The paper seeks to explore the scope of war, trying to explain how powerful nations of the world, ironically escalate war and terrorism while claiming to cease it. The paper seeks to explain how these nations dismiss peace movements in times of war. The paper enters into murky depths to explore the justifications these nations give like stamping out terrorism, installing democracy, and eliminating fascism. These nations also claim that the y have good political wills to “get rid of world of evildoers”. This paper tries to analyse how Gene Larocque speaks to the Studs Terkel about “The Good War.”.
It is odd how those who dismiss the peace movement as utopian do not hesitate to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to war; stem out terrorism , install democracy, eliminate fascism, and most entertainingly to get rid of the world evildoers. It is ironic that the destination of these wars is to bring peace that comes out to increase war. These countries escalate the wars through the following ways.
- FINANCING WAR
As a navy captain, the author believes that the state government had done more than enough to support wars. He says that the country is a unique one that has sponsored 30 million war veterans, who get posts in different countries all over the world since 1940’s. He gives examples of Korea and Vietnam. He also admits that 70% of the military budget is not for keeping peace in their country, but use the budget to fight somewhere else. According to Fussel (28), these countries finance manufacture of bombs and use them instead of precise ways to solve conflicts.
He says that the US invested in the Central Investigation Agency training after the world war. They trained this body to spy on other nations on claims to restore peace. The state also has divided the world into “military districts” to organise wars. The country set these troops where war arises. These districts have “military solutions” for any upheaval that arises and they write most “contingency plans”. The state financed the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam. These weapons do not end war and terrorism, but they escalate war, as the other countries would fight back. He notes that the Russia too financed its military to fight in the World War II. Russia fought “valiantly” in the World War II (30).
Fussel notes how one Canadian recalled purchased military weapons for fighting, “united states had engineered a bright victory after purchasing the willow run aircraft” (9)
- WRONG INTERPRETATION OF WAR
Loroucque explains how these nations wrongly interpret war. They view it as a good and perfect approach to create social order. In his article, he expresses how the nation provides flags, banners, and patriotic sayings to the military. They hold them with a high regard after winning the battles. The government made the soldiers to believe how war brings democracy by the state. As a navy captain, Laricque enjoyed wars and believed they restore democracy to provide social justice. The state treats their soldiers as veterans after war. The author suggests, “Their breakfast was full, and they enjoyed being the big shots.” This was because the state saw them as people who run the world; little did they know the mess they did (1).
The State institutionalized militarism after the World War II. The act removed the word national security and this changed and created the department of defence. According to Larocque, this act changed the meaning and all activities that the national security did. He adds that every member of military was supposed to act as a defence officer, failure to which the state considers one unpatriotic. He also adds how the state wrongly honours and glorifies the fallen militants. The nations describe them as people who “gave their lives for the country”. This is wrong interpretation because the country itself exposed them to meet their deaths (Fussel, 98).
The state supports the military in any way they can. According to Larocque, the state “tidies up all the messes the military makes”. This means that the military works under no supervision by the state. The government then comes in and covers all those mistakes committed. He says that from World War II, the state deviated from peaceful means of establishing peace and order. He gives evidence by what the military did to achieve its goals. The military used power 215 times, more than what were supposed to do and the pentagon liked that (1).
- ULTERIOR MOTIVES BY COUNTRIES
According to Larocque, the army had talks on how to use their military force to get oil from the Middle East. This shows misuse of power by the military and the state. The army should establish peace and order in the society. Ironically, they increase war as the Middle East would fight back to protect their oil which is a source of income. He adds that they use their military to get oil from Canada. This is an ulterior motive by the government (1).
The nations start and continue war due to motives of being considered heroes. As Larocque states, he thinks Russians want to be accepted as a “world power” and spread their homogeneity all over the world. This condition repeats itself after the World War II. He says that the twisted memories of that motivate people of this generation to be “willing, eager to use military force to become heroes of war” (1).
Works cited
Fussel, P. Understanding and Behaviour in The Second World War. Toronto: Oxford
Larocque, A. Admiral Gene Larocque Speaks to Studs Terkel About "The Good War".
September, 1985
