Government Sanctioned Murder - It's a Job

by CGC | March 12, 2006 at 05:10 pm

764 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

th February

2006), Sue Arnold wrote of her

son’s decision to join the Army.

The piece, entitled No wonder

my son is willing to fight in

Iraq, explained the process

by which her son chose to enter

a military career, despite the

risks, and the concerns that she

held as the boy’s mother. Sadly,

the article concluded without so

much of a mention of the most

obvious truths about the

societal role of the Army and

her son’s involvement in it,

exemplifying the extraordinary

reluctance in much of the

prevalent commentary to examine

how what we do affects the

outside world.

Arnold explains that her son’s

decision was based on the idea

that university tuition fees and

maintenance would be paid for by

the Army, and on positive

encouragement from a veteran of

the most recent conflict in

Afghanistan, who is now enjoying

a lavish London lifestyle. What

is more, “the realisation that a

degree in ancient history

doesn’t actually qualify you to

do much except perhaps unpack a

few tea chests containing

treasures of the ancient Persian

civilisation” seemed to have

added to the attraction of a

military career. The boy’s

mother complains of his

inability to find worthwhile

employment, and sums up: “If I

were 22, crazy about sport and

fed up with life in London I’d

probably choose going to

Afghanistan over writing press

releases for Volvo or working in

a bank.”

The military has a specific role. Contrary to claims by both the Ministry

of Defence, or its own

advertising efforts, that role

is not to furnish fertile young

men and women with career

opportunities, with exciting

life experiences or the prospect

of “being the best”, except in

an extremely morally stunted

sense. The army is not primarily

an agent of philanthropy,

neither at home or abroad,

however strongly that idea is

pressed upon the public. The

Army is and always has been an

institution maintained by the

ruling authorities of a nation

state primarily to acquire and

hold onto power. Throughout the

ages, this has meant land, money

or natural resources, or even

suppressing civilian protests

and uprisings. Inevitably, such

enterprise involves death,

including the death of innocent

people. The defence against this

indictment seems always to

reduce to arguments about the

necessity of committing the

lesser evil in order to defend

what is right, whilst abhorrent

phrases like “collateral damage”

are chosen to soften the

language used to refer to the

one guarantee war holds: that it

will produce the death of

innocent people. (As is pointed

out below, it is a worrying

indictment of prevalent values

that such terms are so easily

inaugurated into popular use.)

Most, if not all wars, are

started on the basis that they

are necessary to stand up for

what is right. Thus, the

invasion of Afghanistan was to

bring to justice evil-doing

terrorists and Taliban leaders,

and Iraq was invaded both for

the protection of other

democratic nations from Saddam

Hussein’s tremendous threat to

the outside world or to rescue

the suffering masses of that

country from the tyrant’s steely

grip. Facts that it was the west

who armed Saddam, that a close

ally such as Saudi Arabia

commits arguably worse

human-rights abuses than Iraq,[1],[2]

that Saddam was largely disarmed

by the time of the 2003

invasion, or indeed that the

terrible plight of Iraqis was

mainly down to UN imposed

sanctions are not to obfuscate

our understanding of the highly

ethical intentions of

participating western

governments.[3]

Indeed, to aid the public in

this regard, both the US and UK

(as well as other countries)

re-branded the Department of War

and the Ministry of War

(respectively) as the Department

of Defence and the Ministry of

Defence just after the Second

World War. Invariably, such

discussions bring about the

issue of self-defence and, in

particular, World War II – what

would we have done but for our

armed forces there? Saving the

details of that particular

discussion for another time, it

is worth noting that acts of

aggression against the likes of

the US and UK are extremely rare

(in fact the US has suffered no

military attack on its own turf

for centuries), and that current

military undertakings do not

qualify in the minds of sane

individuals as defensive. None

of the major western players in

the Afghanistan or Iraqi

conflicts are there out of

necessity to defend themselves.

It is the perfect moment to

disabuse ourselves of the notion

that military might is

compatible with genuine

commitments to moral behaviour.

And disarmament seems a natural

progression from that awakening.

It is notable that throughout the recent “interventions” in Afghanistan

and Iraq there has been far more

media attention in the US and UK

on the question of casualties

suffered by allied forces, than

by the enemy, or even civilians.

We are reminded incessantly as

to the number of our finest

young men whose lives were

extinguished in their heroic

endeavours abroad. I concede

that often the numbers are

mentioned in the hope that they

will appeal to the anti-war

sentiments of the general

public. It is interesting in

this light to wonder why an

appeal to the public moral

conscience isn’t quite so

effective when it is the number

of Afghan or Iraqi civilian

deaths that is raised. Reports

by the Lancet of 100,000

civilians killed since March

2003 received heightened

attention and commentary,[4]

but fell away and are now a

faint marker of an outrage long

since forgotten against the

ticking counter of Allied

deaths. Special organizations,

such as the Iraqi Body Count

website,[5]

have been set up to redress the

balance because official sources

are indifferent to the number.

The front cover of The

Independent on Remembrance

Day led with the line:

“They died for us, and on

this day we remember them, the

men and women who gave their

lives for Britain. Today, the

Independent recognizes the

contribution of those who have

given their lives in our most

recent conflict as we pay

tribute to the 97 Britons killed

in Iraq.”

[6]

Despite the obvious challenge to this

statement about what has been

gained for Britain by the deaths

of those who “gave their lives

for Britain”, it is notable that

the newspaper chose to usurp the

one day on which lost lives

during World War I are

remembered to promote its own

admiration for the military

efforts of those in Iraq. The

prominence of the headline far

exceeds that of serious studies

of civilian deaths as a result

of acts of war in Iraq.[7]

It is an obvious truth of going to war that lives will be lost. Whether

intentionally or not, a large

number (and actually the

majority) of casualties will be

“non-combatant” civilians. This

presents itself as the most

obvious and inescapable fact

about warfare, and the toughest

challenge for the morality of

those who support conflict. Sue

Arnold’s article is completely

blind to this issue. Not a

single word of her remarks

considers her son’s culpability

if he were to join the Army, in

whatever role. That he would be

party to a grave injustice

visited upon hundreds of

thousands of people doesn’t seem

to present itself as an obstacle

at all. Another great concern

for any mother would surely be

the idea that her son may

himself lose his life if he were

to participate in conflict (and

perhaps even without it).[8]

Sue Arnold openly declares:

“Until now I hadn’t given the

prospect of my son dying for

Queen and country much thought”.

Sadly, not a shred of the

article goes on to explore the

issue further. Arnold goes on to

consider her son’s career

options, his qualifications, and

even entertains what prospects

her son will enjoy in

Afghanistan or Iraq when it

comes to playing sport, pointing

to the exciting experiences of a

military acquaintance who would

spend “all day playing football

with the prisoners” of a POW

camp in Umqasr.

Unsurprisingly, an inspection of the British Army recruitment drive online

reveals no desire by the

military to advertise facts

about the reality of death, for

allies or enemies, let alone any

moral implications of

undertaking to kill.[9]

In online interviews with Army

recruits, one soldier remarked

that what he was in the army for

was “excitement” and that it

makes him “tick”. Another

commented that “the army…will

get your full potential out of

ya”. The claim should be

qualified by a statement of the

fact that it is that portion of

a recruit’s potential useful to

the Army that they are seeking

to develop, and none further.

Another trainee declared “you’ll

be completely different person

to when you came in” after the

training is finished. To

another, “getting your green

beret is what it’s all about”.

Consistent with Sue Arnolds’

commentary, success in career

individualism is what is

presented as the Army’s selling

point. None of the interviewees

delve into the reality of war –

those that have seen it – and

the only detail given is that

addressing issues of

accommodation, diet, fitness and

the like. In the US, the Army is

now using online computer games

simulating combat situations to

lure in recruits.[10]

At a time of ensuing debate

about the impact of violence in

computer games and films on

children, why are questions not

being raised about the

establishments own efforts to

give false impressions of

carnage and bloodshed with more

gusto? The website’s own FAQ

(Frequently Asked Questions)

section informs that the game

“provides young adults and their

influencers with virtual

insights about the Army” and

that kills are represented such

that the game provides

“entertainment and information

without resorting to graphic

violence and gore”. The website

claims that the Army “designed

and built the game from the

ground up to ensure that it

comports with our role as a

public institution.”10

Whatever the official mandate is

for a public institution, it is

one that accepts the inevitable

loss of life during acts of

aggression, if the Army is

compliant with these standards.

What responsibility they would

feel obliged by towards young

impressionable minds is

therefore surely to be

questioned, particularly given

recent recruitment problems.[11]

Furthermore, the ideal that

public institutions are

accountable to the public is far

from sight under the current

system. The Army is accountable

to those high up in the echelons

of power, not to the wider

population of the country it

allegedly exists to defend. The

opinion of the general public

was not solicited when the UK

and US administrations made

their choice to go to war, and

the message of those that took

to the streets in droves as a

protest was not heeded. In fact,

all systems of accountability

were circumvented, with the US

in particular taking care to

demolish what authority the rule

of international law enjoyed in

limiting warfare, citing bizarre

excuses and perverted arguments

about the legitimacy of US

exceptionalism. In the

introduction to the recent

volume A Matter of Principle:

Humanitarian Arguments for War

in Iraq, the editor Thomas

Cushman defends the war in Iraq

from claims that it amounted to

unilateral aggression. He

writes: “It is seldom recognized

that the war was not as

unilateral as many maintain. By

the time the war started in

March 2003, forty-eight

countries had joined the

“Coalition of the Willing,” and

critics tended to overgeneralize

about the extent of opposition

to the war in the world”.

Notably, what meaningful

military or strategic

contribution states like

Mongolia or Azerbaijan provided

towards the effort is not

discussed. It is, however, worth

remarking that Cushman’s entire

claim about the “Coalition of

the Willing” rests on the

assumption that the governments

of nation states somehow

represent the intentions of

their citizens. In considering

the starkest example available,

that of the Bush administration,

whose neoconservative ideologues

continually seek to persuade

their world audience of the

benefits of spreading democracy,

the notion of accountability to

the public is utterly debunked;

Bush arrived in the White House

on the back of a stolen

election, and his popularity

ratings have of late slumped to

under 40%. Other members of the

“Coalition of the Willing”, such

as Kazakhstan, are overtly

oppressive regimes where notions

of public accountability belong

to the realm of quiet fantasy

(Kazakhstan is, in fact,

generously supported by the US

despite how the American

electorate might feel about it).

To rely, as Cushman does, on

equating governmental foreign

policy with the desires of the

electorate, is to furnish a

glorious example of the way in

which spurious assumptions leak

unchallenged into the arena of

public discourse about grave

matters such as war. It is akin

to the blinkered view that the

military are publicly

accountable, or that they are a

benevolent force – all of which

leads to the terrible outcome

that moral questions about the

very nature of participating in

The Army as an institution are

beyond the scope of valid

inquiry . Indeed, as I write

this, the BBC online news

service is reporting on their

front page appeals made by John

Reid, the British defence

secretary, for sympathy towards

British troops serving in Iraq.

His message, made in light of

the recent discovery of footage

of British soldiers beating up

Iraqi teenagers, asks the public

to consider “what it must be

like on the battlefield”, that

our troops “face an enemy that

is completely unconstrained” and

that “our troops are

increasingly constrained not

just by international law and

conventions, the standards we

want to keep, but by media

scrutiny, by videophones, by

mobile phones, by satellite

dishes”. Reid also repudiates

the terrorist enemies for having

"no moral scruples about killing

civilians in their thousands".

Apart from the farcical claim to

legality in the case of the war

in Iraq, and the total hypocrisy

with respect to moral scruples,

we are instructed to moderate

our sensibilities and assimilate

the notion that The Army, a

“public institution”, is

accountable, serves our best

interests (not to speak of the

best interests of the Iraqis),

but that reporting its

activities via satellite is a

“constraint” which leads to

unfair perceptions about how

they operate.

The recent film Jarhead[12]

challenged viewers’ assumptions

about the Army, including

questioning the psychological

impact of military training and

the overwhelming sense of

futility felt by the recruits

when their training does not

find expression in combat.

Although I welcome the film as a

challenge to preconceptions

about military involvement,

including what motivates it, it

doesn’t approach the moral issue

of killing with full thrust.

It is disappointing to witness such reluctance on behalf of independent or

liberal commentators, be they

journalists or filmmakers, to

abandon the project of

scrutinising certain

uncomfortable truths, in the

tradition of Erich Maria

Remarque, Kurt Vonnegut or even

Bertrand Russell. Instead, the

prevalent message adheres too

closely to official rhetoric of

encouragement about “supporting

our Armed Forces”,[13]

even if you opposed the war.[14]

And when even the mothers of

aspiring recruits fail to

capture the opportunity of

expressing doubt about their

son’s plight and his involvement

in the deaths of others, it is a

sad day for the media’s

challenge to the legitimacy of

current paradigms.

References:

[1]

In the second of three of

interviews, British Prime

Minister was asked by BBC

Newsnight presenter Jeremy

Paxman about how it is

acceptable to call Saudi Arabia

a “friend of the civilised

world” when “it chops people’s

arms off” and “tortures people”.

Tony Blair answered “They have

their culture, their way of

life.” Transcripts of all three

interviews are available online:

link

[2]

For reports by Human Rights

Watch on the situation in Saudi

Arabia, visit:

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=saudia

[3]

An interesting discussion about

the impact of UN sanctions

against Iraq prior to the 2003

invasion can be found in Anthony

Arnove’s compilation of essays,

Iraq Under Siege: The deadly

impact of sanctions and war

(London: Pluto Press, 2003).

[4]

BBC Online, 29th

October 2004:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm

[5]

Iraqi Body Count, available

online:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position

The IBC website quotes senior

US Central Command’s General

Tommy Franks as saying that “we

don’t do body counts” and

Brigadier General Mark Kimmit’s

remark that Iraqis watching

images of civilian deaths on

their television should “change

the channel”.

[6]

Independent, 11th

November 2005.

[7]

In depth statistics appear as a

report of the Brookings

Institute, on page 10 (of the 2nd

February edition).

Available online:

http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

[8]

Guardian Unlimited online:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1703113,00.html

[9]

http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/

[10]

http://www.americasarmy.com/support/faq_win.php?p=1#faq1

[11]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7802712/

[12]

Jarhead; Sam Mendez

(dir.), US: Universal, 2005

[13]

A statement made by Tony Blair’s

official spokesman. Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2862325.stm

[14]

As Charles Kennedy the then

leader of the Liberal Democrat

party wrote: “If British troops

are committed to action, then

the nation will, of course,

support them.” In the run up to

the invasion of Iraq the Lib

Dems opposed action. What

constitutes “support” is

unclear, but is certainly not as

fully lucid as the “Support our

troops – bring them home”

placards seen at popular

demonstrations. The Liberal

Democrats thus subscribed to

national camaraderie with allied

soldiers, but with no mention of

support for the overwhelming

majority of victims of the

invasion: the Iraqi people. Once

the invasion was underway such

appeals were trumped by the Lib

Dems’ back-door pseudo-patriotic

militarism.