The Dogs of War Are Winning

W.J. Astore

Like a herd of cats, antiwar activists lack unity 

Clearly, on this 22nd anniversary of 9/11, the dogs of war have won and continue to win.

It hasn’t mattered that, over the last 16 years, after a 20-year military career, I’ve written hundreds of articles critical of the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) and in support of peacemaking and diplomacy rather than war making and gargantuan military expenditures. My writing hasn’t slowed America’s collective march toward nationalism, militarism, and war.

Lately, I’ve been working more closely with antiwar groups. They mean well. America needs them. But they are losing.

There are many reasons for this, the main one being the sheer size, reach, and power of the MICC. But there’s another reason that’s become apparent to me that’s perhaps best described in metaphorical terms.

The dogs of war run in packs obedient to the alphas. They know exactly what they want: power, profit, dominance. They are usually cocksure in their confidence and think of themselves as realists and patriots. They are rewarded with loads of money.

My cat. She does not back down to the dogs of war. But she’s territorial and doesn’t play well with others. She’s been known to show me who’s boss. 

Critics of war are more like cats. They tend to be territorial, prickly, and disobedient. They may be against war, but they are often at cross purposes on how best to resist it. They may be quick to take offense at perceived slights and don’t always play well together.  They also have a lot less money. They are likely to see themselves as idealists and to reject patriotism as “combustible rubbish” and “the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

America is a dog country. Cats are suspect, especially antiwar ones. Especially brave cats (Daniel Hale, Chelsea Manning) are locked away in cages. Meanwhile, the alpha dogs make billions barking and growling and howling for war and yet more war.

Until we change this dynamic, the alpha dogs will continue to spread havoc in America and indeed across the globe.

6 thoughts on “The Dogs of War Are Winning”

  1. Bill: As i asked earlier today at Your September 7 piece “Talking and Writing Honestly About War”:

    Will you, the so-called “peace, anti-War, and social justice” community of America, once again walk right past GROUND ZERO — The Real, Whole Truth — looking for something more significant, something more relevant, something more important?

    Will you once again rush to hold your episodic and periodic Gatherings Of The Tribe to rail and rant and beat your breasts and massage your gums and egos against the newest extension and expansion and endless continuation of this so-called “War” at home and abroad?

    This War about which you have — from DAY ZERO, from September 11, 2001 — completely refused and thus failed to “think the unthinkable,” and thus understand, and thus first prevent and then and now stop?

    Will you ever succeed? Will you ever stop ANY War?

    Will you ever really want PEACE instead of just POWER, JUSTICE instead of the JUDICIAL AUTHORITY that comes with that Power, and TRUTH instead of nothing more or less than simply your fair share of the LOOT?

    WHAT WILL YOU DO, AMERICA, WHEN 9/11 HAPPENS ONCE AGAIN?

    What will you do when those who benefited most from its happening the first time determine that the time has come for another major Terror Event, because maximal strategic and tactical political, economic, and, above all, psychological gain is to be achieved with another, with a second “new Pearl Harbor”? Will you once again feign ignorance of their — and your — history?

    WHAT WILL YOU DO, AMERICA, WHEN THOSE WHO BENEFITED MOST FROM THE FIRST 9/11 DETERMINE THAT THEY STAND TO GAIN EVEN MORE WITH A SECOND ITERATION?

    Who and/or What is going to stop them?

    Do you have the courage to even ask yourself these questions? Let alone answer them?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The “Dogs of War” have been winning for a long, long time, Bill. Since long before 9/11.

    First there was OPERATION DESERT STORM, which enabled the US to establish a full-time, combat-ready military presence in the Middle East; something it had been trying to figure out how to do [other than bankrolling Israel] since at least the end of World War II, if not I. That’s how we “licked the Vietnam Syndrome,” according to Bush the Elder; remember?

    Then, there was Ollie North’s Reign of Terror in Central America involving Iranians, Contras, Cocaine, and who knows what else back in the 80s. Which went along perfectly with our bankrolling Osama and Da Boyz from al-Qaeda in our Holy War against the Russkies in Afghanistan. Remember that?

    Then, of course, there was Vietnam and Korea, which was preceded by World War II: the Only way America was able to get out of The Great Depression.

    And, has anybody yet explained exactly How and Why the US got involved in World War I?

    But then the explanation for the Spanish-American War is pretty straightforward: It enabled the US to eliminate and replace the last, dying remnants of the Spanish Empire in Cuba ~ the Gateway to the Caribbean and Latin America ~ and the Philippines, the Gateway to the beginnings of The American Empire in Asia.

    So The Dogs of War have been “winning” for over 120 years. Even if they haven’t actually won a War in the last 78 of them.

    But for those folks, the objective is not so much to “win” their wars ~ whatever “winning” actually is ~ as it is to simply have them. And to keep them going for as long as possible. And to lay plans for the Next War when this one is over and lost.

    Like

    1. “… the objective is not so much to “win” their wars ~ whatever “winning” actually is ~ as it is to simply have them. And to keep them going for as long as possible.”

      Yes. Or, as one of my graduate professors (Buddhism and Sanskrit) told me once:

      “If the Americans come, they will draw an arbitrary line through a temporary problem and make it permanent” — Dr Ananda W. P. Guruge, formerly Sri Lanka’s ambassador to France and the United States

      Like

  3. The “Why” of it all explained:

    Against Empire, by Michael Parenti (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1995)

    Why Intervention?

    The public record shows that the United States is the foremost interventionist power in the world. There are varied and overlapping reasons for this:

    Protect Direct Investments. In 1907, Woodrow Wilson recognized the support role played by the capitalist state on behalf of private capital:

    “Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.” [emphasis added]

    Later, as president of the United States, Wilson noted that the United States was involved in a struggle to “command the economic fortunes of the world.” [emphasis added]
    …
    Create Opportunities for New Investments.”
    …
    Preserving Politico-Economic Domination and the Capital Accumulation System. Specific investments are not the only imperialist concern. There is the overall commitment to safeguarding the global class system, keeping the world’s land, labor, natural resources, and markets accessible to transnational investors. More important than particular holdings is the whole process of investment and profit. To defend that process the imperialist state thwarts and crushes those popular movements that attempt any kind of redistributive politics, sending a message to them and others that if they try to better themselves by infringing upon the prerogatives of corporate capital, they will pay a severe price [emphasis added].” .

    In two of the most notable U.S. military interventions, Soviet Russia from 1918 to 1920 and Vietnam from 1954 to 1973, most of the investments were European, not American. In these and other such instances, the intent was to prevent the emergence of competing social orders and obliterate all workable alternatives to the capitalist client-state. That remains the goal to this day. [emphasis added] …”

    Yes. I think that about covers the essentials of American imperialism (at first Continental and then Global) for over a century now.

    Like

    1. “no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.”

      Hence the global reach and global power of the US Air Force. And the “global force for good” of the US Navy.

      Full-spectrum dominance of all the “useful” corners of the world.

      Like

Comments are closed.