By Steve Hynd
Andrew Bacevich picks up on a new study:
Kriner and Shen possess little of Moore's penchant for self-aggrandizing theatrics. Yet by cross-referencing official casualty records with Census data, they reach a conclusion that affirms Moore's verdict: "when America goes to war, it is the poorer and less educated in society who are more likely to die in combat." Furthermore, this gap is by no means a recent development. Kriner and Shen survey the pattern of US military fatalities in four conflicts, beginning with World War II and proceeding to Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. (Regarding the distribution of casualties in earlier US history�during the Civil War, for example�the authors are silent.) Only in the case of the war against Germany and Japan did "the nation's long-held norm of equal sacrifice in war" prevail. Given the reliance on conscription to raise the very large forces required for that conflict along with the military's refusal to induct anyone who didn't meet strict, if arbitrary, health and literacy standards, "the poorest and most undereducated counties actually suffered lower than average casualty rates." In 1941�45, there was no casualty gap. During the cold war, fairness vanished. With the US intervention in Korea, Kriner and Shen write, "the data show a dramatic change: strong, significant, socio-economic casualty gaps begin to emerge." The evidence they amass strongly suggests that this gap widened further during Vietnam and became greater still when the Bush administration invaded Iraq.
And continues:
Officials in Washington, Kriner and Shen observe, "have a keen interest in reducing the visibility of casualties for fear that greater public exposure will minimize their freedom of action." The casualty gap is "an inconvenient truth" that both parties choose to ignore. For the same reason, officials have a keen interest in concealing war's fiscal implications. They do this by pretending that there are none. Sustaining that pretense works in the near term to preserve the status quo.
This status quo�which includes grotesque inequality at home and perpetual war abroad�persists not because Americans are insufficiently alert to reality but because the powerful are determined to preserve arrangements that serve their own interests. After all, for the rich and the well-connected, inequality translates into privilege. Those who enjoy these privileges�and the politicians who do their bidding�are determined to retain them.
According to Kriner and Shen, "The idea that poorer segments of the country bear a disproportionate share of the nation's sacrifice on the battlefield is antithetical to American democratic norms." This is not political science but wishful thinking. However regrettable, the fact that poorer segments of the country bear a disproportionate share of wartime sacrifice is entirely consistent with the actual practice of American democracy.
That "equality of sacrifice" fable also extends into the mythical equality of representation. Poor folks generally are far more likely not to vote, because they know neither party is interested in representing their interests. It's the very understandable anger at that equality that the Tea party is riding, and misdirecting with it's "God, guns and gays" bigotry.
At what point will American's figure out that"It's the Class War, Stupid"?
The libertarian Ron Paul-ites and the Jacksonian tradcon Buchananites of the Tea Party are anti-war.
ReplyDeleteOpposed and oppose Iraq and oppose Afghanistan where
the presumably bigoted Islamophobe (if you ask the Muslim world's diminished opinion) Baruch Obama, goes on drone bombing innocents.
Perhaps these are a minority of increasingly marginalized Tea Party members and perhaps not; if you have current polls, please post them. But assuming the worst, the enlightened "un-bigoted" left-progs of the Dem Party have not exactly lit up the streets with anti-war protests against their erstwhile hero's aggression.
H Ken,
ReplyDeletethe enlightened "un-bigoted" left-progs of the Dem Party have not exactly lit up the streets with anti-war protests against their erstwhile hero's aggression.
If you care to look at our archives under "Af/Pak", you'll see we here at Newshoggers have been doing our little bit to try to change that.
Regards, Steve
Cockburn at Counterpunch has been occasionally trying to do it since early in the Iraq War. But with a more latitudinarian coalitional view re the disaffected Right. Obviously when Palin can address rallies adorned with a most unpatriotic "I stand with Israel" lapel pin and not get booed off the stage, there is roots work yet to be done. lol.
ReplyDelete