The “Virtuous” War

War is now being promoted as bloodless, humanitarian, and hygienic. This is not the reality.

By: /
14 June, 2012
By: James Der Derian
Professor at The Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University

I wish to make the case that there has been a fundamental continuity to U.S. foreign and defence policy, stretching from the first George Bush to the second, with only minor deviations in the Clinton administration, and now the Obama administration, and that this continuity can be traced through the concept and practice of what I call “virtuous war.”

I believe definitions, more often than not, close down rather than open up the kind of debate that I hope will follow this online forum. So, rather than define this term, I wish to offer a provocation, presenting “virtuous war” only as a felicitous oxymoron that expresses a contemporary dilemma of world politics. What is the dilemma? In the process of making war virtuous, we, as a people and as individuals, have become less virtuous.

Getting to the heart of this dilemma requires a bit of deep thinking, which is why, in my research, I have leaned on a group of German thinkers: Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl von Clausewitz, and Walter Benjamin. Nietzsche said, “Only that which has no history can be defined.” So, rather than a definition, I intend to present a very short history of virtuous war, in all its shape-shifting forms.

Clausewitz, who did define war, rather famously, as a “continuation of politics by other means,” also cautioned against the arrogance of reducing war – which he presented as a historically contingent phenomenon befogged by complexity – to any single, fixed definition. Through Clausewitz, I wish to convey the unintended consequences of virtuous war.

The third thinker is Walter Benjamin, who, in an earlier interwar period, made the observation that, “history now decays into images, not stories.” So, I want to begin with a montage of virtuous war, which I hope will do a better job of capturing its historical, complex, and increasingly pixelated nature than any definition or linear story might. I intend to draw as much on images as words, to show, rather than tell, how virtuous war has become the driver of U.S. foreign and defence policy.

This embedded video is the product of almost two decades of research in search of what became the staging grounds for virtuous war – or, as I called it, with apologies to general-turned-president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the military-industrial-media-entertainment network, or MIME-NET.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XLUI6sM8nQ

I hope this montage gives you some sense of the genesis, as well as the hubris, of virtuous war. I hope the short history conveys how its founders sought to project a technological and ethical superiority, in which computer simulation, media dissimulation, global surveillance, and networked violence would combine to deter, discipline, and, if need be, destroy the enemy. Up to and including the early stages of the Iraq War, virtuous war promoted a vision of bloodless, humanitarian, hygienic wars. I wanted to show how virtuous war predates and post-dates George W. Bush, and how the road to Afghanistan and Iraq, and back to Afghanistan, emerged from a series of armed humanitarian interventions in Grenada and Panama, Somalia and Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Virtuous war is the closest we moderns have to a deus ex machina swooping in from the skies to fix the dilemmas of world politics, virtually solving intractable political problems through technological means. However, these virtual solutions inevitably give rise to new political problems. We see these cycles renewed with every Predator drone that takes out the wrong target, and with every wrong door that gets broken down in pursuit of the “bad guys.” When war becomes the first, rather than the last, means to achieve security in the new global disorder, what one technologically can do begins to dominate what one legally, ethically, and pragmatically should do. Virtuous war thus presents a paradox: The more we resort to virtual means to resolve political problems, the more we undermine the very ground upon which our political virtues rest.

As long as the U.S. remains the dominant military power, with no real or potential peer competitors, virtuous war will prevail. But the story waiting to be told is the advent of a new heteropolarity, by which I mean the emergence of actors who are different in power and kind (state, corporate, group, individual) and connected nodally through networks rather than hierarchically through states. Sovereign states are still the most powerful actors, and one does not have to be, say, Chinese or a Somali pirate, to recognize that a single state, the U.S., is definitely more equal than the rest. However, from the power of the powerless that emerged from the Velvet Revolution, to the range of insurgencies that followed the global “war on terror,” to the hope and uncertainty of the Arab Spring, new globalized identities and asymmetries of power are re-inscribing the map of world politics. Now, our theories and concepts of war need to catch up.

Photo courtesy of Reuters

Before you click away, we’d like to ask you for a favour … 

 

Open Canada is published by the Canadian International Council, but that’s only the beginning of what the CIC does. Through its research and live events hosted by its 18 branches across the country, the CIC is dedicated to engaging Canadians from all walks of life in an ongoing conversation about Canada’s place in the world.

By becoming a member, you’ll be joining a community of Canadians who seek to shape Canada’s role in the world, and you’ll help Open Canada continue to publish thoughtful and provocative reporting and analysis.

Join us

Also in the series

Building A New Internationalism

Building A New Internationalism

By:

War, some would have you believe, is inevitable and internationalism is obsolete. Not so argues Noah Richler.

Whither Humanitarian Space?

Whither Humanitarian Space?

By:

Integrating militaries and humanitarian actors in Afghanistan came with a cost.

Between Co-operation and Co-optation

Between Co-operation and Co-optation

By:

Aid agencies must find a way to work with militaries and still be neutral.

A Drone Field Guide

A Drone Field Guide

By:

Unmanned aerial vehicles are filling the skies both in war zones and at home. Get to know them.

The Cost of Drones

The Cost of Drones

By:

Jennifer Welsh on why military drones and liberal democracy don’t mix.

Drones Vs. Democracy

Drones Vs. Democracy

By:

When war no longer comes with a political risk, what does that mean for democracy?

The Outsourcing of the Cyberwar

The Outsourcing of the Cyberwar

By:

Increasingly, non-state actors pose the biggest cyber-security threat argues Jon Penney.

Environment At War

Environment At War

By:

Climate change presents a whole slew of new security concerns says Richard Matthew.

A More Humanitarian Military

A More Humanitarian Military

By:

Today, Rahul Singh received a Jubilee medal. Last week, he shared his vision of a more peaceful future.

A Whole-of-Government Approach

A Whole-of-Government Approach

By:

The Canadian military is just one piece of the disaster-relief puzzle.

Recalibrating the Response to Domestic Terrorism

Recalibrating the Response to Domestic Terrorism

By:

Stephen Flynn wonders why the Cold War security apparatus is still being used to fight terrorism.

How To Protect Canada From Terrorism

How To Protect Canada From Terrorism

By:

Kent Roach considers Canada’s improving, but still poor, record of terrorism prosecutions.

Just How Threatening is the Terrorist Threat?

Just How Threatening is the Terrorist Threat?

By:

“The 9/11 decade is over” declares Wesley Wark.

Foreign Policy Is Not Just Defence

Foreign Policy Is Not Just Defence

By:

Canadian foreign policy should be about more than providing military support, writes Roland Paris.

Lessons From Afghanistan

Lessons From Afghanistan

By:

In Afghanistan, the military made good decisions without Ottawa’s okay. Steve Saideman on what this means.