Opinion

#Winning

(Image: Katie Miranda)
(Image: Katie Miranda)
16 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

REGARDING AMERICA’S MACABRE, NEVER-ENDING “DANCE WITH THE DEVIL”, SEE:
“America’s Reckless War Against Evil ~ Why It’s Self-Defeating and Has No End” | By Ira Chernus | TomDispatch.com | December 8, 2015

[EXCERPTS] Oh, no! Not another American war against evil!

This time, it’s the Islamic State (IS). After the attacks in Paris, Barack Obama, spokesman-in-chief for the United States of America, called that crew “the face of evil.” Shades of George W. Bush. The “evildoers” are back. And from every mountaintop, it seems, America now rings with calls to ramp up its war machine. . .

. . .Pardon me if I vent my exasperation with all the Washington policymakers, past and present, surrounded by their so-called experts and those war-drum-beating pundits in the media. I know I shouldn’t be shocked anymore. I’ve seen it often enough as a historian studying wars against evil in the past – ever since biblical times, in fact – and as a citizen watching wars in my own lifetime, ever since the one that tore Vietnam (and, incidentally, America) apart.

Still, it drives me crazy to watch policymakers and experts making the same dumb mistakes time after time . . .

. . . Let me try to lay out our repetitive mistakes, all six of them, one by one, starting with…

. . . • Mistake Number One: Treating the enemy as absolute evil, not even human. . .

. . . • Mistake Number Two: Buried in the assumption that the enemy is not in any sense human like us is absolution for whatever hand we may have had in sparking or contributing to evil’s rise and spread. How could we have fertilized the soil of absolute evil or bear any responsibility for its successes? It’s a basic postulate of wars against evil: God’s people must be innocent. . .

. . . • Mistake Number Three: Call it blotting out history. We lose the ability to really understand the enemy because we ignore the actual history of how that enemy came to be, of how a network of relationships grew up in which we played, and continue to play, a central role. . .

. . . • Mistake Number Four: We assume that the enemy, like Lucifer himself, does evil just for the sake of doing it. Even the most liberal parts of the media often can’t see IS fighters as more than “lunatics” bent on “slaughter for its own sake.” . . .

. . . • Mistake Number Five: To convince ourselves that the Islamic State is evil incarnate, we imagine that the enemy is as relentless, intractable, and implacable as the devil himself. As a result, we also imagine that nothing we could do might diminish their will to evil. Since, as we see it, we had nothing to do with creating these monsters, no changes in our policies or actions could possibly influence their behavior. And since they are just crazy – not capable of normal rationality – there is no point in trying to talk with them.

By this route we finally, inevitably, arrive at…

Mistake Number Six: The belief that we have only one option: annihilation. Or if that proves impossible, despite the military forces at our disposal, then at least containing them forever.

In fact, the presidential candidates of this moment all demand annihilation and nothing less. In Donald Trump’s words, “bomb the shit out of ‘em.” In Hillary Clinton’s more demure formulation, “crush ISIS… break the group’s momentum and then its back.” Even Bernie Sanders agrees: “Our priority must be… to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime.”

The dream of a war of annihilation against evil has a long, long history in white America. It began in 1636 when Puritans in New England wiped out the Pequot tribe, promising that such a lesson would prevent further attacks by other tribes. In fact, it created a spiral of violence and counter-violence, and a war-against-evil template that the country still follows nearly four centuries later in its “war on terror.” The current conflict in Iraq and Syria seems only to be locking us into that template and its guaranteed cycle of violence ever more firmly.

Why do we as a nation keep on playing into the same dismal scenario and committing the same mistakes? Why this seemingly irresistible urge to fight yet another war against evil?

I worry that the answer to such questions may lie in what I’ve called an American myth of national insecurity. It tells us that we will always be at war with evildoers bent on destroying us; that this war (whichever the latest one may be) is the mission and the meaning of our nation; and that the only way to feel like a real American is to enlist permanently in permanent war.

In other words, even as we stoke the Islamic State, we stoke ourselves as well. The longer we fight, the more deeply we are seized by fear. The more we fear, the more fiercely we are determined to fight. Perhaps the point is not to win the war but to remain trapped in this vicious circle, which feels perversely comforting because it offers a sense of unified national identity as nothing else can in our otherwise deeply divided nation.

National myths are, however, invented by human beings, and we are always capable of changing our minds. Who knows? Maybe someday the Islamic State will figure out that brutal killing and other acts of horror in the name of the caliphate are not such a good idea after all. And maybe the United States will figure out that depending on an eternal, self-defeating war against evil for our national identity is a huge mistake after all. Maybe.

ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176078/tomgram%3A_ira_chernus%2C_six_mistakes_on_the_road_to_permanent_war/#more

I very much sympathise with Chernus’ argument, all the more for having read an article today’s Independent by John Lichfield about the Le Pens – Marine, the leader, is supported by her niece Marion, who is even worse and has said that ‘Muslims can’t be French’, language of a kind we have not heard since Hitler, at least not from someone on the verge of winning an election and running a large province.
However, would Chernus have us disown the annihilationist sentiment of WW2, directed against nazis and fascists? If they were not in fact totally evil, at least during those moments when they were putting their ideas into practice, was there some good in what they were trying to do?

The French should start looking into their readiness for easy sudden,180 * changes . What promoted such a metamorphosis ? Few refugees ,and gunning down of a few, that’s all it took.
May be this curiosity will help them understand why Syrian,Iraq,Libyan and scores of Somalian became virulent anti western rampaging menace .