War Is Hell
War Is Hell
As everyone knows, war is hell. But not for everyone; only for those shooting at each other and the women and children caught in the crossfire. War is not hell for the political leaders who decide we should go to war, for they are philosophers. They explain that war is a hell that some (not themselves) must go through in order for the rest of us to enjoy security and freedom in the end, and they provide us with the philosophical reasons for engagement. Because war is such a low and dirty road, the justification must be appealing and persuasively high-minded. So it is couched in terms of national security and the future of democracy. Our country and our freedom depend on willing fighters. Once the fight begins, the dead and maimed soldiers are made heroes, and the massive destruction is masked by the glow of the glorious accomplishment of our high goals. While we are winning the war, the wisdom of fighting appears manifest. Those of us who did not “go,” if we are patriotic, are convinced. And we would speak for the unanimous consent of the dead soldiers. As a hushed prelude, the hell of death becomes a reward of battle. If a soldier goes through this hell and lives, he is expected to keep his story to himself and not frighten the majority of the population for whom war was not hell.
Still, war remains a poignant hell for the innocent civilians, mostly women and children, who face death in combat zones, as in Iraq, without choice and with no protection. For them the hell of war comes from all directions and without name. Why is it that war is begun by those who are assured of being alive when it is over, while those who contend with the fear and immorality of killing and give their lives as “collateral damage” have no choice in the matter?
When war is finished and we have won, we will busy ourselves with congratulatory stories about how right were our reasons and how heroic our efforts--and the hell is forgotten.
Let’s drop the charade. Let’s look at war objectively. The current one in Iraq will do nicely as a model. The first step is to ignore the philosophizing screen that our political leaders, who proposed the war, offer. The polls show that as Americans are waking up to the “sell” they were given, it becomes clear that the Iraq attack was an unnecessary and self-impaling move. It did not help our war on terrorism; it has burdened our weakened economy; it has torn at the fabric of democracy; it has sullied our morality; and we clearly did not ingratiate ourselves with the Iraqi people. Why go through hell for all that? We can skewer ourselves just as effectively without war.
As everyone knows, war is hell. But not for everyone; only for those shooting at each other and the women and children caught in the crossfire. War is not hell for the political leaders who decide we should go to war, for they are philosophers. They explain that war is a hell that some (not themselves) must go through in order for the rest of us to enjoy security and freedom in the end, and they provide us with the philosophical reasons for engagement. Because war is such a low and dirty road, the justification must be appealing and persuasively high-minded. So it is couched in terms of national security and the future of democracy. Our country and our freedom depend on willing fighters. Once the fight begins, the dead and maimed soldiers are made heroes, and the massive destruction is masked by the glow of the glorious accomplishment of our high goals. While we are winning the war, the wisdom of fighting appears manifest. Those of us who did not “go,” if we are patriotic, are convinced. And we would speak for the unanimous consent of the dead soldiers. As a hushed prelude, the hell of death becomes a reward of battle. If a soldier goes through this hell and lives, he is expected to keep his story to himself and not frighten the majority of the population for whom war was not hell.
Still, war remains a poignant hell for the innocent civilians, mostly women and children, who face death in combat zones, as in Iraq, without choice and with no protection. For them the hell of war comes from all directions and without name. Why is it that war is begun by those who are assured of being alive when it is over, while those who contend with the fear and immorality of killing and give their lives as “collateral damage” have no choice in the matter?
When war is finished and we have won, we will busy ourselves with congratulatory stories about how right were our reasons and how heroic our efforts--and the hell is forgotten.
Let’s drop the charade. Let’s look at war objectively. The current one in Iraq will do nicely as a model. The first step is to ignore the philosophizing screen that our political leaders, who proposed the war, offer. The polls show that as Americans are waking up to the “sell” they were given, it becomes clear that the Iraq attack was an unnecessary and self-impaling move. It did not help our war on terrorism; it has burdened our weakened economy; it has torn at the fabric of democracy; it has sullied our morality; and we clearly did not ingratiate ourselves with the Iraqi people. Why go through hell for all that? We can skewer ourselves just as effectively without war.
Labels: Iraq war
posted by Doug at
9:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home