———

War is brutal and impersonal … If we really saw war, what war does to young minds and bodies, it would be harder to embrace the myth of war.

- Chris Hedges, columnist at TruthDig

Frame grabs from a video posted on WikiLeaks.org, showing a U.S. Army Apache helicopter firing on a group of people in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. UPI/WikiLeaks.org Photo via Newscom Content © 2010 Newscom

The fog of war has cleared to reveal a storm of controversy raging around the publication of a classified video footage of an attack by U.S. Army Apache helicopters against Iraqis in 2007. The air strike resulted in the wounding of two children and the death of at least a dozen people, including two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. In Dialogic’s News and Analysis section, we took a look at the discussion from around the blogosphere. However, the narrative begs further discussion as to what it says about our society and culture.

While the responses to the attack range from moral outrage to unqualified support, I want to highlight a middle voice. Anthony Martinez, writing at his personal blog, A Look Inside, gives us his response to events of the video. Claiming his experience as both an infantryman on the ground as well as hours spent at consoles directing aerial traffic in Iraq, he offers what I feel is a thoughtful and mediated response to the events of this helicopter strike:

All in all, the engagement clearly went bad. I would have objected when I was a private first-class pulling triple duty as an RTO, driver, and vehicle gunner. I would have objected when I was a sergeant working well above my pay-grade as the Brigade Battle NCO. My assessment is based on my experiences in that very theater of operations. I did not see a threat that warranted an engagement at any point. I did, however, see the elements indicating such a threat could develop at any moment. (note: As I did, in fact, already know several things about the situation when I viewed this footage I cannot say with any certainty that had I viewed the exact same footage at the time of the incident that I would not have concluded the camera was an RPG as well.) People can make their judgements however they wish, but what is clearly visible is not the entire picture.

In my non-professional tactical opinion, I tend to agree with Martinez. The threat wasn’t imminent, but there was definitely the potential for one to develop. This is the fog of war — the complexities of modern warfare* that this video reveals to us. The new battlefield fails to provide a clear enemy or even limit itself to a bounded “field of battle,” choosing instead to spill into the ambiguity of urban areas where combat zones and homes occupy the same place; where insurgents and innocents routinely wear the same clothing. War no longer takes place on the grand battlefields of some bygone “Stratego” age of Napoleonic armies facing off in remote locations with colorful uniforms and flags to clearly delineate friend or foe, civilian or military. Writing for The American Prospect, Matthew Yglesias puts the problem on the ground into perspective:

It’s not that our troops are bad people. It’s that war is dangerous. The consequences of not pulling the trigger when you think you see someone swinging a rocket launcher in the direction of your helicopter are extremely severe — you die. Your friends die. On the flip side, the consequences of being a bit too trigger-happy are, of course, terrible for the people who wind up dead and bad for the mission but not so severe for you personally.

In a way, this video reminds us of the brutality of the wars in which we as a nation are engaged. A caller’s comments on Talk of the Nation highlight the unfortunate surprise we seem to receive every time the gruesome experience of war comes home to confront us and our relative safety. When asked by host Neal Conan what he had learned from the video, the caller responded:

Well, I guess I – what I think mostly, it’s how far removed we are from that world and how it isn’t on our radar and basically, how I feel we bury our heads in the sand and we don’t hear about it. And when something like this comes out, it’s very clear that things are going on that we’re not really tied into.

What the caller describes as a type of head-in-the-sand ignorance, Tom Engelhardt at Tomdispatch.com equates to a form of Olympian arrogance. Noting that we as a nation have not lived the experience of war in our own neighborhoods, he discards the argument that we suffer from a failure of imagination, describing it instead as a failure of empathy, driven by romantic notions of our role in the world:

We prefer to think of their deaths as so many accidents or mistakes — “collateral damage” — when they are the norm, not the exception, not what’s collateral in such wars. We prefer to imagine ourselves bringing the best (of values and intentions) to a backward, ignorant world and so invariably make ourselves sound far kindlier than we are. Like the gods of Olympus, we have a tendency to flatter ourselves … while creating a language of war that suits our tender sensibilities about ourselves.

Military personnel are trained to create psychological distance between themselves and their enemies, providing them with the ability to override their natural refusal to kill a fellow human being. Perhaps we at home suffer from our own form of distance, removed from the harsh realities of warfare. Aided by Yglesias’ charge that this new type of warfare shields the public from its harsh reality, we may be seduced by a more sanitized understanding of combat, where terms like “collateral damage” damage hide the stark reality that people are dying. Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent elegantly describes the inelegance of war and how it is represented to us back at home:

Filmic and most photographic images of war are shorn of the heart-pounding fear, awful stench, deafening noise and exhaustion of the battlefield. Such images turn confusion and chaos, the chief element of combat, into an artful war narrative. They turn war into porn … This is why we are given war’s perverse and dark thrill but are spared from seeing war’s consequences. The mythic visions of war keep it heroic and entertaining. And the press is as guilty as Hollywood.

It is this artful narrative of war that is undermined by the ambiguous reality presented in leaked videos such as this one. We are allowed to see the messiness of the battlefield, a place where cameramen mingle with combatants, that frustrates the myth of war as a glorious and good. Instead of a necessary evil that occasionally leads to “collateral damage,” we learn that war is always marred by indiscriminate violence. This video reminds us that we cannot neatly package our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into a simple, sanitary box and push it into the recesses of our minds. Instead, videos like this remind us that the price of war is always more than we bargain for.

The question that confronts us now is: how do we respond?

Will we continue to bury the real price of war between our incessant debates between left and right, hawk and dove, conservative and liberal, as people continue to die in our name? Will we chastise these helicopter pilots for making crude jokes and callous remarks in order to ignore the thought that day in and day out, our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen continue to suffer the dehumanization of combat because we sanction it – or worse, because we demand it? Will we continue to deny the connection between our national self-interest and our rapacious appetite for resources and wealth that implicates us in the deaths portrayed in this video, along with countless others?

Or will we overcome our ignorance, set aside our arrogance, and grasp our inherent agency to become peacemakers and work toward a just and equitable world where we might put an end to our need for violence and war?

———

* In reality, we should probably be using the term postmodern warfare given that combat now blurs the clear boundaries of the modern nation-state. Combat takes place between large, militarized nations and small, covert insurgent groups that claim no certain political nationalities and do not play by what they see as the arbitrary geopolitical “rules” of the modern era.

———
Last week the Pentagon made a not entirely unexpected move to raise the standards for prosecution of military personnel under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Not surprisingly, voices within the military immediately began creating a stir about issues of conscience and freedom of religion, using the same tired logic surrounding hate crimes legislation here in Oklahoma. This was paralleled by the logistical argument enunciated by Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz while testifying before Congress, in which he asked that legislators not “perturb the force” in time of war. While I have a difficult time understanding how the removal of over 13,000 service members under DADT since its inception doesn’t qualify as perturbing the force, especially considering that over 800 of those removed from service had critical skills such as Arabic, I find it even more frustrating that those opposed to removing this unjust policy continue to trot out the same collection of unfounded arguments. Ruth Marcus at TruthDig appears to share my frustrations:

WASHINGTON - MARCH 18: People sign their names during a rally in support of a repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don t Tell' policy March 18, 2010 at the Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Perturb the force? Of course, the same arguments could be—in fact, they were—made about racial integration. It is particularly infuriating that the generals would invoke the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an excuse for not lifting the ban. If anything, “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been an impediment to the military during these operations. In an era of stop-loss recalls because forces have been stretched so thin, thousands of service members have been discharged because of their sexuality.

Yet the problem with these arguments is that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is far more than a logistical matter. Even though Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen is correct to be “troubled” by a policy that “forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” the issues that he and the Congress are failing to consider are the personal ramifications of this policy. Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point grad and Arabic linguist who was discharged for outing himself, points out how DADT cuts much deeper than military politics:

“What’s inhumane about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is the fact that soldiers have to lie. It’s the only federal policy that enforces shame, particularly because these are soldiers willing to risk their lives to protect America … The fundamental reason to get rid of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is that it sacrifices, violates and compromises the integrity of all soldiers, not just gay soldiers.”

However, we must acknowledge that the problems created by this policy extend far beyond the scope of the military. The social ramifications of DADT speak directly to the heart of the discourse over sexuality in the national culture. Bradford Schmidt at Technorati sheds light on the broader issue:

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not just an invasion into the private thoughts and lives of American servicemen and women, it’s a federal policy that defines the relative worth of human beings based on how they live their private lives and whom they chose to love … It is absolutely indefensible that a time when human beings are still berated, insulted, discriminated against, and beaten because of their sexuality, there are laws on the books that reaffirm in the minds of bigots everywhere that gay men and women have less value than straight men and women.

This devaluing of human life carries real freight in the social and cultural discourse. It functions like a double edged sword that cuts the LGBTQIA community in both directions. While codifying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provides a legal justification for bigotry and hatred, it also stabs at the heart of community and dialogue. As Leyla Farah at Cause+Effect points out, the ability to share one’s stories is critical:

At a basic level, it could be argued that our community only exists as a function of our personal, shared stories. LGBT people grow up, often with a vague feeling that we’re somehow different, but we’re not sure why. We come out, often in turmoil and fear. We live and love, often in the face of real danger and hardship.

It’s these shared experiences, and our varied and personal stories about our journeys through them, that form the foundation of our community. We don’t share gender or skin color or geography or language. There’s nothing visibly apparent that binds us together. It is the telling of our stories – and our ability to find ourselves in each others experiences – that makes us who we are.

When we can neither ask about, nor tell, our stories we are effectively cut off from community. We are robbed of our ability to connect with one another. We are left isolated and vulnerable.

Whether President Obama addresses the military policy or not … the fact remains that LGBT people must have the right, and the ability, to tell our stories before we can truly make progress.

This is a sad reminder that the power of discourse belongs to those who control the discourse. As Farah reminds us, people of varying sexual orientations are simply seeking safe space in which to create communities where stories might be shared and identity might be explored. Unfortunately, the hetero majority continues to use policies like DADT to enforce the arbitrary binaries of “gay” and “straight,” and in doing so freezes not only the discourse between both communities, but the internal discourse within these communities as well. Simply unclenching the fist of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” isn’t good enough. Now we have to extend the open hand of dialogue in mutuality and respect.

Ninety-one years ago today the echoes of the guns of August finally faded into silence.  The parties of what at the time was known as “the war to end all wars” laid down their arms and began negotiating the peace.  World War I had come to a close. (Of course, this didn’t mark an end to fighting – the Ottoman Empire disintegrated into civil war and wouldn’t reemerge as the Republic of Turkey for almost five years.)

Today we observe this date as Veteran’s Day, a national holiday to honor all of those who have lived and died in the service of the U.S. military.  Given our current crisis, this observance is perhaps more important than ever.  I think we may have exceeded Winston’s Churchill’s imagination of military sacrifice when he famously said, “Never has so much been owed by so many to so few.”  The burden of our military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan teeters dangerously on the less-than-Atlas-sized shoulders of our all-volunteer military.  While this disproportionately small segment of U.S. society* fights our wars, the majority of us continue to rally around the cause of conflict with virtually no ownership.  How many of us have family members in the military?  In combat zones?  What is our personal investment in these conflicts?

I fear that our disregard for the face of this holiday has allowed the deeper meaning of Veterans Day to remain obscured.  Prior to becoming Veterans Day in 1954, this date was celebrated as Armistice Day, marking the cease fire that ended World War I.  Buried within the deep of the Veterans Day tradition, there is not only an honoring of  those who have served, but a remembrance of the terrible cost of war.  A concurrent resolution passed by Congress in on June 4, 1926 reminds us of this price and encourages us to observe this date in the totality of its meaning (with thanks to the Veterans Administration, emphasis is mine):

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

To put it simply, Armistice Day was originally conceived as a day to celebrate the end of the fighting and to honor the cause of peace.

I fear we live in an age where much of the power of the original Armistice Day holiday has been lost; a power of which we are in dire need.  We are politically dominated by the symbol of 9/11, a rallying cry to war uninhibited by any understanding of the deeper causes of resentment and hatred for our neo-imperial foreign policy.  For those of us seeking to make a difference in our national life, it’s time to claim the symbol of 11/11: a call for peace grounded in the hope for a more cooperative community of nations, yet tempered in the sober reality of the destructive war whose end it commemorates.

Until we recognize that the cost of our callousness is truly greater than we can afford to bear, we will continue to live in fear instead of hope.  Defining our orientation in terms of the devastating attack of September 11^th only reinforces our national paranoia.  Redefining our direction in terms of an admittedly uneasy armistice and peace could allow us to begin the process of international reconciliation that will truly be required to ensure not only our national security but international security as well.  The time has come for those of who support the cause of peace to reject the fear of 9/11 and claim anew the hope of 11/11.

*Which also happens to be disproportionately overrepresented by African Americans and is rapidly rising in Latino/a representation – See Government Accounting Office Report GAO-05-952)

Cross posted at the Xenia Institute.

This article is a re-imagination of the article I originally published in my congregational newsletter, The Tahlequah Christian.  You can read the original article here.

Related articles:

• Section 60 | Xenia Institute

Memorial Day has always been a time of remembrance for me, and those memories run deep.  As a child, I would help members of the local Veterans of Foreign Wars post place flags on the headstones of all the veterans buried in the two cemeteries in my little hometown of Centralia, Missouri.  Both my father and grandfather were members of the post, having served in Vietnam and in Europe during World War II.  Today, memory fails me as to whether I began helping with the flags because of a conscious decision on my part or because I provided a young set of legs to assist an aging group of war vets, but after many years of walking the rows of headstones I’ve found it has had a profound impact on my thoughts…

READ MORE