War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength

By Harry E. Berndt

 

Sick and tired of the present tenor of political discussion in the United States, I have decided to spend more of my time in pursuits other than those relating to the present political madness. While reading George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which was published in 1949, I couldn't help but think of the prescient nature of the novel in relation to today. War is described as being one of "limited aims between combatants unable to destroy one another" and who "have no material cause for fighting". Orwell describes war as a war of rape and pillage, which is considered normal and meritorious when committed by one's country; not by the enemy. It is a war fought by a very few specialists and is continuous, and for this reason it ceases to be dangerous.

The United States has been at war more or less continuously since after WWII, and we often hear from our service men and women that they don't know what their war is all about. Almost daily, we learn that there has been collateral damage; i.e., many civilian deaths, and we are sorry about the civilian deaths. But that is what happens in war. Of course, the enemy kills many innocent women and children for absolutely no reason. Those we call atrocities.

Although we feel threatened, because we are constantly told that we must always be vigilant, most of us have little or no stake in the present conflicts. These wars are fought by about one percent of our people, and most are the very young, many of whom are also very poor. The rest of us make no real sacrifice, and for all of our chest beating we are removed from the suffering that comes when sons and daughters are killed or wounded. There is no draft, so the armed forces are made up of volunteers, accept for that part of the war that is privatized and managed by mercenaries. A dangerous precedent! And since the services are made up of volunteers, it is presumed that the decision to volunteer is freely chosen. But that is only partially true, because many have no other real alternative. The choice is often between living in poverty and volunteering.

As war becomes more impersonal and technologically advanced, it also becomes further removed from our lives and from our control. Much of the mayhem and killing by drones is triggered in the Nevada dessert or in Dayton, Ohio, many miles from the target somewhere in the Middle East. No longer does the killer see his victim, and no longer is he in danger of being killed or wounded. All of this impersonal killing, along with no real sacrifice by most of society, facilitates war forever. In addition, since so much of our society depends on the defense industry, our representatives in government find it difficult to deny the Pentagon any request for additional funds for the development of new and more terrifying weapons.

It isn't that the leaders of our country seek ways to get involved in wars, and certainly it isn't the desire of the American people to continue the pursuit of war. However, war has become an institution entrenched in both the corporate and military worlds, aptly named by President Eisenhower as our Military-Industrial complex. Eisenhower's warning of the dangers of the growth of the Military-Industrial complex went unheeded. It now seems impossible to extricate our nation from this wasteful drain on our economy and the terrible toll and sacrifice of our youth, who are serving our country.

In Orwell's novel, everything that the society thought or believed, everything that characterizes a way of thinking, was controlled by what Orwell termed doublethink. Today the internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines and a host of other sources, pour forth mountains of information 24 hours every day. So much information and so little time to digest it often can mean that nothing is really ever learned about anything. Charlatans, who flourish in our society, wink at lying for profit and manipulate people to accept positions that create societal myths and false perceptions of reality. For example, any social legislation designed to benefit the general population or the poor is referred to as socialism or liberalism, terms that have been demonized, and whose meanings have been distorted.

The current leadership malaise in government is reflected by the Republicans' and Democrats' failure to compromise on the recent fiscal crisis. The majority of Republicans who signed the Grover Norquist pledge never to increase taxes have abrogated their ability to govern, if they are to abide by their pledge. Their ability to address the pressing problems arising from poverty and the potential demands of warfare are rendered ineffectual. If politics is the art of compromise, how can the Republican legislators effectively act as co-partners in governance? The present economic crisis strongly indicates that they fail to recognize the need for compromise. On the other hand, the Democrats are more than willing to compromise, hoping to get the support of the independent voters. The decision on the part of the Republicans results from the fear of the Tea Party and their possible strength in the coming elections. The legislators of both parties are too concerned with getting reelected.

In the Republic, Plato discusses the civil degeneracy of types of government as compared to his ideal state. On democracy he mentions that the fiercest members of the masses speak and act out, while the rest follow and won't hear of any opposition. He states, "So long as men think that government is the art of obtaining office. And that it is the business of the ruler to follow the whims and ignorant opinions of the multitude; so long will society have no use for the philosopher." In the case of the present Tea Party and their followers, they have no use for science, or at least for that science not in agreement with their ideology.