On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:36:37 -0600 Jay Maynard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I know of no conservative who considers war entertaining. I'd be perfectly
> happy if there was no such thing as war. Unfortunately, that's simply not
> possible

At a previous time the idea that slavery was the natural state of 
"inferior" races had a certain, shall we say, following and social 
significance.  It too was supported by such bald-faced 
insupportable assertions.  Nonetheless, it has been largely 
relegated to the dustbin of history. Although, no doubt, there are 
some who, in the privacy of their hearts and in the company of 
their fellow travellers, still profess a fondness for the idea.

I put to you that the idea of war is unavoidable is a conscience 
salving excuse to avoid facing the fact that war is the deliberate 
policy of a few to advance a narrow self-interest presented to the 
many as a public good.  On similar evidence one might as well 
proclaim that lynch law is unavoidable and that regulated civil 
conduct between people an impossibility.  And yet, all industrially 
advanced societies ultimately stand or fall on the degree of public 
acceptance of such intangible beliefs.

War is always somebody's choice.  It does not arise as the 
consequence of forces external to human will, either natural or 
super-natural.  Somebody sees an advantage to be had by recourse to 
violence and snatches at it.  It is not far removed in concept from 
the more limited anti-social behaviour that we frequently label as 
criminal.  

Wars only occur because one group imagines itself somehow 
substantially different (in other words, superior) to some other 
group, which group has something that the first wants and intends 
to have, regardless of the desires of the second.  It is the 
perverse actions of those that wish to retain a free hand with 
respect to their own desires that inhibit the establishment of 
substantial international barriers to military aggression.  The 
propaganda that such barriers simply will not work because it is 
not in human nature to refrain from warfare denies the experience 
of our own societies.  Societies whose own internal depreciation of 
violence permits the creation of the surplus resources necessary to 
sustain a central state and thereby establish the means to conduct 
war.  

If you wish to have peace then the means to impose it on everyone 
must be created.  There can be no exceptions. But every ruling 
elite wishes to be exceptional in this respect. Primarily towards 
their own subjects but also towards others.  As states are the 
primary actors on the international stage the will of the rulers 
prevails.  War is not "natural" or "unavoidable."  It is the 
deliberate and considered policy of those who wish to benefit 
thereby.

> The leftists who keep carping this way always omit that the "child"
> is an adult who has volunteered to be int he military, and quite
> often has volunteered to be in Iraq.

And those who deign not to consider the significant numbers of 
those who are in the US military from economic necessity?  What are 
they ignoring?  Is this not cause for some serious reflection when 
one looks at the demographics of army recruiting? And what of those 
whose idea of public service is abused by sending them to fight in 
a war where profit and not patriotism seems to be the light guiding 
those in charge?  How benefits the United States when significant 
numbers of career soldiers vote with their feet and leave military 
service after doing "their bit" and choking back the bile that 
results in the self-realization of betrayal and exploitation?  How 
are the long term interests of the United States advanced when 
thousands of potential recruits turn away from service because 
risking ones own life for a dollar fails that individuals' cost-
benefit analysis, and a compelling ethical social reason for 
service is notoriously absent from the conflict?  

Do the conservatives of the United States really want a mercenary 
army?  One composed significantly of non-citizens as well? Well, 
whether they do or they do not, at the present rate of change, in a 
few years that is what they will have in effect.


--   
     *** e-mail is not a secure channel ***
mailto:byrnejb.<token>@harte-lyne.ca
James B. Byrne                Harte & Lyne Limited
vox: +1 905 561 1241          9 Brockley Drive
fax: +1 905 561 0757          Hamilton, Ontario
<token> = hal                 Canada L8E 3C3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *