Militarism: an Overview of what thoughtful people are saying in our time
by
James F. Grant
jamesfgrant@gmail.com
Researchers and clinicians treating families of alcoholics and addicts summarize the denial of the problem, as the “elephant in the living room.” Ignored, the elephant continues to grow, yet remains invisible to the family members. When the situation becomes untenable, someone finally says, “There is an Elephant in the living room.” Only then do they start seeking treatment for the problem! Other professionals prefer to call this phenomenon “the merry- go - round of denial.
If you substitute country for family, a similar phenomenon exists when it comes to militarism in the USA. Currently, militarism is the “invisible elephant” in the daily lives of the citizens of the United States. While the families of alcoholics or addicts fail to see the Elephant, their friends and neighbors do indeed see it clearly. This seems to be also true of the militarism in the United States, whereas most of the citizens are blind and in denial, other citizens of the world unmistakably see the results of our militarism. We must pay attention to those scholars, journalists, and writers who have been describing what they have seen and are trying to break through our denial and to educate us about militarism.
Basevich in The New American Militarism says that as early as the 1990s the main feature of US policy was the “marriage of a militaristic cast of mind with utopian ends" and he further stated his book would examine the origins of this marriage and his recommendation for its annulment. Bacevich points out that after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, many voices claimed militarism and identified it in the following “books.
• The Sorrows of Empire; Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, by Chalmers Johnson
• Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, by Norm Chomsky;
• Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire, edited by Carl Boggs
• Rouge Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions, by Clyde Prestowitz
• Incoherent Empire, by Michael Mann, with its concluding chapter called “The New Militarism." 1
Chalmers Johnson, a Historian states, “As distinct from other peoples on this earth, most Americans do not recognize-or do not want to recognize-that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, they are often ignorant of the fact that their government garrisons the globe. They do not realize that a vast network of American military bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire.” 2
Boggs tells us, “The ceaseless global expansion of US military power since the early 1940s is matched by an astonishing public refusal to incorporate an understanding of that power into the various discourses political, educational, media, cultural. The more omnipresent power has become, the more it permeates virtually every corner of international and domestic life, the more it seems to be ignored or deflected, suppressed or forgotten, kept safely outside the established public sphere.”3 Howard Zinn, in the graphic adaptation of A People’s History of American Empire wrote, “Throughout US history our military has been used not for moral purposes but to expand economic, political, and military power.” 4
“A century ago, Woodrow Wilson, then an academic, described an America in which “comparatively small groups of men,” corporate managers, “wield a power and control over the wealth and the business operations of the country,” becoming “rivals of the government itself.”.5
All of these writers and others have been telling us about U.S militarism and imperialism. Is the message being heard or are they preaching to the choir?
When I began my research to answer the question: What are thoughtful people saying about militarism in our time, it never occurred to me how many thoughtful people are saying nothing or very little about militarism. Is it denial or educational deficit at work?
As Boggs reports “ A survey of 36 widely used college texts in the fields of history, political science, and sociology- those disciplines expected to address the US role in world affairs- reveals some fascinating but disturbing information. No fewer than twenty-seven of these required course readings, ranging in length from three hundred to six hundred pages, contain absolutely nothing about the American military in any of its dimensions.”6
The mystery of denial also occurs in academia with many disciplines paying little or no attention to militarism. Political Science, for example, in their main professional journal has ignored military power ever since the Vietnam War which was forty years ago. Boggs in his reading of Political Science and International Relations continues to identify major works that he several times applauds for the scholarship of the authors but points out again and again how they either ignore or pay scant attention to the issues of militarism. The disciplines of History and Sociology given their broader perspective and more students and faculty from outside the mainstream would be expected to do a much better job of addressing militarism than the discipline of Political Science but according to Boggs readings the differences in attention to militarism is slight. Boggs continues to be generous in his praise of certain works of sociology, some of which are texts and classic works in the field. He continues to point out the absence or the minimal attention paid to militarism or even the military. There is no “sociology of military" while there is a “sociology of” many other topics. Norm Chomsky, Tariq Ali, and Chalmers Johnson, are identified as writers who will thoughtfully examine, with a critical eye, militarism in the U.S}7
How can it be that militarism is so big and it is neither seen nor discussed? We will need to look at the history of militarisms growth and then describe its size and its global reach. That will be the next installment of what thoughtful people are saying about militarism in our time
1 Bacevich, 2006 p3
2 Johnson, 2004 p1
3 Boggs, 2005 p.xx
4 Zinn, 2008 p.7
5 Chomsky,.2010
6 Boggs, 2005 p xxiv-xxv
7 Boggs 2005, pxxv-xxxii
No comments:
Post a Comment