful? Hamilton talks a lot about the role of patriotism in recent antiwar debates and how for American society, the debate about war also directly involves a debate about the meaning of patriotism itself. Protestors of war are often coined unpatriotic and I think it’s important to consider that the motive of protesting is often stemmed from a commitment to an alternative method of solving national issues, for example a commitment to the reclaiming of America and its democratic potential. It seems to me that we as a society are quick to make the distinction between antiwar and pro-war efforts in terms of the associated with them. This tension, which refers to the “love of country versus love of principle distinction” that Hamilton discusses, seems more like a comparison of apples and oranges to me. I think this tension is the root of the strategies of elements of anti-Iraq War protesters in gaining public consideration of their right to protest, which becomes equally about their proving of being patriotic while doing so. I think we need to treat these as two separate entities which is clearly difficult given the rituals associated with patriotism and how it has been defined through history. I think as an ideograph is constantly changing, and will continue to do so, but that its associations for now certainly favor the pro-war movement.
I think your comparison of the “love of country” vs “love of principle” is an interesting one. I think the anti-war protestors would agree in some ways perhaps saying “we need all fruits” in place of “just apples”… If you follow me on that one…
One theme that I’m glad you touched upon is our engagement in war as a continuous and historical “tradition” that many have subscribed to or at least accepted . Our country’s association with war makes it so many express their support for country by supporting its war efforts — which might appear inseparable. This contributes to the perception of those who outwardly oppose war (or a particular war) as being “unpatriotic” (especially in the context of “love of country”, as you mention). Hamilton’s article made me think hard about patriotism, and I appreciate how Hamilton equips readers with responses to those who claim that any war protest is inherently unpatriotic.
One point that I found particularly interesting within the readings came from “America’s Forever Wars”, the editorial from The New York Times. It reads, “During earlier wars, including Vietnam, the draft put most families at risk of having a loved one go to war, but now America has all-volunteer armed forces. Less than 1 percent of the population now serves in the military, compared with more than 12 percent in World War II. Most people simply do not have a family member in harm’s way.” It’s possible that with less people directly affected by war in a life or death sense, fewer people are forced to critically examine the causes for which we fight. It could be easier to “get on board” with our military actions or at least not challenge them when the threat of losing a loved one is not present. At the same time, this could be buying into the notion of patriotism as solely being love of country rather than love of principles.
I agree with your point about the draft regarding “America’s Forever Wars”. I think many might assume that the draft is an inherently un-democratic way of enlistment, but in reality it is likely the more equitable of the available options. In essentially randomly selecting individuals of a target demographic all are given a fair chance to avoid the war. Whereas in our current system, those that overwhelmingly join the armed forces are members of minority groups and are less financially well off. I also agree that the draft creates a sense of fear in that “my son or daughter” could be drafted and that is why someone might oppose the war. I could see the draft as a way to disincentivize future war efforts, and maybe a national conversation should be had on the topic.
Hey Collin thanks for your summaries, they’re well-written and thoughtful. Just as an initial reaction, I was intrigued by the Freakonometrics article that you attached in your discussion of the NYTimes editorial piece. I, like you, get the sense that our government’s obsession with war-making has persisted through most of our history as a nation, and is not as much of a recent trend as it may seem (although the article is right in saying that we have maintained and most likely increased our foreign military presence in the years since 9/11).
Moreover, I thought this article brought up a really good point about how decreased casualty rates have added to our collective acceptance of this perpetual military involvement. The article does well to contrast today’s international crises with those of the 1970s counterculture era, making the point that “America is not involved in anything comparable to the Vietnam war”, and that this may contribute to the fact that we have not seen the sort of modern protests that could be compared to the anti-war movement of the Nixon era. But despite the lack of such a clearly defined foreign involvement, our defense budget continues to rise at a historic rate. This brings up the question of why we as a nation are accepting of the fact that our government is spending more money than ever to engage in conflicts that the average citizen can’t even identify or explain. This is where the NYTimes article makes another good point about how the US has been able to avoid high death tolls by resorting to alternative defense tactics:
“the United States has shifted to a strategy in which Americans provide air power and intelligence, and train and assist local troops who then do most of the fighting and most of the dying.”
The figures behind these claims are equally as discomforting, as this article brings up a very interesting question about how our war effort may appear in 2018 as opposed to 1975.
Great points Alex. I completely agree that the combination of hidden agendas and a lack of U.S. lives lost have hidden from us what exactly we are engaging in abroad. The reality is that most americans will not be exposed to the readings we are engaging with in our class time and that these problems will only become more exacerbated as time progresses. As rhetorical scholars we should look for ways to spread these understandings and only then can we hope to contribute to a more just and equitable world community.
Hi Collin, I found your discussion of Hamilton’s article raised several important questions for me. One thing I found interesting about your analysis was that you discuss the ideograph, and how they foster “a sense of culture that surrounds it.” I thought this connected well to our discussion about what rhetoric is/does in our last class, and immediately the theory of constitutive rhetoric came to mind. Clearly, both pro-war and anti-war protesters engaged in constitutive rhetorical processes when they talked about “love of principal” versus “love of country,” creating rhetorical associations that construct their world. You also note that this article explains how “such a patriotic association was needed to ensure the anti-war effort was not seen as anti-soldier.” I find that the key issue at play in Hamilton’s article is the issue of identification, which is an important element to consider in constitutive rhetorical theory. It seems that the government and pro-war camp and the anti-war camp were engaged in a battle to rhetorically create identification among American citizens, each trying to construct reality in a way that would position “patriotism”—an American identity and ideology—in support of or in opposition to the Vietnam War. So, to be very picky about language, I would suggest that what you describe as a “strategic move to limit public association with the anti-war effort” would be better described as a move to prevent Americans from not just associating with it, but identifying with it. If too many Americans identified with this effort, then the movement would gain political salience around a “patriotic” identity.
Colin, I like your insight about the continual military conflict the United States has been a part of for as long as we can remember. I too find interesting that Astore makes the point that “Support Our Troops” is used as an overpraise of American “warriors” and “universal heroes” that does not allow the United States to admit to their faults.
I also found particularly interesting, based on our last discussion in class, that Astore mention’s the fear aspect war brings into society. His acknowledgement that “fear sells” and has the consequence of a “debate-stifler” raised an interesting thought about why America is still in a continuous war. The fear that surrounds war could be contributed to the reason we vote for and elect officials into office that support the war effort. This idea connects the New York Times Editorial Board’s opinion piece well, further developing the argument of continual military involvement.
I think “Support Our Troops” as an ideograph is also a good example of an ideograph in terms of the orientation and development of the term. The term encompasses the country’s values and connects the two readings well. The idea that “..ideographs are not made meaningful “within the clash of [their own] multiple usages” but because of their relationships with other ideographs (p. 14)” also is encompassed by the “Support Our Troops” ideograph that is used to promote war efforts.
Hey Collin,
I want to comment on your draft of the “America’s Forever Wars”.
I agree with the point that the “Support the Troops” slogan is nothing but a tool for war propaganda and in a way a “patriotic” justification of the meaningless and continuous state of war the United states has been in since 9/11. The gross misuse of the “support the troops” slogan to extract money from citizens by blinding them with patriotism since the 9/11 attacks exploits the leftover emotions of a tragic day to “protect” the country.
The military industrial complex you mentioned has become a major part of the economy and has reached a point where USA would not know what to do without war. It seems like USA needs to be in a constant state of war to justify the exorbitant defense expenditures. In Gusterson’s Empire of the Bases, he informs us that other than the bases in Iraq and Afghanistan the US spends 102 billion dollars annually, exponentially more than any other developed nations, to maintain the extravagant war on terror since the 9/11 attacks. The “support the troops” slogan blinds the public to the economic and socio-cultural problems this continuous state of war presents nationally and internationally.
Vishwesh, yes I agree the spending gets way out of hand. One point of clarification about the term “meaningless” in regards to the “Support Our Troops” slogan, Chomsky meant that the actual slogan, not the wars, was meaningless and in being so empty it makes it difficult to argue against. A bit of rhetorical brilliance no? Create a slogan that means enough that people understand what you want, but doesn’t say enough to be really argued against…