This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: nnier – Turner’s (2002) blending (both in Section 6, Chapter One) and
Krzeszowski’s (1997) axiology (Section 7, Chapter One), to name just a few. 88 Chapter III Finally, Roxborough (2003a: 205) formulates his views on the disfunctionality of the American conceptualisation of war and voices them in
the following words:
Deep in its heart, the American military is the victim of a series of
Jominian antinomies: peace and war, war fighting vs. policing, victory or
defeat, war or politics. These intellectual bifurcations serve an organizational purpose: they enable soldiers to accept a role as professionals under
the tutelage of civilian leaders. This mythology is functional for both civilian political leaders and the uniformed military. But because it does not
mirror the seamless nature of reality, tensions and contradictions constantly arise. Because these intellectual categories are artificial dichotomies, reality constantly intrudes in unwelcome ways. Peace and war cannot always be neatly distinguished; the distinction between policing and
military operations is an artifact of the historical development of Western
states; what constitutes victory or defeat is seldom a clear-cut matter, with
one shading into the other; and most fundamentally war IS politics (his
emphasis). It would be difficult to overlook an affinity between these views and
those represented by Hassner, who also stressed the responsibility of the
winners to provide humanitarian relief to the refugees (politics in war)
and the blurring of the distinction between an army and a police peacekeeping force.
Foran (2003) in his reaction to Roxborough’s paper stresses that
the picture of war as politics should be enriched with the connection between war and the economy, and quotes Tariq Ali’s (2003: 18) aphorism:
“Economics, after all, is only a concentrated form of politics, and war a
continuation of both by other means”. He also emphasizes the racial implications present in the American military doctrine perpetrated in the
media through an image of the Iraqis as a “sick society”. Foran’s focus on
the economy and racism leads him to refer to Peter Ustinov’s saying:
“Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich”,
which he quotes from Berger (2003: 34).
Another discussant from the Political Power and Social Theory,
vol. 16, Hooks (2003) gives a short review of sociological analyses of
war. He cites Mann (1986, 1993), who stressed that “states, not classes
and not firms declare and wage war. As war is waged, the state is transformed as are other social institutions and relations among them” (Hooks The concept of ‘war’ in the humanities 89 2003: 235). This definition of war concentrates on its traditional view and
implies that when we talk about class wars or economic wars the word is
used metaphorically. At the same time an emphasis is put on the fact that
the effects of war are not just limited to casualties or equipment damage
and loss on...
View Full Document