A War is Not a War Unless They Call it a War

A War is Not a War Unless They Call it a War






So as the US, UK and Australia are preparing to engage in yet again another war, a new kind of double-speak starts to emerge. Georgie Brandis the Australian Attorney General stated
 “This is not a war, it humanitarian mission with military elements “.

Which is as believable as “shock and awe” was a firework’s show put on for the public of Iraq with the use of planes, when in reality it was the indiscriminate bombing of the Iraqi people.

The US are now employing even more ambiguous terms rather than calling it as it is. Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate armed services committee,

“If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific [Isis] targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Dempsey said, preferring the term “close combat advising”.

 Hagel and Dempsey testify on ISILSo they are not calling the US forces placed in Iraq  “soldiers” but “advisors”. It is a term that is meant to detach them from the reality of the war they placed themselves in. As advisors are only there to “advise”, like a platoon of combat consultants. Yet, if it’s just advice why not utilise skype video conference call?  Then he adds later

“Advisor they may engage in close combat”

So now “close combat advising” has suddenly become “advisors in close combat.” Meaning they cease advising, get their guns out and start shooting people. It is hard not to think the terms used by Brandi and Dempsey have been carefully chosen in order not to press the public disapproval button. They continue patronising the public thinking that if they do not call it a war then it must mean it is not a war.

Yet it feels like we have been here before. It seems once the war drums start beating the mainstream media fulfills its unspoken rule, to rally around the establishments position, amplifying the agreed strategy. This means the public hears no voice of dissent or is exposed to other viable alternatives other than waging war. The media likes to talk-up its credentials and expert “know-how” by showboating former generals, admirals and defence department personal. They all are, unsurprisingly, pro-war.  Then, to make the media’s position even less credible, Lee Fang of the Nation   reveals in recent article that many of the key “former army” pundits are linked to defence contractors that will profits from their advice to “go to war”. Yet why should former general and admirals, implementer of war crimes be so venerated ?  For example, General Allen who is fawned on in the press. Such as this PR puff piece in the Guardian stating,
http://www.thenation.com/article/181601/whos-paying-pro-war-pundits

He has experience battling extremist insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he also boasts impressive intellectual credentials and an unusual amount of foreign policy experience for a senior officer. Thoughtful and softly spoken, 60-year-old John Allen”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/iraq


 General John Allen

This is a man proud of the fact he commandeered troops in Afghanistan, making him an architect of a botched and costly war that brought nothing but death and destruction to local population. He is paraded out like he is “The authority” or “The go to guy” on what to do in Syria and Iraq. With a straight face John Allen calls ISIS

 “an entity beyond the pale of humanity.”


Yet how much even further “beyond the pale” were his army and actions after the plunder of murder and mayhem in Afghanistan and Iraq? So why are these military authorities being asked advise and insight into what should be do? It is not much different to the farcical approach to fixing the financial crisis where the perpetrators of the crisis where brought in and suddenly called the “solution makers”. It is so fucked up its almost surreal.

Now war in the US establishment is not a last resort, but rather it is the first response. As it seems the option of negotiation is not even on the table. Obama has already ready lost standing for not striking hard and fast in Syria in the first place. Non-negotiation was same route the US took with the Taliban, “We won’t negotiate with terrorists “ they brazenly affirmed. Then, after year on year of failure, they conceded this was an option they had to consider. So this mind set of “Bomb first, ask question later”, is clarion call for all other nations to join and get behind. As the world unites behind the goal of destroy ISIS they rally around a simplistic narrative, which is exemplified in Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott response to ISIS (probably in the hope of getting a back slap or high five from Obama)

“To join ISIS. It is very dangerous. It is wrong. It is against God. It is against religion. It is against our common humanity”





Framing it this goodie verse baddie, god on our side not theirs, insures a number of things. Firstly, it dehumanise the enemy and takes away any  110211-O-XX000-001genuine, how every twisted they have become, grievance about what they are warring about, as they become Anti-god and anti-humanity lessor beings. Second it ensures we make no effort to really understand the root cause of how and why ISIS has come into existence, as it assume history started three months ago. As outlined in this Christian Science Monitor article the formation of ISIS has come from years of the Sunni minority in Iraq feeling persecuted and punished. The Shite government of Iraq is no more or less corrupt than the Baathist government was under Saddam Hussein; with the exception it is open to US business interests and giving access to its oil.

What they are up against with ISIS isn’t an evil army, rather it distorted and twisted consequence of how victims can so easily becomes the villains, as those who have violence put upon them respond to that with more violence to those who do so. Thus perpetuating an endless cycle of violence. We see this in Israel, as the Israeli government is acting more and more towards Palestinians like the Nazi acted towards the Jews. So locked into this way of thinking that can’t even see the cruel irony of what is happening to them.

The cynic in me feels it is hard to think that these military advisor and high-ranking politicians don’t know what I know. It is hard to consider that they are unaware that this will not end quickly, that you can’t bomb away grievances and many innocent people will be killed in the process. They know they aren’t looking for war that will be resolved quickly but war that we drawn out and protracted. Then giving the defence industry the further profits they are looking for. Already BAE Britain largest defence contractor shares have gone up as talk of war heats up. We have billions of dollars of vested interest in creating and arranging a demand for war. It wouldn’t surprise me if the CIA had undercover operatives imbed within in ISIS encouraging the act of barbarity in order to trigger the public outcry. There may not be of course, I have no idea but what I know is they will use whatever treacherous and Machiavellian means are required to get war on the table.

So this is place we have got to, where we have theatre of actor’s nodding their head with sombre gravitas in the senate subcommittee. All reciting theirs lines to a script built for public consumption. Yet like the Iraq war, all the debate and discussion was mute anyhow as they had already decided they were going to invade. Yet the fact they have to put a on a show and use different wording, tells us that how the public responded does matter. That even though it doesn’t feel like it these people are answerable to the public, as the money they waste on war and murder come everyone’s hard earn tax dollars. So the only way to stop this sociopathic insanity of war for the sake of war is demand something different. We see now in Scotland real tangible example of this taking place. As one the key planks the SNP campaign on is “No more nuclear submarines in Scotland” and a commitment not to renew Trident at the cost of £40 billion. It is because of positions like this that everyone, all of the who’s who of the elite establishment is coming out against independence. As that type of mind set they say “ we citizens of Scotland decide if we have your weapon of mass destruction not politician in Westminster “ So we can take Scotland’s lead and put war in its rightful place as barbarous, cruel racket to be avoided at all costs.

By E.F Nicholson

Via - http://things-that-matter.net