War and meaning

"I am prepared for this war to go on for a very long time. I will never become tired of waging it, because it is a fight over essentials. And because it is so interesting."

Reminds of my old drill sergeant - "Do pushups 'till I get tired." How tiring can it be when there are no guns to carry, no body armor to wear, no brain-melting heat to endure?

There is a word for this kind of blinkered bravado - chickenhawk.

Will

Exactly. If Mr. Dourhat is feeling so exhilarated at the idea of a war which will last a very long time he can easily enlist. Otherwise, enough of the “I am prepared for this war to go on for a very long time. I will never become tired of waging it” stuff because he is waging nothing.

Some people have personal dysfunctions and frustrations that predispose them to find relief and exhilaration in war--provided the right enemy can be found. This fact, however, says much about their unfortunate state of mind and precisely nothing about the goodness or justice of the war. The final chapter of Mark Girouard's The Return to Camelot: Chivalry and the English Gentleman is instructive on the subject of the British and WWI--kind of a pocket version of Fussell's The Great War and Modern Memory.

A quote: The language of battle and of chivalry had been used to provide metaphors for every aspect of life; life was a battlefield on which a gentleman had to fight impure thoughts in himself, injustice or ignorance in others, "whatever was mean and unmanly and unrighteous in our little world." The approval attached to the metaphors almost inevitably attached itself to the basic meaning. Of course, the fight had to be for a good cause. but one of the effects of imperialism had been to imbue very large numbers of people with a religious belief in Britain as the great force for good in the world. . . . Here is Henley in 1898: "It is written, or so it seems, that the world is for one of two races, and of them the English is one."

Just substitute Muslims for Germans, and Americans for the English.

Here's another quote I happened upon recently:

Why, of course, the people don't want war. . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

That was Hermann Goering. I hope this will not bring the discussion to a crashing halt, as I did not actually speak the Deplorable Word that invokes Godwin.

What Hitchens' neo-con cohorts who happen to be believers do not recognize is that Hitchens fundamentally hates them too. Islam just happens to be the wolf closest to the sled. In the long war, Islam must first be vanquished, which would then open the door to the onslaught on and final demise of Christianity which occupies the next rung of evil from his point of view.

Now I happen to find Hitchens entertaining in a joshing with a very intelligent drunk who speaks the Queen's English kind of way. But with friends like that, who needs enemies?

I, too, felt a creepily satifying cold blue flame of anger. It was the purest "negative" emotion I have yet felt. A righteous anger, which I think was hard-wired and justified, all things considered.

The difference was, I was 21 years old, and had enlisted eight months prior, and would begin service as soon as I had my college degree in hand. I'd be reporting to Basic Combat training a week before we invaded Iraq. I knew on September 12th that I'd be doing something about it, that those attacks would shape my reality for years to come, that much would be asked of me, that my life would be at risk. Now I'm dealing with that emergency clause of the enlistment contract - they are keeping me a year past my end date, because they can. That's not a good feeling. And as I've stated before, it's increasing frustrating that those who were most eager to go to war have in many cases sacrificed least for their cause. Our numbers are grown thin, and those who called loudest for the war in Iraq, at least, have not reported for duty, and nor have their children.

I think it is truly the mark of an effete sophisticate to praise the glories of a war in which other men will fight and die while he himself sits in safety and to count amongst the prime benefits of this war that it gives zest and excitement to a life that had become boring to him.

Yeah, thanks, Rod. I appreciate that Douthat is not whole-heartedly endorsing Hitchens' views. I also appreciate your statement that this is a dangerous kind of solidarity too, because it makes life too simple.

I still think it's a problem that so many people are so quickly moved to see war as a solution to problems, a cure for what ails them--the old Rupert Brooke theme, To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping,/Glad from a world grown old and cold and weary, etcetera et bloody cetera. It takes them too long to wake up from this trance. Guy Crouchback learned his lesson--but why must it be learned and learned again even within the same generation? It really will not do to give in to the hypnotic glamor just long enough to set the juggernaut in motion, and then wake up and say "oh, my bad--it seems war is not the answer after all." Great insight! Now go back and raise all the dead to life and make the ruined cities whole again. Would it be too much to ask that the swashbuckling desk jockeys of the world snap out of their fantasy while the dogs of war are still on the chain?

I didn't take Hitchens' sentiments to be "praising the glories of war". The first thing I was reminded of were Churchill's remarks about the night of May 10, 1904 when he was appointed Prime Minister: "As I went to sleep at about 3 a.m., I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last I had the authority to give directions over the whole scene. I felt as if I had been walking with destiny and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial. I was sure I should not fail." Churchill's relief, Hitchens' exhilaration - these are manifestations of the same phenomenon. It is the feeling of suddenly becoming a participant in a great struggle. The unsatisfied desire for this kind of participation is (I believe) at the root of much of the malaise felt by young people today. My own personal unforeseen emotional reaction to September 11 was a feeling of shame for not immediately enlisting in the armed forces (as feeling that has stayed with me, and with which I was altogether unfamiliar prior to that date). It's entirely possible that we would never realize how much we long to fight for what we love if we were never given the opportunity to do so.

As soon as I started reading this post, I immediately thought of Walker Percy. And then lo and behold, he makes an entrance. The quote I was thinking of was (paraphrasing), "What people fear is not that the bombs will fall but that they may not fall" -- part and parcel of Percy's theme that human beings thrive on tragedy and horror and threat, as it pulls them out of their existential ennui.

The quote I was thinking of was (paraphrasing), "What people fear is not that the bombs will fall but that they may not fall" -- part and parcel of Percy's theme that human beings thrive on tragedy and horror and threat, as it pulls them out of their existential ennui.

Yes, I think Percy was onto something profound in human psychology, and deeply disturbing to confront. I remember as a kid being really excited when hurricanes were coming at us in Louisiana. It meant a break in the routine, and high drama. John Boorman, who grew up in London during the Blitz, made a very good movie, "Hope and Glory," dwelling on what a grand time children had in that era. So much drama!

Ross Douthat, I think, once remarked that the thing that depresses many social conservatives is not that calamity will come if we don't change our ways, but the prospect that calamity *won't* come, and that we'll muddle through. I hate to admit it, but there's something to that.

Ah, yes. Or as Waugh had it (through the eyes of Guy Crouchback):

When Prague fell, he knew that war was inevitable. He expected his country to go to war in a panic, for the wrong reasons or for no reason at all, with the wrong allies, in pitiful weakness. But now, splendidly, everything had become clear. The enemy at last was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off. It was the Modern Age in arms. Whatever the outcome there was a place for him in that battle.

Strictly speaking, Hitchens is on the other side of that particular battle, as a devotee of the Modern Age, but the sentiment is the same.

. “....it has often been said by pacifists...that war creates more criminals than heroes; that, far from devloping noble qualities in those who take part in it, it brings out only the worst. If this were altogether true, the pactifist’s aim would be, I think, much nearer of attainment than it is....

“Looking back upon the psychological processes of us who were very young sixteen years ago,it seems to me that his task--our task--is infinitely complicated by the fact that war, while it lasts, does produce heroism to a far greater extent than it brutalizes.... Undoubtedly this state of mind was what anti-war propagandists call it--’hysterical exaltation,’ ‘quasi-mystical, idealistic hysteria,’--but it had concrete results in stupendous patience, in superhuman endurance, in the constant re-affirmation of incredible courage. To refuse to acknowledge this is to underrate the power of those white angels which fight so naively on the side of destruction.” (Vera Brittain, Testament of Youth, 1978 edition, pp. 369-370)

As much as I often disagree with Christopher Hitchens, at least he seems genuinely informed on issues of human rights and the security of the free world.

Most of the anti-war folks act as though the whole war against Islamic extremism is just one big inconvenience, something that gets in the way of the left-wing economic agenda of more spending on health care, education, child care, etc.

So, instead of offering a viable strategy to win the war against Islamic extremism, the anti-war folks just accuse others of having some emotional need to wage war for the sake of curing their boredom.

I have heard similar criticisms of Abraham Lincoln, that he was some sort of Napeolean and that is what caused the American Civil War. It's a convenient way of sweeping all of the difficult issues (slavery, human rights and union then; human rights, Saddam's use of WMD against the Kurds and Iranians and Saddam violations of UN resolutions in the 1990s).

Yep. It's much easier to accuse others of desiring war over peace than to admit the truth: September 11, 2001 didn't signal the beginning of a war between the West and Islam, only how long the West had tried to ignore that such a war existed.

I too grew up in hurricane country, and loved hunkering down for the storms. To continue with my own response to the Vera Brittain quote above,

"Having experienced my own war, I can verify that everything Brittain says about the salutary effects of war on the character of those who fight in it is also true of those who fight against it. We were the best people we have ever been, we did the best things we have ever done. Out of the foulness of mass murder came the sweetness of mutual caring between a band of brothers and sisters; out of the vicious muddle of official lies we were expected to believe came the clarity of understanding of the facts that mattered--the view of war from the bottom up, from the standpoint of the civilian dweller in the battle zone, and the ordinary foot-soldier on either side. Out of conflict came commitment to resolving it; out of a war machine that seemed overwhelming in its size and power came courage and energy which none of us would have imagined five years earlier, and which most of us have trouble believing now. For many of us, our lives since then have been an effort either to live up to the moral benchmark we set for ourselves in working against US participation in the Vietnam War, or to live down the seemingly impractical commitments we made in that struggle.

"If that experience has taught us anything, it should have taught us to respect, or at least accept at face value, the canonized World War Two memories of the generation before ours, the memories of what they see as the best things they have ever done, the best people they have ever been. 'In our youth,' said Oliver Wendell Holmes, speaking of the Civil War, 'by great good fortune, our hearts were touched with fire.' When William James went looking for the 'moral equivalent of war,' that was what he sought. And that is what makes it so hard for us, perhaps for any human being, to say with our whole mind and our whole heart and our whole strength, 'never again.'

"I can't understand how any of these chickenhawk pundits under the age of 41 (current enlistment cutoff) can look real soldiers in the face as they blithely cheer on their sacrifice."

Richard,

As a 13 year veteran who was turned down by the Navy because of age around 9-12-01 or so, I never quite understand the chickenhawk complaint. Can it be true that the complaint comes from those generally opposed to the current course? Isn't the real question whether or not the course of action promoted by the hawks (chicken or otherwise) is the correct one?

Or put another way. Would you have no problem with "hawks" advocating what you see as an idiotic war waged by methods guaranteed to fail and kill untold numbers of innocent lives IF the hawks in question were getting in line to fight as well?

As far as Hitchen's comment (if I read it correctly), the war he sees going on for along time is not (simply) the conflict in Iraq. It is the war between OBL and his ilk and the rest of the world. That war, that global war, is a war we are all in. That war does not depend on uniformed armies and recruiter's quotas. That war comes to Manhattan, Madrid, London, Bali, and any town square.

The cililians in London didn't need to sign up for the fight to be in the middle of the fight in the Battle of Britain.

In a way, "chickenhawk pundints" have signed up already. Every time they advocate crushing Islamic Fascists they are hanging a "Kill Me First" sign on their back. Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, and Dutch cartoonists come to mind (and they were merely impolite).

Chickenhawk Schmickenhawk

Most of the anti-war folks act as though the whole war against Islamic extremism is just one big inconvenience, something that gets in the way of the left-wing economic agenda of more spending on health care, education, child care, etc.

No, we act as if it was one big goat****.

We see half a trillion dollars that may as well have been set on fire for all the good it's done, deteriorating infrastructure, vulnerable chemical and power plants, neglected mistreated vets and we ask ourselves where is all that vaunted conservative competence we hear so much about.

Nor are we blind to the lack of urgency on the part of conservatives to enlist to fight the war, or for the president to tax oil and gas to help break on dependence on it. Oil only seems to make our enemies richer and puts us more at risk.

It's easy to talk big yang when you don't have to carry a weapon in combat or deal with missing arms, legs, and eyes as a consequence of your service. (Or your sons, Mitt "Winnebago" Romney).

We just flat don't believe the rhetoric of Bush or the current crop of GOP candidates who save one found other things to do with their time than serve in the military and who now breezily commit the lives of others to danger and death.

President Flight Suit manages to be both right about Islamic extremists being a grave danger and at the same time, stupidly handle the response to that threat.

What we need to break is our dependence on FORIEGN oil.

I am aware of a biological need to breathe. I was not aware of a biological imperative to take the family SUV to the Dairy Queen.

I guess I should be Mr. States the Obvious again: tax foreign oil to discourage its use, to spur drivers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and to pay the staggering bills that will come due from 25,000 service members missing various body parts and motor skills.

"President Flight Suit manages to be both right about Islamic extremists being a grave danger and at the same time, stupidly handle the response to that threat."

Wow. I actually agree with a post by Richard Bottoms. I can't get excited about the Dem alternative, though. But should the best of the GOP bunch (Thompson?) lose to Hilary, I will experience two emotions simultaneously: 1) disapointment, that the better of the two candidates lost, and 2) encouragement, that MAYBE the GOP will get its act together and jettison the Bush family for good.

And perhaps Karl Rove will shut his stinkin' pie hole for a few minutes. That would certainly be a net gain for the world.

Even if the United States were to reduce its consumption of oil by 20 percent (which would cause significant problems with its economy), the oil rich nations would still get rich selling oil to Europe, Japan, China and India.

So, we can't conserve our way out of the war against Islamic extremism. Bad news. But it is a fact.

Oil is to our economy and national strength as is oxygen to our bodies.

Oil is to our economy as butter is to our bodies. Too much clogs the arteries and we could certainly stand to use less of it.

"Oil is to our economy as butter is to our bodies. Too much clogs the arteries and we could certainly stand to use less of it."

And that, I think, nicely sums up how we differ. What one sees as the life blood of an economy, another sees as cholesterol.

Only, I can live without butter. The modern industrial state cannot live without oil. Forget that we may wish it could. It cannot. If you remove butter from my diet, no big deal. You remove oil from the engine of industry, you have industrial, economic, and military collapse. Now of course, some would love to see just that, though I don't attribute that to anyone here.

The fact remains, the world is governed by an aggressive use of power. The question(s) we must answer is, what ideals should govern that power and what state comes closest to realizing those ideals.

Tax oil to reduce its use if you wish. That reduction of use will result in a reduction of power, and into that void someone or some country will rush. Will that be an improvement? I doubt it. I would bet good money otherwise.

No matter what problems (real and otherwise) our country (USA for those of use from other countries) has, it is the world leader, and it is the best shot we have.

It is nice to note however, that Mr. Bottoms and I do agree on something. Increased taxation is a sure way to stifle and shut down a given economic enterprise.

Re: Franklin Evans

If only life were that simple. Oil is totally fungible. Who knows (or cares) where it came from. And it's not the cost that's important, it's the COST OF PRODUCTION.

If the US consumes 20% of the daily world production output and it decreases it's consumption 20% then the actual decrease in world consumption is only 4%. Assuming that oil prices are perfectly elastic, (I know they are not so don’t bug me about this. I’m only a dilettante.) Then at $65 per barrel pre-conservation would lower oil prices to only $62.40 after conservation given the decrease in demand.

And if it costs only 20 bucks to pump out a barrel of Saudi crude and $50 to pump out a barrel of American crude and Saudi Arabia is not capacititated and the swarthy, greasy reptile sheiks that run the place really want the money, so will pump full bore at $62.40 realizing a $42.40 profit per barrell, guess where the oil we would use then comes from? You think Shell or Exxon or BP that process the stuff to product gives a s***? Even at the cost of production plus a small profit, you think they’d pay just over $50 for raw material from Red, White and Blue Americans, when they could pay just over $20 from the reptiles?

Conservation merely pushes back the witching hour. But the price and security impact on the States? Zero.

Quoting the Soup Nazi, “Next!”

Sorry.

"Isn't the real question whether or not the course of action promoted by the hawks (chicken or otherwise) is the correct one?"

That's a real question, alright. And the answer is that the course of action promoted by the all the hawks is absolutely the wrong one. The fact that the main architects of the action are chickenhawks - too cowardly to actually fight their own battles - makes them even more morally reprehensible.

So Will,

Now that we've concluded that which is the wrong answer, and determined the moral depravity of certain members of the chattering class, just what is (and should have been) the proper course of action post 9-11?

If you mean BART up in "The City" by the bay, that's a nice system. Far better than ever trying to find a place to park once one has actually driven somewhere.

My summer working in D.C. was only possible because of the Metro there. I loved it.

"Area Transit" acronymns can be a funny thing. Take South Coast Area Transit (SCAT) for instance. Fortunately, the name doesn't describe the quality of the service.

I've been meaning to get to Farmington to see if there's a Farmington Area Rapid Transit. No there's an acronym that another famous Bart would never pass up mentioning.

I think that a great transit system in major cities makes all the difference in the quality of life in those places.

"...just what is (and should have been) the proper course of action post 9-11?"

First, there should have been a much deeper investigation into the perpetrators and the wreckage they left behind. There should have been an honest public discussion of the perpetrators motives, and how years of clumsy American foreign policy helped shaped those motives. There should be an honest public discussion of how our dependency on technology and imported oil shaped and continues to shape that clumsy, imperialistic foreign policy.

Read Wendell Berry's "Thoughts in the Presence of Fear." I know of no better proper course of action. And this speaks to my ongoing issues with Rod Dreher and others who alternately praise Berry and then espouse ideas that are antithetical to everything Berry stands for.

>>You sound like just the type of person who would fit right in with the >>Bush administration's method of running things.

No need to be snarky and insulting.

I see your point. I'd be insulted too if some suggested I would be a good fit in the Bush administration.

"I see your point. I'd be insulted too if some suggested I would be a good fit in the Bush administration."

Mr. Bottoms,

While I suspect you are just being snarky again, I do think this illustrates an important point.

It does not follow that just because you disagree with someone on a given issue that they will agree with someone else with whom you also disagree.

For the record, I think the very concept (and etymology) of a "War on Terror" is moronic. We are not at war with terror. We are at war with people who want to destroy us. Who cares HOW they wish to destroy us?

Also, the situation is Iraq was bungled from the beginning.

Might I suggest, respectfully, that if you can put aside your snarkiness you may find something upon which you and I agree.

In the immortal words of Kelly LeBrock: Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

Mr. Bottoms,

So, do I understand correctly that you don't own or drive a private vehicle (i.e., car, truck, SUV)?

Rod, too bad you didn't include more of Hitch's quote, like the parts warning us away from our own lockstep belief in how right our government is, let alone Hitch warning us away from Iran.

Otherwise, I thinkk "crunchy conservative" is schtick, and pretty week, too, because I'll bet Dreher will ultimately butter his bread on the side of unregulated big business conservativism vs. real environmentalism.