Post-Modern, Deconstructionist, Neo-Colonial, Diverse Approaches to War

Being back in America after a summer of automatic weapons, NATO, and barbed wire really opens you up to the absurdity with which we as Americans, at home, look at war "out there."

For instance. Shopping ("choosing") classes at Yale. I was interested in approaching war through different disciplines and approaches (philosophy, politics, history, literature). What I got instead was the "Post modern, deconstructed, neo-colonial approach" to suffering, security, and war. Now, I can do academic speak with the best of them, but somehow this approach is a little... removed. And not just physically. Is it missing the mark?

Sure, I think its better to see through the fog of war when you are outside of it, when you have fog lights, and when you have the blessing of distance and reason. In war, most people would lose their minds. Search for immediate answers and solutions. Take sides. Play defense. Its a life or Death situation. Therefore, academia and logic come to support these things accordingly. Nationalism becomes an academic institution. Linguistics are part of the national agenda. Therefore, it makes sense in many ways to study war before going into it and outside of it. No one wants a general who has never studied a war before!

Yet outside the wartime environment, I wonder how we imagine (or refuse to imagine) the suffering, strategy, pain, failure, and successes (how and if they exist) in wartime? At some point in the 20th century, the existence and critique of war took a whole new turn. When, finally, in 1928 with the Kellogg-Briand Pact, 15 nations (including France, US, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan) denounced war as an instrument of national policy, it seems like the critique and protest of war took a whole new level. If war was not just "politics by other means" as Clausewitz might have put it, but indeed an instrument (is this fair to say IS friends?), its seems like there are more alternatives to war. Are other instruments there? If warfare changed drastically since Clausewitz's time with modern weaponry and weapons of mass and systematic destruction, then there must be a sort of peacemaking that must also evolve that is mass and systematic. With the new type of peacemaking and new type of war, came a whole new type of criticism of war... mass criticism.

Mass criticism. Think of the intellectuals (Einstein included!) who were dragged into the peacemaking process in 1917-1919 after WWI. Think of the journalists during WW2. What about Rebecca West, the epitome of a "modern woman" critiquing and reporting on Nuremberg. Think of Vietnam and the mass protests. If anti-war protests ever reached a peak, it would probably be surrounding Vietnam. I haven't heard pop anti-war songs against Iraq, but think of those singing about leaving Vietnam (my personal favorite being Country Joe & the Fish's "The 'Fish' Cheer" or "I-feel-like-I'm-fixin-to-die," some lyrics being "put down your books and pick up a gun, we're gonna have a whole lot of fun/And its 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for?/ Don't ask me I don't give a damn/ Next stop is Vietnam."). Think of the deaths from student uprisings. The mass movements and social protest. For our time, when Iraq costs more than Vietnam. When we are approaching a decade in Afghanistan. Where are the protests?

Or are they even necessary? Should we bother?

As Susan Sontag explains in her book "Regarding the Pain of Others," "The argument that modern life consists of a diet of horrors by which we are corrupted and to which we gradually become habituated is a founding idea of the critique of modernity---the critique being almost as old as modernity itself." I wonder if we just got tired of the fight to even protest it. Are we in an age of Mass Apathy? Did we got too comfortable with Wal-Mart and the war games we buy from their shelves for our Xboxs and PlayStations? Perhaps we don't care enough. Perhaps we don't see the repercussions that war spending has on our economy or on the lives of the families of soldiers.

Perhaps we just got too enthralled with protesting mosques to protest wars.

Yet, when I ask most people from my generation, they don't really think about the war. There isn't a forced conscription. They have never seen or held an automatic weapon. More interestingly, they think protests and social unrest have no place or point in American society. There are other ways. Get power. Get jobs. Get sex. Get money. Get it all, but don't lose your sense of morals! Get beyond that "european" social unrest. Protests and "social movements" are for anarchists and hippies... not hipsters or preps. To many in my generation, we think our parents were just smoking pot, holding signs, and screaming at "the man" because it was cool. Just like wearing American Apparel and dancing in dingy basements is cool now. Friends have told me, "If we want to make social change, its not through a perpetual party, so why protest? Protests are irrational." I'm not disagreeing.

So, "What to do." as they say in the Balkans.

At Yale, when we are sitting next to advisors to Presidents and former world leaders, we are too worshipful of the fact they are there to even ask meaningful questions. Students want to be friends with these guys and impress them with their quotations and Washington Post knowledge. We of all people could actually say something, probe, and maybe practice asking questions that still let us sit next to them the next class without losing our integrity and respect. If anything, we should be practicing this skill of asking those questions before we really screw up in the "real world." If I ask someone why they didn't ask a probing question, they respond: "Well, (fill in the blank topic: security, IS, history, lit) is just so complicated and I didn't want to seem stupid."

Is my generation habituated to apathy? Are we too comfortable?

or are we just restless and blow off steam in other ways....