Carrol said:
The horror and immorality of war is an essential part of the propaganda of those who would actually lead us into war. It was LBJ who proclaimed loudly "Ah hate war!" Non-violence in its various forms remains a major tactic of resistance. Non-violence as an abstract moral principle merely sows confusion among those who oppose a given war and gives aid and comfort to those who make war.
You're coming close to the nub of the contradiction that led me to post my anxiety-ridden letter a few days ago: violence and it's justification used to effect changes for the "better." Using peaceful practices seems to me to guarantee that those with no qualms to using violence will always get the upper hand. On the other hand, those with no qualms to use violence to effect change get violated themselves in one way or another by those against whom they are contesting. Where the Hell does it all "begin/end?"
C.G. Estabrook said:
To say that it's "wrong [presumably incorrect, not unjust] to call a war _either_ just or unjust," is to give up an apparently natural category that allows us to distinguish, e.g., between the actions of the Zapatistas and those of the Colombian paramilitaries. --CGE
What I'm getting at is that there doesn't seem to me to be a "critical distance" or "objectified stance" when dealing with something this important (if not even things of lesser import). Carrol's post immediately brought to mind the "war of all against all" (more likely "group vs. group") as an eventual outcome of the fight for justice, equality, and other intangibles. Doing nothing only allows those with power to continually try to perfect the hold they want to have.
Ian wrote:
If we are to remain agnostic about the morality/ethics of war then why should anyone get upset about arms races and militarism?
Worry over a possibly impending demise in which one might have no stake? If we want to get materialist about it, that would seem to boil it down to fights for sheer survival (enough food, land, water, shelter). One could get even colder/Malthusian about it and declare that "kills" such as famine, war, and other "non-desirables " are in fact eminently desirable from the point of view of fair distribution. But this is trying to kill a cockroach with a nuke (or is it . . ?).
Ian also wrote"
Again, though, I would ask; in the absence of moral certitude where does the moral authority to inaugurate violence or command/persuade others to engage in violence come from and where does the moral authority to alienate the responsibility to refrain from violence come from? If we attempt to avoid the moral/immoral binarism then why do human beings even attempt to ask questions about "just wars", which are questions about the causes of wars [ex post] not what human beings do in war once they are attacked. Why should we even care what Bob Kerry and others have done? Why should Bob Kerry and others "suffer" "trauma" from their actions? It would be like asking about how angels can remain invisible. Yes these are the deepest antinomies and we are compelled to deal with them now more than ever "here" in the empire at the start of what could be another barbarous century if we are not careful.
The answer seems to be: fake the moral certitude in a "Balzacian" sense (even if you don't believe, kneel, pray, etc. and it will come; vide. The Atheist's Mass), abjure responsibility from yourself and find a convenient scapegoat, march into the cannon's maw (or get others to), eyes straight ahead with a ramrod up your ass, and hope you're not killed.
We are raised to be "social creatures," there is always that recognition of similarity to oneself one finds in the "enemy" that makes the sword hand tremble/hesitate ever so slightly (which is of course why propaganda, indoctrination, and conditioning i.e. "socialization for another group besides the human" is so important in many instances).
This might not be entirely in keeping with the spirit of LBO, but I think the "big barbarism" has just been put off while the combatants get their wind back.
A gloomy Todd