The Marketing of War in the Age of Neo-Militarism

Kostas Gouliamos, Christos Kassimeris

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781136475146
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The post-9/11 era and the overall impact of international terrorism have generated much debate regarding the role of military apparatus in modern society. This book assesses the inherent meaning of the militarization from a critical, interdisciplinary perspective. Against the background of democracy and capitalism, The Marketing of War in the Age of Neo-Militarism challenges prevailing accounts of the "military-industrial complex" as it explores significant interrelated themes denoting the accelerating process of militarization of society.

Designed to address pressing socio-political phenomena, this book is the first of its genre contesting conventional wisdom about the perceived link between war and the "military-industrial complex." It is unique not merely because of its approach, but also for its thorough analysis of deeply affected social institutions and processes such as education, popular culture, geopolitics, military expenditure, space and the environment.

Contributing authors advance the discussion by exposing factual information demonstrating the nature and scope of society's militarization. Their analysis is also broadened to encompass key concepts and diverse aspects of the subject matter that provoke a lively debate. The book offers compelling arguments that will be indispensable to scholars, students, professionals, and policy and decision makers with an interest in social and political sciences as well as in other related fields.

1  Introduction

Kostas Gouliamos and Christos Kassimeris

The distribution of political power and its acquaintance with the premise of moral behavior has been a thematic of a strenuous discourse on politics and ethics in the ancient Greek political texts, notably written by Hesiod, Heraclitus, Aeschylus, Plato, Aristotle, Democritus or Epicurus. Centuries later, Machiavelli's and Hobbes’ work has been detached from these ancient theoretical properties as both philosophers have viewed morality irrelevant to the topic of politics. Nevertheless, significant contribution to the study of the state power and morality was made by Rousseau. Moreover, his argumentation on ethical freedom and public morality has influenced Kant's moralist statement about a universal, perpetual peace. Max Adler has noted that “Kant's ethic represents a philosophical expression of the human aims of socialism” (Adler 1978, 63). However, Marx in his theory of history meant to prevail over the dichotomous proclamation of materialism and idealism “the chief defect of all hitherto-existing materialism is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object, or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.

Hence, in contradiction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism—which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such” (Marx 1975, 422). Gramsci, drawing on Marx's crucial scheme, wrote that “the scientific base for a morality of historical materialism is to be looked for, in my opinion, in the affirmation that ‘society does not pose for itself tasks the conditions for whose resolution do not already exist.’ Where these conditions exist ‘the solution of the tasks becomes ‘duty’, ‘will’ becomes free” (Gramsci 1971, 409-410). In any case, Gramsci's Marxism, enlightening Benedetto Croce's notion on ‘ethico-political history,’ was loaded with the scientific critique of political economy. It is from this stance that our discourse on militarization of the LifeWorld is to be reviewed.

To thrive in this way requires, inter alia, that the legacy of classical realism echoes in the literature of contemporary international relations by means of concepts pertaining to power politics and human nature despite its seemingly old-fashioned origins. What was first articulated in the aftermath of the Second World War still dominates the field of political studies and international relations today for the essence of realism, as manifested within the context of the hyperethnic corporate elite or the national self-interest, continues to dictate world affairs. Perhaps the number of wars fought the world over is testament to the more violent characteristics— endemic to capitalist nature—structured in such fashion so as to satisfy the corporatist state growing eagerness for power. The impact of human nature and power politics on international relations notwithstanding, it is the phenomenon of militarism that commands our attention in order to better introduce our reader to this study. It has been argued that “we are entering an age of totalitarian capitalism, a political and economic system which, by seizing absolute control of fundamental resources, destitutes everyone it excludes” (Monbiot 2000). In this meticulous age of totalitarian capitalism, the militarization of society creates chronic socio-political irregularities and asymmetries.

Nevertheless, the transformation of corporatist states into totalitarian capitalism since the 1980s is categorically a topic of paramount importance for exploring the concept of militarization of society as a basis for rethinking and re-searching the expanse of hegemonic power accumulation. In the case of the United States, “less visible but equally unprecedented is the global omnipresence and unparalleled lethality of the U.S. military, and the ambition with which it is being deployed around the world. These bases bristle with an inventory of weapons whose worth is measured in the trillions and whose killing power could wipe out all life on earth several times over…. Officially, more than 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in 909 military facilities in forty-six countries and territories. There, the US military owns or rents 795,000 acres of land, and 26,000 buildings and structures valued at $146 billion” (Lutz 2009).

Moreover, the current political discourse in the United States certainly disregards notions adhering to those values fostered by the nation's so-called ‘founding fathers,’ just as it has overlooked the need to use force as a last resort. Marketing strategies and tactics are nowadays employed by the capitalist state to promote an army-building society simply because the militarization of society normalizes wars or conflicts, and, thus, it advances both the concentration of power to the managerial and financial oligarchies’ interest and the centralization of the corporatist state.

Addressing war as a mere instrument of power politics is, therefore, inadequate for the overall repercussions of militarism are largely ignored. What we propose in this volume is that militarism is further explored in an attempt to better comprehend the new realities that epitomize (inter-) national security considering, of course, the manifold opportunities that have surfaced ever since the dawn of the new millennia for capitalist state to redress and, in particular as a ‘strategic field,’ to re-organize the bourgeoisie's enduring political interests (Poulantzas 1978).

Assuming that globalization has, indeed, made the corporatist state obsolete, one must redefine sovereignty not merely in terms of the unfathomable power that capitalist states maintain but also within the context of national security and the provisions available for preserving it. In the absence of a mighty international organization designed to direct all its energy to the kinds of threats that seem to have besieged the international system, concentrating on all matters pertaining to security and/or discipline surely underlines the essence of the corporatist state today. The very same conditions, evidently, have allowed much space for those political maneuvers necessary for revising the capitalist state's structure in a manner that would render it politically supreme while also catering to its geopolitical interests. Yet the innermost characteristics of such an entity are not confined to absolute political authority for society is nowadays organized in a novel fashion that resembles the military preeminence of past civilizations.

Monitoring public opinion, the evolution in warfare technology and the overarching militarization of the corporatist state have fostered a rather vibrant academic discourse. The ostentatious philosophical work that is On War serves us well for Carl von Clausewitz compared war “to business competition, which is also a conflict of human interests and activities; and it is still more like state policy, which again, on its part, may be looked upon as a kind of business competition on a great scale” (Clausewitz 1997, 102-103), thus the reason that the marketing of war calls for scientific analysis. On the whole, the wide-range analysis of topics pertinent to militarization that the present volume offers intends to challenge prevailing accounts of US militarism.

Divided into three inter-related parts, this book seeks to make an original contribution to the field of international relations, as well as to lay the foundations for expanding the terminology available for describing the organization of modern Western societies.

The opening chapter of Part I is designed to set the broad tone of the book, as well as to make an early attempt to complement neo-militarism with a succinct term that describes the current state of affairs in Western societies. Chapter 3 is devoted to the language of war in its literal and figurative forms as used when making reference to violence, in general, and war, more particularly. While examining the impact of the language of war on human behavior, this chapter introduces the reader to a novel approach regarding the use of certain words in everyday life such as the concept of terrorism. The following chapter focuses on the relationship between popular culture and militarism. Popular culture is oftentimes exploited as a means for promoting notions pertaining to militarism within the public sphere and social life alike, thus reducing the essence of the former to nothing more than a suitable vehicle for militarization. The final chapter of Part I assesses the destructive force that is militarism with regard to the environment. While the toxification of the planet clearly dominates this chapter, what is undoubtedly worthy of note is the scenario where environmental damage shifts from the global north to the south. The environmental dimension of militarism cannot possibly be overlooked when examining the overall impact of militarization, particularly when taking into consideration the compelling account about the environmental threats that the more vulnerable peoples of the world are likely to face.

Undoubtedly an integral part of any like study, the first chapter of Part II examines the rather intricate relationship been democracy and militarism. Taking into account the fact that democracy and militarism support conflicting values, this chapter assesses the rhetoric of the Obama administration. Likewise, Chapter 7 examines the response of the Bush administration to international terrorism. It discusses the impact of those policies that came to being in the aftermath of 9/11 and the extent to which they have shaped national security and modern-day American society. The following chapter examines the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) role against the background of European defense. Given that the North Atlantic Alliance has already ratified the third Strategic Concept in the post-Cold War era, this chapter discusses the newly emerged security dilemmas that are very likely to determine the Western alliance's future. The final chapter of Part II produces an analysis of the highly debated developments regarding the European Union's space-related activities. Under the guise of communication for civilian purposes, military and security applications instead are being developed in order to serve Europe's military and defense agenda. Along the same lines, this chapter also discusses the likelihood of an arms race in space and the declining support of the European public for such projects.

Part III commences with a chapter discussing capitalism and militarism. With capitalism as its focal point, Chapter 10 produces an analysis of the impact of the military sector and war on economic stability. It also addresses issues pertaining to the shortage of natural resources and the prospects of capitalist peace. Within the same context, the following chapter delves into aspects of military spending, employing as its point of departure the declaration of the global war on terror of the Bush administration. Re-directing military expenditure to all things civilian would obviously sustain economic development; however, the quest for military dominance—occasionally facilitated by war—so far seems to overshadow the pursuit for peace at the same time as it perpetuates the age-old essence of military strength. Chapter 12 examines the role of the arms industry from a different viewpoint. This chapter discusses the national security exception, and, in so doing, it brings to light findings that challenge prevailing accounts of the military industry impact on society, particularly the changing perception of security from national to military. As for the final chapter, it is only fitting that it concentrates on the militarization of higher education in the United States. Given that this book endeavors to achieve nothing less than make an original contribution to the academia, it suffices to say that any like study would be incomplete without it. In the era of knowledge society, it is imperative that education escapes the influence and manipulation of militarism or else university graduates will only succeed in becoming passive recipients of information lacking all skills denoting critical thinking.

All in all, the present volume challenges prevailing accounts of the ‘military-industrial’ complex as it explores significant interrelated themes denoting the accelerating process of the militarization of society. Designed to address pressing socio-political phenomena, this book is the first of its genre contesting conventional wisdom about the perceived link between war and the ‘military-industrial’ complex. It is unique not merely because of its approach, but also for its thorough analysis of deeply affected social institutions and processes such as education, popular culture, geopolitics, military expenditure, space and the environment. Contributing authors advance the discussion by exposing factual information demonstrating the nature and scope of society's militarization. Hence, this book offers a compelling argumentation that will be indispensable to scholars, students, professionals and policy and decision makers with an interest in social and political sciences as well as in other related fields. However, it should be clarified that this book does not aid readers in understanding principles of the political marketplace or methodologies of marketing in political and international systems nor does it adhere to the notions of influential ‘social imagery’ or the ‘manufacture of image’ (Newman 1999). On the contrary, this book uses a critical discourse to emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of the accelerated process of stratocracy (neo-militarism) in the 21^st century.

REFERENCES

Adler, Max. 1978. “The Relation of Marxism to Classical German Philosophy.” In Tom Bottomore and Patrick Goode (eds), Austro-Marxism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clausewitz, Von Carl. 1997. On War. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Classics.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated, Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Lutz, Catherine. 2009. “US Bases and Empire—Looking at the Asia-Pacific.” Journal Japan Focus. Retrieved February 2011 from http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=4272

Marx, Karl. 1975. “Theses on Feuerbach.” In Early Writings (Introduction, Lucio Colletti. Translated, Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Monbiot, George. 2000. “Totalitarian Capitalism.” Guardia. Retrieved March 2011 from http://www.monbiot.com/2000/06/29/totalitarian-capitalism/

Newman, Bruce I. 1999. Handbook of Political Marketing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Poulantzas, Nikos. 1978. State, Power, Socialism. London: New Left Books.

Part I

2 Stratocracy

The Growing Hypertrophy
of the LifeWorld Militarization

Kostas Gouliamos and Christos Kassimeris

Democracy and peace have inspired scores of academic books and articles for their study may bring about the end of war. “Democracy,” Kenneth Waltz suggested, “is preeminently the peaceful form of the state. Control of policy by the people would mean peace”; therefore, “giving a direct voice to those who suffer most in war would drastically reduce its incidence” (Waltz 2001, 101). Democracy, peace and war have, indeed, become the focal point of many publications, though not necessarily for the reason that the system of government that is democracy is popular across the globe nor because peace is what most people would eagerly strive to maintain the world over. Waltz encapsulated key arguments of the relevant literature when he noted that “a world full of democracies would be a world forever at peace, but autocratic governments are warlike…. Monarchies are peaceful; democracies are irresponsible and impulsive, and consequently foment war…. Not political but economic organization is the key: capitalist democracies actively promote war, socialist democracies are peaceful”, before concluding, no doubt understandably, that “each of these formulations has claimed numerous adherents, and each adherent has in turn been called to task by critics and by history” (Waltz 2001, 120-121). Taking into account the key role that states play in a world of capitalism, as well as what Marxist thought advances, abolishing states should be the remedy to all struggle, inter-state conflicts included. Yet this hypothesis clearly comes into opposition with the principal view of inter-national relations theory, which dictates that the state is the dominant actor in international affairs. Rather than envisaging a world of no states, it is more reasonable to assume that “With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with each state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own reason or desireconflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur” (Waltz 2001, 159). No matter the political or economic standpoint of those adherents, therefore, there remains one theme that is central to like studies—war. It is imperative to assess, therefore, the intricate relationship between democracy and war, not merely because of whatever qualities may characterize the democratic peace theory, but to establish whether—according to Max Weber—”the basis of democratization is everywhere purely military in character” (Weber 1950, 325).

Hardly any definition of war deserves the right to profess precision and authority unless, perhaps, proposed by a soldier who fought an actual battle, thus the reason we choose to limit our academic quest to the writings of Carl von Clausewitz. No doubt stemming from his personal experience, Clausewitz understood war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will” (Clausewitz 1997, 5). Despite what may seem an unsophisticated definition of war, the Prussian theorist has definitely been instrumental to our understanding of why wars occur when he emphasized that, “The war of a community—of whole nations, and particularly of civilized nations—always starts from a political condition, and is called fo...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures and Boxes
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction
• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Contributors
• Index