Friday, February 4, 2022

Blog Post 5; Why War?

Why War?



    War is, without a doubt, a very prevalent topic in news today. We see, read, and hear about all of the events and tensions contributing to the hostilities between two nations, but why is it that we never see, read, or hear strong anti-war voices in media? 

    To find these anti-war sources it seems that we have to do intense internet digging to find them. Two sources that are leaders in online anti-war publications are AntiWar.com and The American Conservative. Each of these sites offers news on wars and tensions that are happening right before us, while the media refuses to cover it. Although no one likes war, it is vital that someone deliver the truth. 

    AntiWar.com is arguably the leading platform to deliver this news. They state that they are devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and that their politics are strictly libertarian. AntiWar.com's work is
read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, greens, and independents alike. They even welcome the criticism and opposition from imperialism from those on the right.

    Their opposition to war is rooted in a concept from its parent foundation, the Randolph Bourne Institute. The Randolph Bourne Institute is a program that provides a space for those concerned about foreign policy and its implications in the United States. The Institute eventually took AntiWar.com under their wing as a fellows program, making it what we know today. 

    Bourne's concept that inspired AntiWar.com is that "War is the health of the State." Bourne emphasized that after every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism. Bourne also states "it is during war that one best understands the nature of that State."

    At its core, the nature includes an ongoing increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power.

    The American Conservative is not conservative in the way we may initially think today. The American Conservative was founded by renowned conservatives who were appalled by the actions, fallacies, and deceptions of neoconservatism they say. TAC classifies themselves as Main Street conservatives. For them, it means to cherish local communities, liberties secured by the Founders, foundations of faith and family, and peace. 

    The American Conservative rests its principles on three beliefs. First, it is addressed that they are a republic, not an empire. TAC states that this alone should be reflected in our foreign policy. (Newsflash, it's not anymore). Secondly, TAC believes that families, community, and voluntary associations are the foundation of a virtuous society and that public policy should serve based on these ends. Finally, faith, family, tradition, and heritage are endangered by big government, corporations, and even revolutionaries so TAC defends religious liberties.
 
   The American Conservative strives to restore American constitutional conservatism which is not about debt and warfare. It never was supposed to be. TAC prioritizes liberty, localism, strong middle-class advocacy, and staying out of foreign wars that don't put Americans at stake. These values are without a doubt, exactly what America needs right now. The American Conservative says that this is what a salutary, honorable, attractive, and winning American conservatism looks like.

    Principle over party.

    As I write this blog post, there has actually been an extreme development between the United States and Syria. As of late Wednesday night, February 3, 2022, US Special Forces raided Northwest Syria against an ISIS leader and killed civilians in the process. This is a huge deal. For one thing, I could not find a source that covered the entire story except for AntiWar.com. Every other news source I looked to only had quick snippets of what happened. While this was a developing story, why did AntiWar.com provide more information than any of the mainstream media? 
    To expand a bit, late Wednesday US troops raided the ISIS leader's (al-Qurayshi) house in Northwest Syria and clashed with gunmen for about two hours. In this process, about 13 other people were killed which included women and children. President Biden was watching this raid and announced Thursday morning that the operation was successful. Biden stated that "In a final act of cowardness, with no regard to the lives of his family or others in the building, he (al-Qurayshi) chose to blow himself up and took several family members with him, just as his predecessor did." Biden also blames the death of the 13 civilians on al-Qurayshi's decision. 
    
    John Kirby, the spokesman for the Pentagon also stated that al-Qurayshi blew himself up before even engaging with the US special forces and that the troops only engaged in a gunfight with other individuals who approached the house after the US arrived. 

    While this is a tragic and concerning story, why did I only get the full story from AntiWar's post? Why is the mainstream media refusing to cover all the details of this?

    Even with this one example, we can see why anti-war voices need to be more prominent in the media. If not, we may end up only having false information regarding war and other hostilities in our world. 

    AntiWar.com is already fighting the next information war and is dedicated to stopping the war hawks and leaders who think they are going to be allowed to get away with it. The War Party is already well-organized, well-financed, and very focused on what they want. This includes, according to AntiWar writers, a renewal of the cold war, increased military spending (which I would argue we spend more than enough there already), and a globalist mission that would project American power.  What I find more terrifying is that they know how to get it by mobilizing special interest groups and vital corporate allies in a propaganda war designed to potentially win the hearts and minds of the American people. 

    These voices are strong, the anti-war voices, on the other hand, not so much. 

    Everyone wants peace, at least in theory, but there is no one designated group to fight for this. This is why we need anti-war voices in the media. This is why sources like AntiWar.com and The American Conservative exist. They have to be a voice to bring awareness and truth to these issues in our world. 

    We are living in a time bursting with monumental historical moments and possibilities. Political and cultural circumstances are changing in a drastic way. The anti-war sources and others have to be the leaders to educate Americans on what is truly happening. 

    Overall, or at least in my personal opinion, the media sucks. Not entirely, but for the most part, it has turned into something that feeds into political propaganda and enhances the fears of its viewers and readers. Is it too much to ask to actually see a news story that tells you the entire truth? It should not take sufficient internet digging to find a post that is at least somewhat transparent with the issue at hand. 

    This is why we need better writers, journalists, and educators. If not, we end up feeding into the lies the media screen feeds us.