Foran 2003 in his reaction to roxboroughs paper

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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

This essay was uploaded on 02/24/2014 for the course LING 1100 taught by Professor Friedman during the Fall '09 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Ask a homework question - tutors are online