Si vis pacem, para bellum
Ehrenreich's Book
and the Problems of War
(Barbara Ehrenreich, Blood Rites)
Ehrenreich is a remarkable writer of serious subjects that she treats
well. Her book on killing and war brings a large amount of details that
put this subject into critical focus. As one of her points, she brings
out the sacral aspects of killing other humans in war or peace. Of
course, in this subject that involves nearly every aspect of life, not
everything is fairly covered and I suspect, she is seduced by
convictions where she reaches far fetched or erroneous conclusions.
Nevertheless, I recommend this work as a good and necessary
intellectual diet that can enlarge the views of many readers.
After a while, when you keep reading about all these gory “Blood
Rites”, the mind begins to question, is the author really suggesting
that human struggle and wars are due to the desire of bloodthirsty
warriors to have excitement and perverse experiences ? I think that my
urge to add comments (that are based on a very different life
experience), is due to the authors aim to find the causes of war. Her
efforts seem directed toward a campaign to prevent war and to work for
legislation to make all war difficult. In other words, Ehrenreich is a
pacifist at heart, but one who is too smart to proceed without trying
to understand her subject. She deserves high credit for this and I wish
most intellectuals on the Left (her spiritual home), but also on the
Right (for different reasons), would adopt this approach before they
begin to confuse the public. Unfortunately, this is not so. Karl Marx,
a great and famous example of a modern intellectual, has said
in his early work: “Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden
interpretiert; es kömmt darauf an, sie zu verändern” [1],
(Philosophers have only interpreted the world variously; it matters to
change it.)
This statement shows an arch sin of many intellectuals who want to
be “activists”. To change things without first understanding them well
is the height of folly, yet this is common. The last century has shown
us what this brings, but man has a a short memory, he prefers to act
and, as our author shows ad nauseam, to act with barbaric violence. To
be a pacifist without trying to know why wars happen is a capital folly
of pacifists. Ehrenreich deserves all credit for not
falling into this trap even if her analysis misses the mark in that it
over interprets less important details and to an important degree,
forgets basic facts of life. For seeing this, we need to disregard for
a moment the gory details and look into the very foundation of all
individual existence.
At the beginning of life, when primitive protein matter coalesced into
a working cell, this was also the beginning of individual existence.
The
cell had separated itself from amorphous protein material and now it
had to fend for itself. Some of these cells fell apart (divided
successfully), and a population of cells began to grow, but all of the
globs needed to go after the same food to support their metabolism.
This is the basis of the universal contention (or competition) that we
see in the
world. Strife and battle for existence is inseparable from individual
life. The next step happened when some of these primitive cells, who
had become quite diversified under the impact of the differences of
environment accidentally exchanged genetic material. This produced a
few superior “cells” - and it was the beginning of sex. But the
interchange brought also the beginning of enmity when the meeting cell
chemistries did not react favorably and may even have tried to absorb
each other for food.
These elementary drives, are the essence of all individual existence.
Love (φιλια) and hate (strife, quarrel, νεικος), were seen by
Empedocles (as by Heraclitus) as basic forces of life which have been
with it from the start [2]. They became even more consequential with
the help of reason by man with his groups, tribes, societies, and
nations. There is an unfortunate asymmetry between these two life
forces. Love cannot develop into more intense forms with the aid
of tools, but hate was tremendously intensified in the organized forms
of warfare where, due to the need to find better weapons, this has been
the ultimate promoter of sophisticated technology.
We recognize the desire for individual existence and its defense as the
root of all the problems that we experience [3]. It is folly to think
that any system or organization could remove or neutralize these
primitive drives because life cannot exist without them. All that
a society can hope to achieve is to control them (ennobling them) as
far as advisable. Attempts to go beyond that, create the disastrous
problems of excess, typical for attempted utopias. Defense will always
be needed for the same reason as there will always be criminals who
must be subdued. To dream about a world without war is as naive as
dreaming about a world without police.
However, if done with wisdom, the military world can be regulated well
and effectively. The founders have seen clearly what needed to be done
and civilian control at the right point was their solution. What
Ehrenreich describes in great detail are often incidental, barbaric and
unnecessary sides of war, primitive rites of early civilization. On the
other hand, she overlooks that the need for defense is absolute and
with it brings the need to attack a developing danger in the bud, i.e.,
the possible need for preventive wars of defense. This cannot be taken
in an absolute sense but depends on the circumstances. In any case, the
defense, of country and individual, is something that we cannot ignore,
nor should we deprecate it, it would cost too dearly. History has ample
evidence that developing dangers have been ignored for the love of
peace with the result that the use of force became finally inescapable
and by then, the trouble had been allowed to develop so far, that its
control became extremely costly in lives and destruction. WWII is a
recent example, but it happened throughout history.
Contrary to Ehrenreich's insinuations, we must state most clearly that
a warrior who puts his life at risk in the defense of his country is a
noble character, who deserves the highest honor in his society.
Conversely, any deviations from his obligations must also be valued as
very serious with grave consequences because he is armed and we need to
trust him. A society which ignores the distinction between the
contributions of a warrior and, say, an office worker, has lost its
fiber and may have to pay the high price of losing its freedom. One has
to study history to see the many cases when countries failed with their
defensive posture, and finally perished in a desperate struggle [4].
For a country that can select its own government, it is much less
likely to start a war without very good reasons as compared with a
tyranny where decisions can be made arbitrarily by a single person. The
situation, principles, and justification for war in the present
American situation have been enunciated and explained in the defense
strategy and posture of the United States. The availability of Atomic
or Biological weapons requires now the utmost vigilance as a subject of
extreme importance, justifying actions preemptively if no other
measures have results. It is a dangerous weakness in the country if the
public and the media do not understand this important document which is
as much directed at the others as it should inform the citizens. But
many do not seem to understand the difference between a violent
criminal and the police who must bring him under control by deadly
force if necessary. Both act violently, it is true, but one is the
cause and the other the necessary cure.
It is a very old experience that protracted pacifist talk about “peace
under all circumstances” will bring war with near certainty because the
peace talk reinforces the belief of the attacker that he will get away
unharmed. People who do not believe this, should try to talk about
peace and love the next time they are under attack by a mugger.
I am convinced that the diplomats, as a rule, are too friendly and
cultivated for the dealings with rogue regimes, especially today. One
has to be absolutely clear and straight about his position, with
credible statements. Several recent wars, I believe, have been caused
by too diplomatic replies to the potential aggressor. WWII, the Korean
war, and the Gulf war come to mind when warriors (and millions of
others) had to pay with their blood for the cautious tone of the
diplomats and the lack of credibility of their threats. In all these
cases, the message was clearly not sufficient to bring the potential
aggressor to the conclusion that war will result with certainty from
his contemplated action, and that his opponents are very well prepared.
If that message had succeeded, only a mind with total irrationality
would still go ahead towards his own very likely defeat and
destruction. While one does not need a shoe to pound a table,
diplomatic softness has become a hindrance when it is essential to be
clearly understood (which includes the credible willingness to use
force).
Πὀλεμος πἀντων μὲν πατἠρ ἐστι, πἀντων δἑ βασιλεὐς.
War is the father of all things, of everything the ruler.
Heraclitus (500 BC).
Notes and References
[1] Karl Marx, Thesen über Feuerbach, 11.
[2] While the origin of hate is in the competition for food and space,
love is grounded on the deep connection between all beings. The desire
for being close together is without doubt a strong glue that keeps
groups and nations from falling apart. However, while the struggle for
individual existence produces repulsive forces, the awareness of being
the same in all our functions (except our individual experiences and
memories), is the attractive component. Ehrenreich goes too far to
state that a victorious battle may be a necessary event that fuses a
state into a unity. Language, customs, and common history are the main
state preserving elements which arise originally in the instinctive
awareness of identity in spite of the individual separation. We
feel this identity very clearly, when we see ourselves in the
other beings - if they are in danger, if we are embarrassed for them.
This sentiment is the basis for highly moral action when we help the
other Self in sympathy as much as we can, possibly all the way to
self-sacrifice.
[3] In Calderon's great play "La vida es sueňo" (Day I,111)
Segismundo,
under the impact of disasters, exclaims: pues el delito mayor del
hombre es haber nacido (because the greatest crime of man is
having
been born ! – a crime, one could add, on which there is the
death penalty - without parole or leniency). A discourse about killing
ought to question the value of life - has it sufficient value to
be desired in spite of the inevitable problems and pains that it brings
about? Is it worth without qualifications, or not? Life cannot have
infinite value, but how great is it? Considering the way how things
turn into disasters and, sooner or later, bring suffering without hope
and a bitter end - we face a value judgment whether the pains, and
pangs of perennial unsatisfied desires, are acceptable in favor of what
life can actually give. If we observe people, after they were saved at
high expense and can now live a few years longer, then spend their time
with card games? Is the plain experience of just living sufficient? I
do not think such passivity is advisable. Of course, nature makes life
extremely seductive and most young people will say, of course, yes,
yes, I want life. But for an old and chastened soul, the question is
better asked: would I really want to repeat it, if I could? And if yes,
for what purpose? Wasting it in boredom or in want, depending on luck
and willingness to be strong? Or did I have a purpose? If I did,
what was it and how well did I succeed? Personally, I think that life
can indeed be a terrific experience, an adventure well worth the
efforts that are necessary to gain it (in addition to an absence of bad
luck). But good positive efforts are indispensable, not the least of
which is the need to keep physically fit. Another necessary thing is to
keep up a high spirit, interest, and the will to use the opportunity of
living. If you complain about boredom, you are on the wrong track.
We hear the sad stories of the fallen young soldiers. But, if they had
lived, for what would they use their time? Is it better to die as a
young person in a car accident (ca. 42,000. per year in America alone),
or as a gang member in a drug dispute in a big city, or as a soldier
fighting in the
service to his country? The old said : Quem di diligunt,
adulescens moritur, because the best part of life is in youth. - -
- I think that the public takes too many things for granted
without thinking, except Barbara Ehrenreich, when she writes about the
blood rites to make us think.
Aristotle defines Happiness as the state of mind in which we are when
we can use our facilities best. A horse is happy if he can run fast, a
dog is happy to retrieve, and many men are happy if they can fight. In
Hispanic countries (and the South of France) they have the bull fights
to spare human blood. It “brings the people together” even without
spilling of human blood. The killing of the innocent bulls is barbaric,
but it may be better than leave the desires and drives completely
unfulfilled. Or would we prefer what the Aztecs were doing? In the more
civilized countries we have the football competitions and it arouses
men and women so much that bloody fights between the spectators are a
regular
feature (especially the British football visitors are known for causing
bloody trouble on the continent). Recently, the Iraqi football team
scored an unexpected victory over the Saudi team. It was the most
effective event to ”bring all Iraqis together” in wild victory
celebrations. We do not need wars for this purpose, but we do need to
be able to defend our interests as an item of supreme importance - this
is an essential difference which we must stress over and over again.
[4] A country without defense generates very bad ideas in the minds of
the neighbors, particularly if this country is rich. Sooner or later,
such a country will be invaded and plundered. It has happened with
frightening regularity. I remember 1938 when my old country, Austria,
was invaded by Germany under Hitler and not one shot was fired in
defense at the aggressors. The Austrian Chancellor had given orders not
to resist in order to “avoid the unnecessary spilling of blood”. Well,
this fateful order was a grave mistake. The Chancellor clearly could
not muster the strength to ask for the sacrifice. True, a couple of
brave soldiers and gendarmes would have been killed and the immediate
outcome would not have been much different. However, in the peace
negotiations after the war, Austria found herself in the position of a
woman who claims rape, but had not resisted at all. On the contrary !
The Hitler propaganda had shown to the world the pictures of the people
in Vienna (the Nazi part) as they were greeting the “Führer”
enthusiastically. Of course, nobody saw the other two thirds of the
population who were in silent shock. The effect of this propaganda
victory has been very great and the blood sacrifice would not at all
have been in vain.
Of course, we do not know, but it seems certain that
even a short struggle with some victims would have changed the picture
so drastically that it would have changed the willingness of the
Western powers not just to go along, but to refuse to accept the rape
as a
fait accompli, and to take a much firmer stand also a few moths later,
when
Hitler pulled the same trick with Czechoslovakia. It is not too far
fetched to muse that even WWII a year later could have been avoided
with a firmer position of the Western powers early on. Blood in the
service
of your country is never spilled in vain and the strength of leaders is
shown in their willingness to use force if necessary. More than
anything else, it establishes their credibility. Examples for this are
too numerous to be ignored.
Copyright © 2007, Gernot M. R.
Winkler 12/30/2008