Blog Post- Candace Hino
The focus on the readings for this week was the continuation of war in America, and America’s unwillingness to end the war on terror. As we have discussed in class, these Wars on Terror/Poverty/Drugs are almost impossible to end, because there is no clear path to victory, nor is there a tangible enemy that we are working to defeat. The readings for this week examined Americans inability to let go of unnecessary, costly, and wasteful wars, and the tension between opposition to war and patriotism.
The reading by Bacevich was critical of Obama and the failed promises he made to end the War in Iraq and to win the War in Afghanistan. One thing that struck me in this reading was the comment that political leaders can receive all the counseling and help in making decisions about war, but when it comes down to it, the only way the commander in chief is “educated” on war is when mistakes are made and lives are lost. I felt so disheartened after reading that sentence. War is wasteful and it made me feel frustrated to realize that so many lives are being lost in these unending conflicts.
The article by Astore highlighted the seven main reasons that America wont stop engaging in war. The reasons are: the privatization of war, the embrace of the national security state by both major political parties, “Support our Troops” as substitute for thought, fighting a redacted war, threat inflation, defining the world as a global battlefield, and the new “normal” in America is war. After this reading, the slogan “Support our Troops,” was redefined to me. Growing up and seeing the sticker all over cars, I never questioned those three words and their meaning and implications. This phrase has become a staple in our rhetoric about war and has created a way for leaders to deflect blame and responsibility, and instead save the national conscience by overpraising soldiers and creating the belief that if you do not support war then you are unpatriotic and do not support the troops.
I think that movies, books and videogames do a good job of keeping us in the redacted state that Astore discusses because they glorify war and soldiers, and villainize foreigners. Movies highlight the moments of extraordinary courage, but don’t necessarily highlight the everyday hell that soldiers endure, or the deadly mistakes that are made. It is easy for us to not focus on war in a negative sense much because we are only presented with heroes and inspiration in movies.
The notion of “patriotism” as an ideograph, and also as a representation of mainstream ideology was really interesting to me, and in the Hamilton reading I found myself reflecting on the fact that I have never really questioned war. I think inherently I have never done so because I don’t want to be perceived as ungrateful, or to think that American troops are dying in vain. Whenever I think about the war I always feel grateful that it is not being fought on American soil, but this article challenged me to question war in a deeper sense. This article challenged me to think about how I define patriotism, and how it is challenged in the war on terror.
The New York Times editorial highlighted many Americans’ indifference to war. I found this shocking at first, but the more I thought about it, I realized that it is easy to feel indifferent. It’s easy because the war is not being fought on American soil, and most of us do not know anyone fighting in the war. War is pushed to the backs of our minds, and the “War on Terror” is hard to end because the ‘enemy’ is impossible to completely defeat.
The readings for this week provided a new perspective for me to think about war. Traditionally, I have thought of people that oppose war as anti-American, and anti-patriotic, but through the evidence and arguments put forth in these readings, I have been challenged to question if this true.
Like you, these readings made me contemplate and re-evaluate my understanding of patriotism, war, terror, and the political figures we trust with our lives and country’s future. We are taught from such a young age that loving America, all that we stand for, and our power over others is a huge part of our identity; we are taught that being “American” is a privilege many do not get and therefore we should value it greatly. I agree with your point then, that “Support our Troops” is oversaturated and does mask some of the harsh realities war ensues and that our political figures try to cover up.
Similarly, I found some of the numbers given in the New York Times Editorial to be especially shocking, yet representative of a larger indifference (like you mentioned) and selfish attitude Americans have about war. The number of US casualties compared to the number of Afghan security forces (who we help train) casualties is outrageous. And yet, if we turned on the news, the mourning of those 11 American soldiers who died in the same area would be beyond substantial. This is not to say that we should not properly recognize and mourn American soldiers who die in battle; rather, we need to realize that our scope of knowledge is very narrow and our news media is heavily responsible for that. Not only should we support our troops, but we should grieve their deaths and consider foreign deaths not our problem.
I agree with you that Americans do have a really selfish attitude about war. Your point connects well to the discussion we had in class about the beliefs many Americans hold that since we can do something, we should. Just because we have the money, resources and training to set up bases and wage wars in other parts of the world, doesn’t necessarily mean we should. But Americans indifference begins, I think, because war is not being fought on American soil. The graphic I linked in my blog shows that the most lives lost have been Iraqi civilians (probably another contributing factor to indifference to war). I also think if that statistic was for American civilians, instead of Iraqi civilians, I think war perceptions might be very different.
Out of all of this weeks readings, I think Astore’s “War is the New Normal: 7 Deadly Reasons Why America’s War Persist” resonated with me the most. Despite our class conversations and the readings assigned for this week, I had not really even considered questioning the, “Support our Troops” phrase. As Candace said, most of us have grown up with this statement being thrown around left in right. Frankly, I cannot remember a time that I did not see the bumper stickers or those letters you receive in the mail asking for donations. The Huffington Post article linked to this post discussed how frequently the bumper stickers are associate with personal loss or fear. For me, I have always just viewed the slogan as such, only scraping the surface of what it really represents.
Astore discusses how it is clear that America’s tactic of an all-volunteer based military employing the same strategies has been unsuccessful. This is indicated by the fact that we are still fighting the same war. This makes total sense to me, in that deploying these troops to use the same violent strategy perhaps is not the solution to this ongoing war. Astore continues by stating, “Instead of admitting to their mistakes, America’s leaders have worked to obscure them by endlessly overpraising our “warriors” as so many universal heroes.” This is where I find myself disagreeing with his point regarding supporting our troops. I do not think that the blame can be placed directing on the soldiers who are fighting. Regardless of a political belief, it is always true that these men and women are risking their lives for what they believe is supporting their country. Ultimately, how can you not support these people? I think the fault falls more on the government for employing the same strategies. Perhaps the troops themselves are just pawns in this overall game.
Your disagreement with Astore’s point is really interesting, and I am glad that we were able to discuss this a bit in class. We often blame the troops for their participation in war, but like we said in class, troops just do as they are told. Who we should really be placing blame on is policy makers, and those that are keeping our troops at war. I also found myself struggling to agree with Astore’s point of directly blaming the troops. Its a complex issue, and one that I still feel confused about, because there are people, like you said, who are fighting because they believe they are supporting the country. The phrase “freedom isn’t free” came to mind when I read your comment. As Americans, we value and appreciate the freedoms we have. But those freedoms come at a cost, and continue to come at a cost.
When reading this week’s readings, I too felt like they each provided a new perspective for me to think about war. Hamilton’s notion of “Patriotism” being an ideograph made so much sense to me, as we discussed in class how the study of rhetoric is using shared experiences, symbols and ideologies to identify a common denominator with who one is communicating with. The word patriotism evokes such a strong emotional response for Americans, as the United States has such a rich history of going to war and being “successful” or “winning”. That’s how we became our own nation, that’s how we defeated the Nazi’s, there is such a rich history in being proud of going to war. But, I think that Hamilton discusses O’Leary and Platt’s important distinction between the notion of “love of country” versus “love of principle”. “Love of country” is a mindless loyalty to our physical ground, believing in what the country does purely because one lives there and should do that. “Love of principle” is described as “dedication to the national policies or actions” (Hamilton 17). I think that once people can make this distinction in their mind, they can also start to separate ideologies like anti-war means anti-patriotic means anti-troops. I think one could even come at it from the viewpoint of people that are anti-war are attempting to be more conservative in placing our troops and using our troops, attempting to keep our citizens safe. Especially after reading The New York Time’s article, with all of the statistics that were listed. It just continued the shock that I had from class after looking at the map that was projected. We have so many of our troops stationed in so many different places, using so much of our own resources. It really opened my eyes and gave me a new perspective on patriotism and war.
Like you said, I think that the distinction between “love of principle” and “love of country” is really hard to make. But I think that Hamilton does a nice job articulating the difference. Unfortunately, it is hard to get everyone to agree on how to define patriotism, and some people, no matter what, may never be able to distinguish between “love of principle” and “love of country”. Like you also said, the concept of patriotism does evoke such a strong emotional response for Americans. Every single person defines it differently, and their own personal experiences contribute to their definition.
I really enjoyed the Hamilton reading about the ideograph of patriotism. I think I kind of always grew up questioning the war and the larger political structure around us, but this paper helped me put my own understandings into context. Personally, I most align with the “Dissent as Patriotic” camp. None of the readings really surprised me a ton. It interests me that throughout all of these readings, the idea of the troops as deserving of blanket praise is never questioned. We read earlier in “Empire of Bases” about American soldiers who “killed two teenage girls in Korea as they walked to a birthday party.” Or another instance where a marine pilot killed 20 people by “slic[ing] through the cable of a ski gondola.” Although these are instances which by far do not represent the norm, even by voluntarily agreeing to participate in a war which has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians leads me to question the morality of anyone who volunteers for the military. In “America’s Forever Wars,” the New York Times reports that the United States has shifted to providing more air power, while training locals to actually participate in the combat. They report that 25 service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan during 2017 (up until the article was written in October) and these people are lauded and given all sorts of commemorations. But what about the 6,785 Afghan forces who died in 2016? This article explains how under Obama, civilian casualties from drone strikes was reported to be “extraordinarily low.” But these numbers were achieved by counting any “military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.”
You raise a really good point in that the 25 Americans that died are going to be honored and commemorated, but the 6,785 Afghan forces are forgotten. I think that it is sometimes hard to find these statistics, unless you intentionally go looking for them. I also think the news media contributes to the ignorance and indifference that Americans often feel about the deaths of non-American soldiers. Mainstream media usually does not highlight deaths that were not American. And the tone and language that deaths of non-Americans receive is usually more straightforward and presented as a statistic. In discussing American deaths, emotion and pain is conveyed.
Similarly to Candace’s post and both of Erin and Taylor’s responses I also feel as though these readings have been eye opening and have provided me with new perspectives, specifically on the office of the presidency and what it means to have grown up during the ongoing War on Terror.
Candace mentioned that she was struck by Bacevich’s comment about how presidents’ can ultimately only be “educated” on war through experience and mistakes, which struck me as well when reading the article. From a young age the idea of “the president” has been idealized and glorified. While obviously presidents are human and can make mistakes too, the mythic essence around the office as a whole contradicts many of the statements made by Bacevich throughout this article. He refers to Obama as having been “a rookie” and “unschooled in arts of statecraft” when coming into office. This sort of presidential nativity was a theme throughout this article and was reaffirmed at the end when he stated that Obama’s “on-the job training” for the last two terms only now qualifies him for the position that he can no longer hold and describes the next presidency as a “another test of whether a novice can master its demands”. This perspective on the presidency stood out to me, it made me think about how much power the United States president has especially when it comes to war yet how difficult it is to prepare anyone for that sort of role.
Astore’s last reason for why war persists in America highlights the fact that “no teenagers can truly remember a time when the country was at peace” as he references the War on Terror that began, now 17 years ago after 9/11. This is a hard fact to grasp and was shocking to read even though it’s something I already knew but have never really thought about. The sheer length of time that we have been involved in this war on terror is astonishing but even more so I think understanding it as “background noise” as Astore describes it is a frightening concept and sad that it has become so commonplace and accepted in our society.
It was really shocking to be reminded that we can’t remember a time when there was not war. I think that is scary, and I think Astore’s point that war has become “background noise” is also really upsetting to think about. War should not be the normal. These readings challenged me to think about how war can even be ended? I think that the lack of distinguishable “good guys” and “bad guys” further complicates the complexity and confusion around this war. It will be interesting to see how this war is ended. Terrorism will probably always exist, so how can the war be ended? I wonder if some defining moment will happen that makes it easy to end the war or if all the lives lost and money spent will just have to be accepted, and the war will end? I wonder too how the president and military leaders will be perceived when this War on Terror ends? Will they be seen as quitters and weak, or will they be admired for ending this costly war?
Similar to you Candace, the reading that had the most impact on me was Bacevich’s critical of Obama. Reading the article it became clear that the only way politicians learn from and advance through wars are to pay the price. The price being the lives of soldiers, other militant personnel trained by American soldiers, and even civilians. Bacevich explains that Presidents, whom are obviously amateurs at the role of Commander in Chief, make mistakes and end up “paying in blood”. He refers to the military strategy inherited from previous administrations as a “trial and error experiment”. The piece made me think twice about the actual inexperience and qualifications that any president has to lead a nation’s army. I think I see the President as more of a government figure head and forget that who we deem as our ‘number one’ politician we also deem the head of our military.
The reading also emphasizes the new normality of war and combat oversees as a backdrop of our daily lives. War has become something Americans accept, “like persistent budget deficits or periodic mass shootings.” Although we live with a looming fear and violent reality over our heads, we are encouraged to carry on and not let it deter our lives and decisions. Astore also mirrors this in his article, outlining the new military focused policies and realities that we accept as givens. Astore and the New York Times “America’s Forever Wars” also hit on the fact that the war has become embedded into society with no end and no push for an end in sight. Some teenagers born in 2000 or later have lived in a world with no era of peace. The fact that these children are accustomed to a war raging in some foreign country on behalf of the United States is outrageous. Like Astore said, war should be abnormal, and we have to question why we are living in an era where it is not.
It was really hard to read that mistakes are paid in blood. I hate to think that lives are being lost, and that if something had been done differently, lives would have been saved. It’s definitely important to also acknowledge that the lives lost are not just American soldiers, but Iraqi and Afghan forces, journalists, medical personnel, and, most staggeringly, civilians. Realizing these things make me feel grateful that war is not being fought on American soil, but it is also important to note that fear reinforces gratitude. Like you said, war has become a backdrop of our daily lives, and war has become our normal. The War on Terror has challenged our understanding of war, but what is alarming is that our generation doesn’t know any different. It will be interesting to see how our generation deals with future conflicts. All we have ever known is war, so will we be more or less willing to go to war in the future?
I definitely agree that these articles have made me question my perspective on war, particularly because, like Candance, I had hardly questioned my standpoint on something as seemingly obvious as supporting our troops. Like Hamilton points out, it is our nature to immediately equate supporting the troops with worrying about the lives of soldiers, but when provided with all the information there is obviously much more to consider, and to some extent I think America simply has not informed itself (as I hadn’t). It seems fear and lack of education has led America to confuse patriotism with support, having blind faith that our elected leaders have made the right choice. It is interesting to see in Hamilton’s article how patriotism has transformed within its different contexts in our nation’s history, going from demonstrating unity to being strongly association with military dominance. Military dominance appears to be the nature of American warfare, and we tend to stand behind our most aggressive leaders when fear is at its peak. But reading Bacevich’s article made me skeptical of this too, because I never realized how much of the Commander in Chief’s role was simply making educated guesses through trial and error. I agree with Candance that it makes me question how many lives have been lost because America was too eager to dominate, especially in conflicts that we did not have to choose to be a part of. It is disheartening that our leaders are so ready to spend money and waste lives on a war that will never be won, especially after reading about how many other more pressing issues there are to worry about, and still America is ready to call any form of opposition “anti-patriot.”
I agree that it is really interesting to note the way that ‘patriotism’ has changed over time. It was also interesting to read that war used to symbolize the will of the public, but that is not the case anymore. War has become a pawn in political power, and like Alyssa said, I feel powerless that we have to place blind faith in our leaders. I agree that the trial and error in a military sense was pretty alarming to read. You would think that after all the years of America engaging in war, somehow it might become easier to make less mistakes. But this war is different than any other war the United States has engaged in, so I suppose it makes sense that we still make mistakes. It is truly tragic that the cost of inexperience and uncertainty is innocent lives.
In the Bacevich article, I learned more about Obama’s administration with the war against terrorism that I was unaware of before. According to the reading, Obama withdrew the last soldiers in Iraq claiming and assuring Americans that “the tide of war is receding”, however, Obama had spoken to soon because by the summer 2014, the radical jihadist group, ISIS had emerged. Despite having confidence in the end of the war against terrorism, the war had only continued and developed into neighboring countries as well. Bacevich addresses that Obama was dawdling to challenge assumptions made by past administrations that asserted the obligation created by the United States to help shape events that occur in these countries. With his lack of militarized experience, he was unable to stop the war, and unfortunately only expand it. Yet, overseeing the negatives in the event of war, during Obama’s time in office he managed to lower U.S. causalities and moderate the financial costs of war. I also agree with Candace about war being wasteful, Bacevich manages to undermine all of Obama’s intelligence and all the positive aspects of his presidency by pointing out everything he has done wrong in the Middle East and the war against terrorism. While war is significant during this time in age, as Candace has said, there is no clear path to victory.
In the Astore’s article, he criticizes the never-ending war that the United States created for itself. He justifies “the never-ending was is the new normal in America” with seven reasons. Through these seven reasons, Astore is able to argue why the new normal is redefining itself with the event of war. As Candace mentioned, one of the reasons “Support our Troops”, is a constant rhetoric that American’s see all over the country. No one ever argues or mentions which sector, or where the troops are when donating money. This type of rhetoric supports the norm of war in America because of the underlying notion that patriotism is a big part of our country and we want to do whatever we can in order to continue in being a democracy.
Totally agree that the “Support our troops” notion is vague. How are we supporting them? Where is the money we donate going? This rhetoric has, in a sense, brainwashed us, because we just do it without questioning it. Through donations or stickers, we feel that we are supporting the troops, and the notion of patriotism is reinforced through this action.