military

The Burden of the Soldier

Earlier this month, a little-discussed headline read “Muted Ceremony Marks End Of Iraq War.”[1] Of course, neither the war in Iraq nor the occupation are really ending. Thousands of private security contractors remain in the country (as do the fifteen thousand employees of the Baghdad embassy).[2] The end of conventional military operations reflects the changing usefulness of the soldier to the state.

Generally speaking, the soldier’s role as provider of security is secondary to his role in propaganda. Regardless of an individual soldier’s motivation in joining the military, his primary function is to serve as a rallying cry for the fellow subjects of his state.

The nefarious motives behind wars, the endless political treacheries, and the massive fortunes accumulated by military industries must all hide behind the image of the soldier. He is portrayed as the best reflection of a grateful society, and elevated to the shining status of a religious icon, in the hope of blinding everyone to the cesspool of narcissism, corruption, and corporatism behind every war.

. . . the fact that parades, monuments, political speeches invoking their suffering, and streams of fawning news coverage are not only nonexistent for mercenaries, but scarcely imaginable, says much about the role and primary purpose of the soldier.

The soldier’s role, however, also burdens the state. Once an ongoing condition of war is cemented as the new normal, the soldier becomes, in many ways, a nuisance to the state. Soldiers invoke their own image and become outspoken critics, either of incompetence within their endeavor or of the endeavor itself. Soldiers write blogs, record embarrassing pictures and videos, and share them readily through social media, eroding the myths upon which the state relies.

Also, to justify the suffering of soldiers, the state is increasingly pressured to explain its endeavor and demonstrate progress. Neither mercenaries, mindful of their employment status, nor clandestine forces, carefully screened and highly disciplined, present such a burden. . . .

Read more

Veteran Voices — literary reading at Iowa City’s “The Mill”

I read at the Mill alongside four other veterans.

I read the essays “Narrative and Memory at War” and “Something Worth Fighting For.” It was a great event all around. I had planned to record myself, but forgot.

The Daily Iowan published a review of the reading:

“My cynicism also shows in this one. So… sorry, believers,” he said before he began reading his second piece.

But even Skaskiw, a graduate of the Writers’ Workshop in 2007, agreed that Monday’s event was effective.

“Wars are important events regardless of what you think about them,” he said.

The Military Mentality

It’s quite easy for nation builders to believe they are doing good. I can attest from personal experience, handing out other people’s money feels great, especially handing it out to desperately poor populations and in exotic and far-away places.

Locals demonstrate a profound reverence you’ve probably never encountered before (and never will again). They hang on your every word. Why should a nation builder look past his personal greatness and benevolence and see in himself instead a bureaucrat respected only because his thumb rests on the flow of money?

If it’s not the goodness of the endeavor, then it’s the goodness of the institution. Soldiers can consider the military a proud institution steeped in noble tradition — I’m not sure I entirely disagree — and many stand ready to let themselves be wielded as a weapon by the representatives of their state. (Read more from mises.org)

“Fighting for Freedom” in the Middle East — the military mentality and unintended consequences

This lecture was given at the 2011 Property and Freedom Society Conference.

Powerpoint presentation: here
Essays based on this lecture:
– The Military Mentality
– Bureaucratic Management and Unintended Consequences

Very flattering review of the conference and my lecture here. I agree with Jame’s sentiment. The PFS conference is a rare visit to the outside of the asylum.

Roman Skaskiw at 2011 Property and Freedom Society Conference

Who will question our wars?

A couple weeks ago, I attended my first Republican district convention. I missed 2008’s, having been deployed to Afghanistan’s Kunar Province on my third combat tour with the Army.

I’d hoped to speak in favor of a friend’s amendment to the party platform, which would have tempered its implicit support for American militarism.

Neither Iraq, nor Afghanistan, are mentioned in the platform. Instead, there is support for “the proliferation of democratic principles around the world,” and praise for military technology and our troops. As is usually the case, the misguided motives of empire hide behind a fawning over its servants.

Sadly, the opportunity to speak was denied when two-thirds of delegates (exactly enough, we were told) voted to suspend the rules and adopt the existing platform without discussion. I suspect they were motivated by exhaustion rather than censorship. Hours of slogans about limited government, the philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution had taken their toll. So I make my point here:

(Original link at desmoinesregister.com seems broken, so click here)

Narrative and Memory at War

I am aware that two war movies, “The Hurt Locker” and “The Messenger,” have received multiple nominations for the Academy Awards. Though I’ve enjoyed war movies in the past, I haven’t seen either of these.

I’ve stopped watching movies about our current wars for the same reason I don’t like recounting my scariest moments for voyeuristic friends. I am protective of my memories and don’t want them crowded out. . . .

(Read more from opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)

(This is the last of a five-part series, “Retelling the War,” in which veterans discuss how books, movies and other tales of combat shaped their perceptions of themselves and of war.)