War by any other name...

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…or so Juliet surmised as she thought desperately on how to get the man without the family. Despite the truth of Shakespeare’s line - that the name of things doesn’t matter, only what things are – the words we introduce into our lexicon can evolve into a being of their own, which may ultimately have little resemblance to the way things are.

Human conflict has no recorded beginning. The use of language to describe conflict is probably as varied as the conflicts themselves. The etymology of the English word War is only about a millennia old and for most of that period the use of the word as a noun has been pretty consistent. Simply stated it is used to describe military conflict between organized societies. Rarely did the civilian element of societies actively participate. Much of recorded history over these past 1000 years has been framed by these conflicts as periods of significant change, often brought about by the conflicts themselves.

Such is not the only use of the term War. War is frequently used as an adjective relating to items or behavior connected with conflict; war-paint, war-dance, war crime, war chest, war weary, and so forth. However, something has changed regarding “war” in America over the past century, and the past 60 years in particular. It is the result of success, the speed of information, and the desire to persuade through the merchandizing of fear. It probably has no precedent.

World War I ended in 1918. It was not good experience for our relatively young Republic. Called The Great War and The War to End All Wars, the US was only in the conflict for just over a year and yet the losses were horrific, both through military casualties and, especially, disease. It was so unpopular that following it a new isolationism kept Woodrow Wilson from entering the US into the League of Nations, which he created. This did not stop, however, a growing Romantic conclusion over the years that America had essentially cleaned up the European mess, a partial truth at best.

The end of World War II was considerably different for the American population as a whole, but it built on the Romance. The success of that conflict which ended with the United States displaying powers that no other nation had (nuclear weapons) turned the attitudes of the general population toward War into something new. Not only was WWII glorified, it colored the attitudes of past conflicts, including WWI. The word War, as a noun, took on a new meaning. Instead of representing conflict it began to represent an ethical state of being.

The affect of this change in the use of the term has been profound and insidious. For this nation, after WWII the concept of War was like mainlining heroin. The high was too great, however with each successive injection the outcome became worse. The United States, more than any other nation, has become a War junkie.

Although undeclared, as required under our Constitution, the major military engagements since World War II - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq - have increasingly resembled something other than War although each has been named as such. The Iraq invasion in particular resulted in a protracted hostile occupation eight times the length of WWI and yet it was one in which we labeled as a War throughout…war against who?

It is not hard to see that nearly every time our leaders, public and private, have been faced with social issues they have applied the term and mass marketed it; the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, the War on Terrorism, or how about the War on Cancer, and the War on Pollution. There are of course the Cola Wars and even a War on Christmas, which Conservatives tag to the alleged liberal-Jewish media. The word come to represent how the nation should deal with issues…but how is that bad?

The use of the word War in all these cases, including the military conflicts, is sinister. It lures people into supporting the underlying motives of the originators, but in nearly all cases the conclusion to the “War” is not part of the equation. Historically, wars ended with a winner and a loser, even if the particulars of that ending were negotiated. With the new wars there really is no winner or loser. Does Cancer win or lose? Does Crime win or lose? In Iraq and Vietnam did we win or lose? The Korean War is still in effect, 60 years later. There is no winning or losing in all these cases because there is only the conflict itself.

The reason this is bad is because the new Romantic concept of War inhibits any productive action on the issue. There is only slugging it toward a mythical victory. The War on Drugs, for example, has cost more than most other wars (military or otherwise) and imprisoned many more people than all the American prisoners of war in all America’s military engagements combined. Yet because it is a War, those who are bent on some kind of declared victory are unable to address the real human condition and how to improve it. So the “War” goes on and on. How are we doing so far?

There is not an ounce of common sense that justifies a War on Terrorism. You might as well call it a War on Fear. As such America will remain terrorized with no end, and the politicians who trade on that fear will continue to remain in power. How easy would it have been for George W. Bush to invade Iraq and impose the Patriot Act if, instead of a War on Terrorism, we simply became part of an international effort to reduce and neutralize terrorists around the world?

War by any other name would not smell the same. In fact the word stinks. It is time to end the pursuit of “glory”… and the addiction.

Hang 'em High

Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republican pack of Presidential contenders embraced a new line of contention in their December 15th debate. At least it was one I hadn’t previously noticed. They did so in a way that displayed both an eerie pandering to right-wing social interests and an embarrassing ignorance of just how our particular form of government works. I refer to their attack on our third branch of government – the Judiciary.

Michelle Bachmann was by far the most colorful in her attempts to lasso this contrived concern as a backdoor attack on such issues as woman’s rights (including abortion), gay rights, workers rights, voter’s rights, and the suspension of individual liberties in the name of security…to name a few. In her Meet the Press interview following the debate she said the following:

"What we need to do about it is have the--both the president and the United States Congress take their authority back. And I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbiter of law is the court system. It isn't."

I can’t imagine what foolish people out there have the audacity to think our court system is the final arbiter of law. Obviously Michelle is geh-fumpted suggesting Obama, in just three short years, has managed to turn over interpretation of US law over to the courts! Those pesky judges actually being allowed (by Obama of course) to sit at their benches and make decisions about disputes of law brought before them. What can you expect from a Kenyan socialist?

The fact that the Supreme Court currently has a Conservative majority doesn’t appear to appease her. When asked by David Gregory of Meet the Press whether she felt Congress should ignore Court decisions they (Congress) didn’t like, she said:

"No, we don't ignore those decisions. But, again, we need to remember that the United States Congress and the president of the United States have the power and authority to pass law. We have the idea that laws are ultimately made by courts today, but that isn't true. It--the, the, the--Congress, together with the president can pass law and change what the, what the Supreme Court says….The problem is the Supreme Court or other members of the court have passed decisions that aren't in conformity with our Constitution. That's what we take issue with. That's why it's important that the people have their representatives be able to pass laws as the president would sign in conformity with their will."

She also said in the same debate that she was a "serious candidate for President of the United States". I mean…seriously? The only thing she’s a true candidate for is talk show host on Fox News.

Newt Gingrich doesn’t have the same Land of Oz approach to our Constitution as Bachmann. Still, his rhetoric calls for Judges to be subpoenaed by Congress to defend their decisions, the presumption being that Congress can reverse those decisions in some fashion (by-passing superior courts?). He believes such has ideological relevance - Constitution be damned. Of course both candidates are pandering to that liberty loving right-wing element of the Republican Party that somehow believes those individual freedoms which they find personally offensive are unconstitutional. Bachmann, who has proven herself since 2008 to be a political half-wit, is about as offensive in her assertions as say…the town drunk is about sobriety. However, Gingrich, with his declaration of being a political scientist and historian, is truly offensive…and a little bit scary.

I find it an entirely reasonable argument that the US Judiciary is the most critical branch of our Government, allowing this representative democracy to survive nearly a quarter of a millennium…it is the glue. It’s the branch which brings strength to the US Constitution primarily because 300 million people for better or worse are willing to accept the conclusions it reaches in dealing with dispute. It is hardly flawless. Yet even with all the frailties human beings inherently bring to any organization, the American Judiciary has withstood the test of time with historical consistency and a remarkable resistance to corruption. It is the hidden jewel within our Constitution, keeping the Nation on track even as politicians frequently attempt to derail it.

The US Congress, a body which often operates more like a plutocracy than a democracy - pushed this way and that by social currents - is hardly a place for consistent and just arbitration, nor is the Executive Branch. One could only imagine the instability that would exist if there was no acceptance and reasonable faith in our Judiciary. Bachmann declared in the same debate that we were not a banana republic. Too bad for her.