President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed”. What do you guys think should take precedence, social issues at home or our “national security” and position on the world stage? Some argue that social inequalities will always exist so attempting to wipe them out is a waste. All we can do is alleviate the symptoms of social inequality as they manifest. While this argument is certainly logical, is it truly the best policy? Have we even tried addressing social needs with the same fervor we afford corporate gains?
It is sad to realize that a great deal of the prosperity we enjoy in this country is due to our militarism abroad. However, those who benefit the most from this militarism are the private security forces (as in mercenaries) and weapons makers. The benefits we gain from these actions are secondary and minimal when comapred to the capital gains of the military-industrial complex.
Should we focus on social problems that indeed may never go away or may just be replaced by different social problems? Or rather, should we focus on maintaining our security abroad along with our national interests? These are very different ways of tackling the economy. In theory, the former will provide for all and help society’s neediest, while the latter will bring about greater security and economic prosperity (also in theory). These two ideas do not have to be mutually exclusive. I ask this question however, because neoliberalism treats them in such a way. According to neoliberal policy, the government is to pull away from social issues and contract these tasks to non-profits so it can focus on protecting corporate interest and bringing the free market to new regions. Is there a way to make our country secure and protect our national interests (let’s they pretend they indeed are “national” and not corporate) that does not involve militarism?
What do you guys think? Can we afford to shift interests as a nation?
13 comments:
Excellent post, Manny! This is not my official comment since it's much better if students write first. I just wanted to encourage you, as you ponder Manny's questions, to check out Nicholas Kristof's editorial (in the Check It Out section) on happiness in Costa Rica. Totally different context, of course, but, like Manny, he asks us to think about the relationship between economics, prosperity, well-being and security. Yes, he is the HALF THE SKY guy. Manny, I'd love to hear what you think about Kristof and whether he addresses any aspect of your question satisfactorily. And you thought your work this week was done!
So, it's just Manny and I hanging out here. I guess this could be my official comment, since two mini-comments might make a substantial one. One of the things I was thinking about during the seminar and while reading Manny's post was why there was so little media coverage of the crazy military spending. I don't expect such coverage on Fox or even on CNN, but what about public radio?
And then I heard this story tonight on WNYC about a Boeing plant in Long Beach, CA (here's the link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126279959). It is an example of how the story that Zinn tells is both visible and invisible at the same time.
One context for the story is that the C-17 Cargo plane is a prime example of wasteful defense spending, according to Obama. The workers there who may lose their jobs provide another context, as do the international customers for these planes (from Canada to the United Arab Emirates). Naturally, the story's focus is on the individual tale of woe (the worker who needs to put his kids through college) and this made me think that perhaps this is yet another way in which we try to hide the structural story behind the individual's tale. This story about how much our economy depends on international military sales became a story of a hard-working Long Beach dad of four.
I believe that it should be a priority that social issues at home be addressed. It's important that we have strong military problem but that should only be used as a precaution. Wars are being fought, yet we don't fully understand the reason for fighting. This brings me to an encounter with a client at my new job as a counselor. A client was expressing his hardships of having his section 8 being deducted to the point where he will be unable to pay his rent in the near future. He was frustrated at the fact that the United States has the money to go fight the war yet they are cutting all types of programs that are critically needed here. This topic also brings me back to the budget that HSI is trying to figure out given that the politicians in Albany haven't made their decision on what funds they're cutting and how much they're planning to cut.
Manny asked, "Is there a way to make our country secure and protect our national interests (let’s they pretend they indeed are “national” and not corporate) that does not involve militarism?" I truly believe that there is a way but the way that the United States is at this point, it won't happen anytime soon. We're too consumed with the thought of terrorism and fighting overseas that the country will be aiming at strengthening our military forces.
US citizens believe that prosperity brings “safety” and “stability.” (Ironically our nation makes a ton of money selling arms and fighting overseas in an oil field). The chance that we shift interests as a nation seems less likely when we look at the lives most Americans have chosen - at least in the beginning of their careers to establish some wealth: for-profit, corporate jobs. As citizens we're caught between fighting for a cause in a helping sector notoriously known for low pay and the ads that read "Life Takes Visa" – money grants you a better education, better protection for your health and a better retirement.
Is it possible that Costa Rica has more freedom to explore education over military because United States will come to help them if they're in trouble?
Great question, Danielle!
There have been numerous warnings throughout history that fighting a war on two fronts is detrimental to the fabric of any nation. It is apparent that the U.S has never taken this advice. Manny I don’t think it’s a possibility to make this transition. The U.S as we’ve read makes billions of dollars from its weapons industry. I think we all ask great questions regarding change but I’m concerned with other questions such as, how we free and protect nations from tyranny when the weapons used around the world are made In the our country? How do we control what nations have nuclear weapons and those who don’t, as if we aren’t the only nation to ever actually use it! I think in a way the U.S occupies a lot of the countries it does because of the fear that they too will gain nuclear weaponry or allies with such. However, the most Ironic thing about it is that when these nations do receive these weapons they don’t use it, but for some odd reason they all of a sudden have more food on tables of their countries families.
Manny asks what I consider some of the most critical questions for our times. It’s difficult for me to respond to this blog, though, because the questions are so critical and I think require deep thoughtfulness that is also supported by data and information.
For several years, I’ve been pondering these issues and their importance is why I produced the book, “An Anthropology of War: Views from the Frontline,” an edited volume with essays from leading scholars who have been studying war and working in war zones for 25 years or more.
I will say in specific response to Manny's comment that I think the notion of “national security” must be interrogated, deconstructed, and not assumed. History teaches us that leaders bring their people to war in the name of lots of things: in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom, in the name of security. So we must be wary before believing that war=security. In my view—an informed view—war = insecurity even if it brings great wealth to some and what are ultimately short-term benefits to a some larger number of others. But let’s not assume that we’re building up these arsenals and waging these wars because it’s in ALL our interests. US intervention in many parts of the world has brought us insecurity, made us more vulnerable. In addition, as we buy into what I’ll now call “the war myth of security” there are fewer resources available to serve human needs, as President Eisenhower and Manny have pointed out. Let me ask you this: for whom would it be the greatest threat if there were a surplus in the federal budget to provide for the population’s basic needs of health, well-being, clean water, food, shelter? Who and what does THAT threaten? If resources are scarce, well then……who benefits?
I would really like it if you’d read my introduction to the war book. I think it speaks to so many of the issues that Manny raises and gives you a sense of how some of the most well-respected and well-informed war-scholars (at least in my field, anthropology) are thinking about these critical issues. I will send the introduction (titled “War and Accountability”) to Professor Reitz to post on the blog.
Below is a very small excerpt from “War and Accountability”—just to give you a taste…
Let me be blunt about the ambition here. My goal in putting together this collection is to undermine war, to help bring an end to war and the US imperial project……The whole world is living in a time of war—not just particular wars but continuous, imperial war, which has a tremendous, if differential impact, on the lives of most people everywhere across the globe. I come to this project not as an expert on war but as a person living in a time of war who grew up in a century marked by war, has brought children into this war-torn world, and tries to teach young people about it. This collection is not just an intellectual exercise but a plea—desperate, frantic, anxious. Maybe this slight volume can find its way into the hands of the public and into global consciousness, so that we might find a way to end this insanity and be safe.
“How in your opinion are we to prevent war?—still unanswered … let us make the attempt; even if it is doomed to failure,” Virginia Woolf proposed([1938] 1966). For us, it may be too late for prevention, but we can ask instead, “How in your opinion are we to bring an end to war?—still unanswered.” In order to end war, we need to understand it. Even if our efforts are doomed to failure, with this collection we attempt this essential step……
I'm just a comment machine this week. This is a brief coda to Prof. Waterston's mention of Virginia Woolf. For those of you who know about Woolf, you might know that she killed herself at the beginning of the second World War, filling her pockets with stones and walking into a nearby river. Much has been made of her struggles with depression, her unconventional marriage, etc. and her suicide has been read through the lens of a brilliant but idiosyncratic mind breaking down. But as Professor Waterston's quote reminds us, Woolf was a passionate voice against war and her fear and loathing of war was as big a part of her breakdown as was mental illness. She was personally afraid of what a Nazi invasion of England might mean (her house had been bombed, she was an intellectual and her husband a Jewish intellectual). But beyond the personal, her writings, particularly her novel MRS. DALLOWAY, give a devastating portrait of how war is woven through modern civilization and how it makes victims of us all.
Wow, I really did not know how to comment this week, there are just too many questions that are so difficult to target. I almost feel like there is nothing that can be done...
I would just like to comment on Danielle’s post. I think you are right, and that the Costa Rica is able to focus on education more because the U.S. would protect them. I think the U.S. has a stable business in war that provides large profits, and the “war myth of security” is necessary to keep the public... well manipulated. It just seems like fraud when (I sit and assume that ) resources are taken from social services to “afford” the war, and then the revenues of war are kept between a few men.
What should take precedence, social issues at home or our “national security” and position on the world stage? It's a great question and I am not sure how to answer it. I would like to say that we should try to fix our home before we try to fix the whole neighborhood. However, what affects people in China, can also have a negative effect on us here. I am thinking along the lines of environmental problems, and human rights issues. There has got to be a way in which we can focus on our issues at home while we still keep an eye on world events. We should draw the line on when it's okay to intervene in foreign affairs, but the problem is that we do not know where to draw it exactly.
The only thing I can think of that is necessary but not sufficient to answer this complex question is education. We have to be aware of what our government is doing around the globe. We have to question the information we are given, and we should always try to investigate about what is left out of our news and textbooks.
As Manny said, our "national security" and social issues at home are not mutually exclusive. The questions that Manny has posed are certainly not easy to answer; however, I can't help but think that we should work on both issues, simultaneously. I certainly think that national security will always precede, but social issues should be given attention as well.
"Some argue that social inequalities will always exist so attempting to wipe them out is a waste." What about the progress we have made so far? There are so many programs that have been created to help the homeless, etc.... It should not be the case that because these programs don't completely alleviate the social injustices, they should not exist. Such programs are helping social issues as we speak, and if it were not for these programs the social issues that exist in America would be worse.
Manny's questions are definately difficult to answer because we must contemplate many things before leaning towards one response over the other. I also as Ana believe we should try to focus on our nation and try to resolve our problems because we have plenty to solve, before trying to be the unviersal savior as we frequently try to be and desire to be. Not that this is a bad thing it's just why not do both without forgetting much about our home. Now the difficult thing about doing this is that tundoubtedly what affects another country can an may affect us down the line as was evident and continues evident in our stockmarket. Things can quickly go down hill and turn into a disastorIous dominos effect . As for social issues and national security we should be able to focus on handling both with the uttmost importance as I feel they are both rather significant in shaping our lifestyle and society. I prefer to not giveone more importance over another even though many would prioritize national security over social issues.
Post a Comment