Dear Sirs and Madams,
Historicism dictates that the specific rhetoric utilized in deliberating our moral dilemmas indicates our society’s attitude, culture, and values. Observing the political language since and before the Bush administration betrays something highly disturbing. Enshrouded within the popular rhetoric exist the oppressive institutionalized suppositions that falsely pose as mediums for debate while marginalizing independent assessment.
Observe the value of justice. The debate in the popular media following the invasion of Iraq was whether or not the war in Iraq was just. However, to even contemplate the matter seems redundant. It is absolutely unjust for any state actor to contemplate the exchange value of individuals' lives and demean the basis of life, liberty, and justice by sacrificing innocent civilians without their consent. To debate whether or not a specific war is unjust would be to imply the plausibility of certain wars to be just.
The very fact that we have a rhetorical medium in place that could possibly justify war is unsightly. Presupposing that wars ‘should be just’ alters the inherent nature of war and undermines the premise of any argument against war. This makes any engagement in a debate a concession.
With this semantic shift, war itself enters into a definitive crisis. It goes from a form of excessive brutality to a legitimate solution, bolstered by human rationale. Robert McNamara said that the problem with war is that the human race have not yet grappled with the rules of war. However, how do we produce civility out of something that is inherently uncivil. Today, official terminologies such as “smart bombs” and “minimized collateral damage” work to exacerbate the basic fallacy in society’s perception of war.
Rationalization of war is not a modern construct, but there is a clear difference in rhetoric used in the past and today. When Britain engaged France during the Napoleonic War, Pitt never proclaimed that British victory would in any way better the French people. To the extent of my knowledge, even during the Second World War, the Allied forces never used the liberation of the German people from Nazism as a cause for war. In fact, the only precedence upon which the western civilization took it upon themselves to impose the benefits of war upon the opposing peoples was during the brutal imperial aggression against the peoples of colonial possessions.
The misuse the utilitarian value to justify war is a modern construct and is rooted in the perverse language used by the imperial powers with racist presuppositions. Journalist and author Chris Hedges writes that war "corrupts language... preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death". War rhetoric and war stories are addictive. Moral philosophers like Adam Smith recognized this danger in the Wealth of Nations. This corruption of reasoning through attractive rhetoric may be best depicted in the Coen brothers' movie The Big Lebowski in which the protagonist repeats President Bush's (senior) quip "this aggression will not stand".
We are deeply engaged in the semantic game established for the specific purpose of controlling independent public interpretations and institutionalizing the acceptable debates. Our entire society, regardless of whether or not we are for or against state intervention, has been duped into a trap. An illusion of a plausible ‘just war’ is created by establishing parameters on the rhetoric utilized in debates. The public conscience is effectively limited to a foregone conclusion established by the ideological apparatuses of control. The current mass media perpetuates and consolidates these parameters. For the sake of providing legitimacy to an illegitimate debate, the public rationale was sacrificed, processed, and institutionalized.
As we again charge into Afghanistan and Pakistan with renewed resolve under the new administration, let us not forget that no war is just. There will be many more innocent deaths and lives ruined despite the best intentions of the United States. This is the reality of war and I guarantee there will be unintended consequences.
Let us be always skeptical of our governments' best intentions.
Afterall, intellectual laziness leads to state abuse.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Historicism dictates that the specific rhetoric utilized in deliberating our moral dilemmas indicates our society’s attitude, culture, and values. Observing the political language since and before the Bush administration betrays something highly disturbing. Enshrouded within the popular rhetoric exist the oppressive institutionalized suppositions that falsely pose as mediums for debate while marginalizing independent assessment.
Observe the value of justice. The debate in the popular media following the invasion of Iraq was whether or not the war in Iraq was just. However, to even contemplate the matter seems redundant. It is absolutely unjust for any state actor to contemplate the exchange value of individuals' lives and demean the basis of life, liberty, and justice by sacrificing innocent civilians without their consent. To debate whether or not a specific war is unjust would be to imply the plausibility of certain wars to be just.
The very fact that we have a rhetorical medium in place that could possibly justify war is unsightly. Presupposing that wars ‘should be just’ alters the inherent nature of war and undermines the premise of any argument against war. This makes any engagement in a debate a concession.
With this semantic shift, war itself enters into a definitive crisis. It goes from a form of excessive brutality to a legitimate solution, bolstered by human rationale. Robert McNamara said that the problem with war is that the human race have not yet grappled with the rules of war. However, how do we produce civility out of something that is inherently uncivil. Today, official terminologies such as “smart bombs” and “minimized collateral damage” work to exacerbate the basic fallacy in society’s perception of war.
Rationalization of war is not a modern construct, but there is a clear difference in rhetoric used in the past and today. When Britain engaged France during the Napoleonic War, Pitt never proclaimed that British victory would in any way better the French people. To the extent of my knowledge, even during the Second World War, the Allied forces never used the liberation of the German people from Nazism as a cause for war. In fact, the only precedence upon which the western civilization took it upon themselves to impose the benefits of war upon the opposing peoples was during the brutal imperial aggression against the peoples of colonial possessions.
The misuse the utilitarian value to justify war is a modern construct and is rooted in the perverse language used by the imperial powers with racist presuppositions. Journalist and author Chris Hedges writes that war "corrupts language... preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death". War rhetoric and war stories are addictive. Moral philosophers like Adam Smith recognized this danger in the Wealth of Nations. This corruption of reasoning through attractive rhetoric may be best depicted in the Coen brothers' movie The Big Lebowski in which the protagonist repeats President Bush's (senior) quip "this aggression will not stand".
We are deeply engaged in the semantic game established for the specific purpose of controlling independent public interpretations and institutionalizing the acceptable debates. Our entire society, regardless of whether or not we are for or against state intervention, has been duped into a trap. An illusion of a plausible ‘just war’ is created by establishing parameters on the rhetoric utilized in debates. The public conscience is effectively limited to a foregone conclusion established by the ideological apparatuses of control. The current mass media perpetuates and consolidates these parameters. For the sake of providing legitimacy to an illegitimate debate, the public rationale was sacrificed, processed, and institutionalized.
As we again charge into Afghanistan and Pakistan with renewed resolve under the new administration, let us not forget that no war is just. There will be many more innocent deaths and lives ruined despite the best intentions of the United States. This is the reality of war and I guarantee there will be unintended consequences.
Let us be always skeptical of our governments' best intentions.
Afterall, intellectual laziness leads to state abuse.
Best,
Yong Kwon
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?" - Walter Sobchak from The Big Lebowski
No comments:
Post a Comment