Core Warrior Values
Like military intelligence, it is an oxymoron, though not devoid of (unintended?) resonances.
Core Warrior Values.
Isn't it a wonderfully macho phrase? Staunch. Robust. Muscular. Just look at those rippling core warrior values. Cor.
Why 'Warrior'? Why not 'Soldier'? Or 'Military'?
The word choice will have been deliberate.
Somebody thought about it, probably more than one somebody.
A public relations officer somewhere mulled it over, showed it round the office. Asked their manager, "Hey. What do you think? Warrior? Or Soldier? I wondered about 'Military' but - meh - it just doesn't have the right ring to it. Too stodgy. Too organisational."
Maybe they even did a focus group.
Warrior. Not Soldier.
Perhaps 'soldier' also had too much of that organisational reek. 'Soldiers' follow orders, do what they're told. They permit their autonomy to be erased. They consent to be reduced to cogs within a very particular kind of machinery. That's not nearly as cool as being a 'warrior.' The term 'warrior' lends itself to associations with nobility, with heroism.
And also, 'soldier' might lead to further inconvenient questions. Like "But were they not being cog-like then, when they murdered that toddler?" and "But weren't they just 'completing their mission' when they shot that man in the wheelchair?"
It might lead us to the conclusion recently drawn by the peerless Gary Younge that "These atrocities are not contrary to the ethics of this particular occupation but the natural and inevitable consequence of it." As he said in the same article "This is what occupation is; this is what occupation does."
Let's look at the phrase holistically for a second: "Core Warrior Values."
What are they? Well the PR machine would have it that they're about things like not killing civilians (or at least not killing the conspicuously unarmed ones, unless you have to hand an adequate supply of shovels and AK47s with which to appropriately outfit your victims. It remains advisable, however, to remember that no matter how many shovels you lay down beside that little pre-schooler's corpse, the total effect is always going to lack a certain verisimilitude). In other words -- well, for all the obvious reasons, 'core warrior values' training is not going to be about persuading warriors to act decently. At best it's an effort to persuade them to refrain from the most egregious forms of indecency in those situations where discovery and publicity is likely.
But like so many of these resonant phrases, 'core warrior values' turns truth on its head. Up is down. In is out. Speech is silence. War is peace.
If you want to know about core warrior values, go ask the Sabine women (and wasn't it just too cute for words how that worked out?) Go ask the inhabitants of any of a wide array of towns and cities after the Mongols came. Or those from Constantinople just after the Fourth Crusade. Or the estimated 12, 000 Jews who died in the Rhine Valley, killed during the First Crusade by Crusaders en route to Jerusalem. Ask those who fled to al-Aqsa mosque what those crusaders did on arrival. I suspect they would prove quite informative about what -- traditionally -- have been 'core warrior values.'
Evidently, it's a tradition embraced with some enthusiasm by the U.S. military and their (I'm not quite sure what the right word should be. Colallies? Allonies? Coalitionies? Colonition? I think that last might be my favourite) Colonition.
And as for 'Core?'
It could mean 'hard' -- I suspect that was what that PR officer was going for. Like 'the solid unshakeable core.' Or 'hard-core.'
But I find myself thinking of a different core that's kind of squishy and surrounded by something even squishier (maybe even a bit mouldy in places -- not green or black mould like you get on bread, but that white, powdery-looking stuff that collects on the particularly brown, almost liquidy-soft spots like mini-snow-drifts). The whole thing smelling somewhat fermented. Maybe a bit vinegary. A bit like cider, come to think of it.
Core Warrior Values.
Isn't it a wonderfully macho phrase? Staunch. Robust. Muscular. Just look at those rippling core warrior values. Cor.
Why 'Warrior'? Why not 'Soldier'? Or 'Military'?
The word choice will have been deliberate.
Somebody thought about it, probably more than one somebody.
A public relations officer somewhere mulled it over, showed it round the office. Asked their manager, "Hey. What do you think? Warrior? Or Soldier? I wondered about 'Military' but - meh - it just doesn't have the right ring to it. Too stodgy. Too organisational."
Maybe they even did a focus group.
Warrior. Not Soldier.
Perhaps 'soldier' also had too much of that organisational reek. 'Soldiers' follow orders, do what they're told. They permit their autonomy to be erased. They consent to be reduced to cogs within a very particular kind of machinery. That's not nearly as cool as being a 'warrior.' The term 'warrior' lends itself to associations with nobility, with heroism.
And also, 'soldier' might lead to further inconvenient questions. Like "But were they not being cog-like then, when they murdered that toddler?" and "But weren't they just 'completing their mission' when they shot that man in the wheelchair?"
It might lead us to the conclusion recently drawn by the peerless Gary Younge that "These atrocities are not contrary to the ethics of this particular occupation but the natural and inevitable consequence of it." As he said in the same article "This is what occupation is; this is what occupation does."
Let's look at the phrase holistically for a second: "Core Warrior Values."
What are they? Well the PR machine would have it that they're about things like not killing civilians (or at least not killing the conspicuously unarmed ones, unless you have to hand an adequate supply of shovels and AK47s with which to appropriately outfit your victims. It remains advisable, however, to remember that no matter how many shovels you lay down beside that little pre-schooler's corpse, the total effect is always going to lack a certain verisimilitude). In other words -- well, for all the obvious reasons, 'core warrior values' training is not going to be about persuading warriors to act decently. At best it's an effort to persuade them to refrain from the most egregious forms of indecency in those situations where discovery and publicity is likely.
But like so many of these resonant phrases, 'core warrior values' turns truth on its head. Up is down. In is out. Speech is silence. War is peace.
If you want to know about core warrior values, go ask the Sabine women (and wasn't it just too cute for words how that worked out?) Go ask the inhabitants of any of a wide array of towns and cities after the Mongols came. Or those from Constantinople just after the Fourth Crusade. Or the estimated 12, 000 Jews who died in the Rhine Valley, killed during the First Crusade by Crusaders en route to Jerusalem. Ask those who fled to al-Aqsa mosque what those crusaders did on arrival. I suspect they would prove quite informative about what -- traditionally -- have been 'core warrior values.'
Evidently, it's a tradition embraced with some enthusiasm by the U.S. military and their (I'm not quite sure what the right word should be. Colallies? Allonies? Coalitionies? Colonition? I think that last might be my favourite) Colonition.
And as for 'Core?'
It could mean 'hard' -- I suspect that was what that PR officer was going for. Like 'the solid unshakeable core.' Or 'hard-core.'
But I find myself thinking of a different core that's kind of squishy and surrounded by something even squishier (maybe even a bit mouldy in places -- not green or black mould like you get on bread, but that white, powdery-looking stuff that collects on the particularly brown, almost liquidy-soft spots like mini-snow-drifts). The whole thing smelling somewhat fermented. Maybe a bit vinegary. A bit like cider, come to think of it.
posted by dove at 10:44 pm
17 Comments:
Hi Dove, I just wanted to let you know that I finally posted the diary on Hatian Immigrants at BT.
http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/6/28/225946/653
Thanks for the encouragement,
Super
All those loose WMD, ,right, and Bush is giving the Iraqis guns, very big guns, which were illegal under Saddam, (for obvious reasons)... Now why would the US government want to arm the citizens of Iraq? Right to bear arms? Ha! The excuse for us to occupy eternally! All else is a smoke screen!
Hi Dove,
How are ya? I haven't seen you post in few (maybe more) days, and was just concerned. Yes, it's true :o) Nothing to do with my diary at all...and I don't profess to know your blogging habits. Just a feeling that came up on me a few minutes ago. Just checking in :o)
Hi supersoling,
just to let you know I'm fine -- thanks for checking in. I ended up being out of town over the weekend and have been - I don't know -- missing DTF and poco, dealing (or rather failing to deal) with writer's block and being my generally distrustful and deja vuish self about MLW.
I do want to make substantive (if belated) comment on your diary, -- which was brillant BTW -- don't you ever dare say you aren't a good writer again! -- but at this point, may do so through email.
From poco:
Love colonition--implies so many things so efficiently.
(Actually, also love cor! Always wanted to use it, along with "chase my aunt fanny up a gum tree!")
Hmmm...core warrior values--is that what attacked 15 year old Abeer Hamzeh when she was raped, shot and burnt? And her 7 year old sister, Hadeel Hamzeh, who was also shot along with their parents? I dunno, dove, soft and squishy and shit-like, seems inadequate to represent the rage and utter despair that reading about Abeer and Hadeel arouses.
Or, maybe this analogy (to fecal matter) is the best way of denigrating "core warrior values;" let the term become one of distaste and contempt in future, so that no one may be able to invoke it with any seriousness.
But right now such a blinding anger fills me upon reading of such atrocities that a barbaric, irrational response seems the only way to go. (Yeah, I know I am using the stereotypes evoked by all the occupation armies throughout history, but I think I can understand how these labels came to be in use)
From poco:
On other issues--I am going to be engaged with the parental units till mid-August, so my posting is going to be spotty at best. And y'know what--DTF was right re the whole cleaning routine--I needn't have bothered--they were still struck by my slovenly housekeeping. (sigh!)
Thank you Dove,
Like I said, it was just a weird feeling that snuck up on me that day. Glad to hear you're alright. And no need to make any further comments about the diary. Although they would be welcomed :o)
About MLW, I just registered there not long ago, and already some things about it seem mighty familiar. Apparently Lilian (Stark) was banned, then un-banned. Problems wih Arthur Gilroy's style too. Same S&it, different blog.
Too bad.
And this is for Poco if she's listening. I posted a diary at BT about a short notice meetup, centered around the Riverhead Blues Festival on Long Island this coming weekend. AG is a tentative yes. Spiderleaf, CookTing, CabinGirl, her boys, and possibly Booman, are coming out for it. If you're interested in hanging out for a while give me a shout at colorsplash62 at optonline.net.
Cool
Hi poco,
So good to hear from you -- I'm sorry to hear that DTF was proved wrong on the housecleaning front, but hope their visit is going well.
And come mid-August you will have no excuses ;)
"let the term become one of distaste and contempt in future, so that no one may be able to invoke it with any seriousness."
Yes. For what it's worth, this was written in anger. But in order to disrupt organised/militarised violence (and I do want to) I think we somehow have to find ways of making 'core warrior values' and soldiering more generally, risible. Laughable. A bad joke of a job, not worthy of respect and certainly not something that an honourable person or responsible person would involve themselves with.
I think that because I think that a large part of militaries' allure (around the world) lies not only in their promise of financial benefits for a willingness to kill people, but rather that they promise respect and honour to people who desire those things and often don't see other ways of getting them. I think it's a case of finding other ways to meet that need and challenging militaries' self-portrayals so that those organisations aren't seen as a credible way of gaining respect or demonstrating that one is an honourable decent person.
I think that much of the power of militaries comes not from their weaponry (though obviously that's a huge part of it) but from the ways in which they have been able to make dominant their self-portrayal of themselves and their interpretations of their actions.
That is to say, their ability to promulgate the belief that soldiering is honourable, worthy of respect, a demonstration of loyalty and courage, that becoming a soldier is a way to develop self-respect and self-discipline (now there's a bad joke!) and that soldiers automatically deserve the respect of civilians (Think of all those U.S. civilians who obsequiously say 'thankyou for your service' to uniformed soldiers. And yes, a fair number of those whom that subset of U.S. civilians have collectively thanked will be child rapists, murderers of toddlers, killers of unarmed civilians, torturers. That is what Occupation is; that is what Occupation does; that is what Occupation makes.)
Anyway, I'm ranting. But I think
the idea of soldiering as an honourable profession needs dismantling -- needs to be made laughable, a ridiculous notion prima facie.
From poco:
I agree, dove, that "challenging militaries' self-portrayals so that those organisations aren't seen as a credible way of gaining respect or demonstrating that one is an honourable decent person," is one of the more important tasks that we need to do. I am glad you lay it out so clearly.
This reminds me of another post of yours in which you said that the reason that the militaries are seen as worthy of respect is precisely because it is the victors (in this case victorious armies) that control the writing of their histories.
Interesting though that now the names of the Huns, Vandals, Visigoths etc are terms that evoke repugnance (even if most of us are apparently descended from Chengez Khan, lol). The way of the militaries these days is to insist on their differences from those that sacked, looted, ravaged and plundered, while they go about doing exactly the same thing.
The problem may be fairly deep-rooted--according to Carole Pateman, a feminist political philosopher, the initial contract between the State and its citizens was that the State would undertake to look after the citizens in return for the men citizens' willingness to fight the enemies of the State and for women citizens to produce sons willing to defend the State. If this is the basis of our "social contract" it will be rather hard to interrupt the self-aggrandizing narrative of the militaries.
Supersoling--I did read that diary at BT and was filled with envy. I am going to be out of town (travels with family) during that time, so despite my desire, it will be impossible to meet up. darn!
Poco,
sorry to hear you won't be able to make it this weekend. But maybe we'll try to do that Gilroy, jazz in the city meetup we talked about a few months ago.
Oh, and forget trying to please your parental units with a clean house. It's your house, no? Let them adjust to you ;o)
DTF,
I guess the writer's block has fallen away. One thing is certain. You are a catalyst for emotional and challenging discusion. FWIW, I'm hearing you. I really am.
You're absolutely right Nanette, about the importance of names, and that telling distinction between who gets named and who doesn't.
Abdul Hamid Hassan Ali and Aisha Younis Salim were the people I was thinking of, which I had to look up because I did not know them. Both were murdered in Haditha.
Is Alex ever having a tizzy, Nanette!
Something you said a while back has had me thinking there's this thing about who has the luxury of that kind of un-consciousness -- to just say whatever comes into their head, without reflection or even a desire to do a bare minimum of fact-checking so as not to look silly. I remember you saying something along the same lines once, I think.
Yes, the question is 'what's going on?' in that beneath the surface way. As usual, I have no answers ;)
I have a 'not answer' though. I don't think it's just the race to the centre before the election that we all know and love. It seems more visceral than that and possibly less orchestrated.
The dustups at BT and at MLW -
to be brutally honest, it feels like a bunch of white U.S. people (not entirely, perhaps, but mostly) saying "This is white U.S. space. You are only welcome here if you make white USuns feel safe, or don't make them feel unsafe (The rhetoric about safety, but I think it's actually about comfort). Obviously not all white U.S. folks on those blogs are part of that bunch -- at MLW some were among the targets.
And one of the perks of having that white privilege or that U.S. privilege is that they don't have to actually say the "This is white U.S. space" bit -- or even that it's white USun's who are the ones who are to have that safety. Hmm. I seem to be stating the glaringly obvious tonight.
In the 'Music' discussion you said
"And then comes the internet... folks still attempting to operate within their safe, comforting boundaries (all the while insisting that of course they are not doing any such thing... and they might actually mean it), but because there are no physical boundaries or police or enforcers to make sure these boundaries are kept, people are being somewhat forced to adjust to the fact that there is no going home, or back behind their boundaries because they don't exist well online."
Yes. Or else they're becoming their own enforcement, while claiming not to be? That takes some gymnastic ability, but yes, I saw some photos that AG put up of dKos (I thinkit was dKos) and they seemed frighteningly white.
It seems to me that at BT the emphasis might be slightly more around preserving U.S. privilege (right this minute, anyway) whereas at MLW I think that (right this minute), it's more about preserving white privilege. (Ductape's diary, for example, did not generate the level of 'shock! horror! a generalisation!' at MLW that it did at BT -- despite the fact much of the bru-ha-ha over there centred on accusations of over-generalisation. Now possibly that could be because they're all tizzied out right now. But I don't think so).
But why now -- or these past few weeks -- particularly?
I think there's a prevailing wind of sniping at the moment because we are approaching another 'moment of truth' here in the U.S. If the majority of Americans were truly disgusted by the actions of our government, then there will be a landslide of support for candidates who support human rights and peace. It's hard enough to get Democrats elected in primaries who support those positions, let alone in a general election. George Bush should've been defeated soundly in 2004 and he wasn't. It was close enough for the shenanigans in Ohio to make a difference. That is appalling to me.
I wish it were not so, but even talking with people here in the blue part of my state, there's casual remarks thrown about towards Others that make my skin crawl. The horrific reality is that there is a 53% support of an Iraq withdrawl because the war isn't "going well", instead of it being recognized for the atrocity it was to begin with.
I wish I had more faith in my countrymen and women, but when I see them go on with their lives without a flicker of outrage on the current state of the gulf coast region, or the unending deaths in the desert here in the southwest, or the fact that poverty is soaring, or even the horrendous state of Native American reservations, I have a hard time seeing the U.S. as the beacon of light that many hold onto. That bubble burst for me a long time ago.
I think that is why I don't take offense to posts like Ductape's latest, or others from international authors, I agree with the reality described because I see it all around me.
DTF,
Thank you for reading it, assuming you did ;o) I have to give much of the credit to Dove though, because it was her idea and encouragement that caused one of my infrequent diaries.
About Alex, and the comment from your diary above. I wanted to challenge that comment. I did. But I have a soft spot in my heart for that person. It doesn't justify ignoring it, but I just didn't want to be the one. In other words, I'm an Ostrich. A visually pleasing Ostrich ;o) but an Ostrich all the same. I'm really very shocked to hear those comments coming from that person. And there's something to be learned there as well. I know it. The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend apparently. Only as long as the tough stuff is avoided will we remain friends. And that's not a real friendship at all. This isn't easy stuff to deal with. But I appreciate your diaries all the same. Deep down I always have.
Nanette,
Going way back myself -- that phrase 'anchors of war' is brilliant. The idea that history is 'wars and that stuff that happens between them,' the wars being the main event. It's hugely important as a strategy for naturalising the practice of war.
And yes -- the 'but we need an underclass' argument for open borders just doesn't cut it.
It's akin to the 'leave cos 'we' lost' strand of anti-war stuff.
Although, I do think there's sometimes a need to point out to those who are anti-immigrant that as things currently stand they are by-and-large maligning people on whom -- or rather on whose exploitation-- they probably depend. But without allowing that slide into "well, if we don't let them in, who will clean your toilet, and who will wash the dishes" Or do we need to be able to make that point? Maybe we don't -- at least in that particular argument -- given the way they one could easily slip into the other.
And it's not as though the desired end of opening the borders is a world where people are compelled for reasons of survival to be economic migrants -- the point -- in part at least, is to disrupt that.
Hi Man Eegee -- (I tend to mostly lurk at your place too, but the appreciation is mutual and it's great to see you in full voice here). This may come across strangely and somewhat incoherently, but I'll say it anyway: are they your countrymen and countrywomen?
What I mean is -- well, yes, you were born on the same patch of earth as most of them, but when push comes to shove what does that coincidence mean? What I guess I'm trying to say is that you may find that it's not actually 'your country' per se -- just the place that you happen, for now, to live and which you have, perhaps, considerable affection for. That change in perception doesn't alter your political obligations or responsibilitise any -- we all have political obligations that are local as well as trans-national -- but it might be liberating in other ways. Hmm. Does that make any sense at all?
supersoling,
FWIW, I've been in awe of you lately.
As for your diary, let the credit rest where it should: with you. Yes, I said 'go write a diary about this' -- but why did I do that? Because of your words.
are they your countrymen and countrywomen? Yes and no. They are in the sense that their actions affect my life directly, as well as the life of my family and friends. I've written before, but it's becoming increasingly clear to me that I subscribe to a similar code of ethics as yours listed on your main page that you are "a citizen of the world." When casual terms of American culture are thrown about I have to laugh because it I were to make a list of my influences and the quirky ways my life has been lived through family/environmental influence, it's a better bet that more similarities would be found with Mexican culture than East Coast Americana.
I guess that's why being labeled "Anti-American" is not something that bothers me very much. I have no idea what they're talking about as the term has little bearing on the Me that is present and engaged.
O man, I just found this convo through Manee's site. Man do I wish I'd known about it earlier this week. Great dialogue here, much appreciated.
Post a Comment
<< Home