Weapons of War :: Essays Papers

Weapons of WarWar on Iraq and sexual identity suit instructive new tactics for contemporary politics. If you plundert lumber em, join em. In conventional warf ar. The US military no longer needs nuclear weapons for its better-publicized outings when theyve built a 10-ton conventional bomb and arent above firebombing civilian centers. At a moment when anti-militarist criticism had crystalized around activism against specialized forms of military machinery (the Bradley was too expensive, the School of the Americas too brutal, the nuke too indiscriminate), all such criticism can be blown with the broadcasted desert winds to the enemy and yanked on for leverage - thereof permitting/demanding all the kinds of actions (with or without marked technologies) that were the initial object of criticism. Now its Iraq who has dangerous WMDs, not the US (a country with a nuclear policy of first strike against non nuclear nations). What may once wealthy person been a criticism of militar y violence became one of the weapons themselves (Depleted Uranium Bullets, republic mines, space weapons, bunker-busters), and now we shall fight clean against an enemy who (gasp) might not. vertical as the crime becomes the criminal, Saddam becomes his weapons programs he is a homicidal authoritarian who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction (Bush). Programs that are mostly despicable because they arent supposed to have these weapons (according to international agreements, and sometimes early 90s US mandates, to which, of course, US policy and rhetoric always shows such load). The clowning is simultaneous with, and analogous to, the more obvious game of peace versus threat. We are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden panic and suffering to America (Bush), except threats from America, naturally. But, the weapon issue focuses on technologies in a way that makes the two rhetorical devices non-homologous and makes weapons mor e relevant here, because the wonder is not just of representations but also of instruments.Such conditions are not governed by bankers rules of an economy of power (we get some share more, you get so much less), or by a noble power that runs roughshod over (innocent) individuals, trampling the green grass of knowledge. Rather, the bankers rules matter in the bank, and work only if there is a commitment to the illusion of the bank. Go ahead, tell Bush he isnt a good king, he isnt using power responsibly.