The mighty American military is known around the world for its weaponry, skills, dedicated men and women who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and for its ability to meddle in foreign politics. The United States of America was established through war so it makes sense our nation's constant intervention in foreign entanglements.
The mainstream media in the United States has long supported wars over diplomacy; with the exception of Vietnam and the later years of the Iraq war. The days and years immediately following 9/11 was an exceptionally strong relationship between the news media and military interference. For many, their perception and support for the war stemmed from media and government manipulation. It was not until the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of the Obama presidency that the media began to question the legitimacy of the ongoing war and its necessity for national security.
Publications like The American Conservative and Antiwar.com are not mainstream enough to manipulate large swaths of gullible Americans. Both major political parties and all major news organizations in the United States staunchly supported the invasion of Iraq and the insurrection of Afghanistan. Without a reputable source, such as the mainstream media outlets, anti-war voices were left deplatformed and portrayed as traitors and anti-American.
Antiwar.com and The American Conservative are host to many anti-war and anti-intervention opinions; both foreign and domestic. Their articles range from war and general international relations to the GameStop drama on Wall Street. Though their opinions are not mainstream, they do host significant cultural impacts. Anti-war voices are not rare and they are often very loud, but their prominence is not typically with the average American. These websites do not attract the average Jane or Joe because to be anti-war is to be perceived as anti-American.
Today's political climate and the post 9/11 climate are vastly different. President Donald Trump is the first president in many decades that did not plunge the UnitedStates into an unnecessary war. Ronald Reagan's 'peace through strength' mantra was finally manifested by an American president. Neocon voices like Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton are no longer mainstream and anti-war isolationist voices like Rand Paul (R-KY) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) are becoming more prominent.
The ability to hear anti-war voices is getting progressively easier and more mainstream, especially as the United States enters into a time of global peace. The sense of patriotism surrounding war is one that is hard to combat. Perhaps these voices are not supported because they are perceived to be weak in the eyes of the average American? Or perhaps these anti-war voices are not supported because they do not fit the right political agenda? That is left to be speculated.
No comments:
Post a Comment