In 2001 I was a 23 year old unquestioningly nationalist regular army soldier. I literally counterprotested peace marches, and argued publicly in support of coalition invasion (only we always called it "intervention") of Iraq. I volunteered to go, and in 2005 I got my chance. I was sold a bill of goods. I was used as a political pawn by people who couldn't have given less of a **** about either me or the Iraqis I hurt and killed, who I was allegedly there to "liberate" (this was the supposed casus belli after the much hyped "weapons of mass destruction" failed to materialise). We served with honour and distinction for what turned out to be a dishonourable and ignominious cause. Before I went, I was well educated, smart, energetic, knew it all and on a fast track to a distinguished career in health, tentatively tapped for a subsequent representative role with the Australian conservative political party. It was all laid out. Instead, I came home wrecked, completely disillusioned and betrayed. My mental health took a huge hit, which led to a major physical health incident not long after, and my life has been in a generally downward trajectory ever since. I'm now a 41 year old nobody, working a mundane job of little consequence, and with few prospects of achieving anything significant from here on.
And holy ****ing **** does it hurt watching us gearing up to do it all again. Call me Cassandra.
I eagerly await the imminent arrival of the Trumpettes and Usual Suspects to tell me I'm wrong, that it will all be over by Christmas, that we'll be welcomed as liberators, how from the comfort of their armchairs they know how to achieve quick, unambiguous victory with extended supply lines into a large, mountainous country with a large, motivated and engaged population... all the usual stuff. Send your kids, let politicians who won't send their kids send your kids, please don't learn from my example.
I agree with you. I grew up with the same tactics and learned early in life to be able to see through them. As a wee lad growing up during the Vietnam War era, as well as the concurrent Cold War, I saw how the government, the media, as well as others used the same arguments which were outlined in the article you linked.
But there was also the other side - the same side which oftentimes today gets ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists," since they don't believe everything the government and media spoon-feed the people on a daily basis.
Throughout my lifetime (and even before), there has always been a strong undercurrent of dissent against government and a mistrust of politicians. I understand and support this. However, my biggest frustration lies with those who constantly defend the government when people put forth allegations of wrongdoing. (I'm not referring to political partisanship or Trump v. Hillary, but people who defend the government for its own sake.)
From the link:
It’s not really necessary that people believe this official reason; only that it be plausible enough that they can pretend to accept it.
I find it interesting that there's a familiar pattern. People will often trust the "official reason" given by government, without any real scrutiny, skepticism, or even the slightest bit of hard evidence - since people tend to give government the benefit of the doubt and accept that we simply have to take their word for it. The same standards are not applied to dissenters who refuse to believe the government, as they're generally put through the ringer and soundly ridiculed, with unreasonable and strident demands for "extraordinary evidence" to support their supposedly "extraordinary claims."
But I submit that it's not an "extraordinary claim" to suggest that the government is guilty of wrongdoing. Politicians lie; that's common knowledge. It's also common knowledge that the wealthy and powerful interests are those who rule the country, and our society is not really so "free" and "democratic" as so many propagandists would have us believe.
But if someone tries to tell people that, they constantly run into roadblocks set up by incessant government shills and other cheerleaders for the government.
I've even seen it in this forum. I've been called out and ridiculed because I dared to refer to the CIA, NSA, and FBI as "scum." People like to think of those agencies as white knights and defenders of freedom, and no one should ever dare question their integrity or honor. Likewise, we're supposed to think the same way about judges, police officers, and prosecuting attorneys.
However, I don't fully agree with the article where it said:
Because beneath both the pragmatic and sentimental reasons is a deeper, more primitive one: People like war. We are aggressive animals who exult in killing, and once every generation or so this instinct expresses itself in a vast spasm of tribal violence, a mass murder. We still practice human sacrifice, just with modern rationales. Though I’m sure the Aztecs thought their reasons were self-evidently reasonable as well.
I don't believe that it's really true that "people like war." More often than not, people believe in all the myths about America's role of "making the world safe for democracy," and it's from that source of wrong-headed thinking that leads people to conclude that war is necessary in order for America to carry out this holy mission. (Some even think of it as "God's will.")
Coupled with that is widespread ignorance about what the outside world is really like and how things operate. But that doesn't stop people who barely got through high school touting themselves as supreme experts on geopolitics and the war aims of the Soviet Union (or other countries).
In the case of Iran, many Americans still remember the embassy takeover in 1979, the holding of our people as hostages, the burning of the American flag, and mobs of people shouting "Death to America!" A lot of people were wanting to go war back then, but Carter refused to do so. Reagan went even further by not only refusing to go to war with Iran, but he made backroom deals with them because he saw Nicaragua as a graver threat to America. (This is the kind of sordid nonsense which really made America appear weak and stupid, as if Fredo Corleone had somehow risen to become head of the Family. This is also the best indication that there are/were a lot of crooked people operating within our government.)
Since then, we've heard increasingly escalating rhetoric about the dangers posed by Iran - and how they're trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against America. Both parties and most of the mainstream media have been complicit in spreading this rhetoric, so they've been building up to war with Iran for quite some time now.
Truly, I believe the best way for America to avoid war is to remain neutral as much as possible. We should stay away from permanent alliances and foreign entanglements. We should withdraw our troops from overseas postings and shutter all our overseas bases. We don't need to get involved in this crap.
I've taken this position many times in the past (which some people misguidedly label as "isolationism," but it isn't). And I've faced the same "usual suspects" who vehemently argue against that position and favor interventionism. Because we're "making the world safe for democracy."
Believe me, they're not all Trump supporters either.
One notable individual who was an unabashed interventionist was John McCain, and he was certainly no Trump supporter. A lot of Democrats have also been ardent interventionists (and in fact, it was the Democrats who first came up with these globalist interventionist policies in the first place).
Another thing the article mentioned was the "wimp" card, but that's pretty easy to counter. After all, it's kind of wimpy to advocate sending young kids off to war while the warhawks stay at home. Moreover, it's equally wimpy to selectively limit our "enemies" only to nations which have absolutely zero chance of fighting back or winning a war against us. Prior to the invasions of Iraq (both in '91 and '03), the media were telling us to expect a long, drawn-out fight, what with Iraq's million-man army and its vaunted Republican Guard.
The same tough, chest-thumping warhawks suddenly turn into chickenhawks when faced with a proposal to go to war with a country which actually has the capability of fighting back and possibly even hurting us.