Comments on: The War-Machine

By: christopher

christopher — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:21:13 +0000

Hmm…it’s not that the people are without emotion. Neither is it the case that a person or group is always the War-Machine. It is a mode of relationships that is both powerful and suicidal. It is the doing for the sake of doing (or, as you just mentioned, seeking power for power’s sake). What was remarkable about Khan is that he didn’t just let those he conquered remain as they were, he never established a system of oversight (cf the Romans and Greeks who established political leaders in the areas they conquered). Alexander didn’t live in tents unless he was on the move. Khan always lived in tents as a nomad.
The State could never create (or become) a War-Machine because it seeks to control whatever it is. The Mongols were a War-Machine because they lacked this sort of control.

By: Melchizedek

Melchizedek — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:02:11 +0000

People aren’t machines. Genghis Khan, besides probably enjoying the power, viewed his accomplishment of uniting the steppes people as a moral one, since it ended warfare between themselves. He knew warfare was a dominate part of their culture, he didn’t reject that, and so he launched them at one foreign enemy after another. He also came up with the first written law code in Mongolian history and enforced it (on Mongolian and allied steppes people).

The steppes people followed him because the were getting rich from plunder and tribute and they probably just enjoyed it. Allowing local governments and cultures to remain as long as they paid tribute and behaved themselves was a fairly standard practice, and was very often a beneficial practice for the conquerors. They also ruled China directly for about 100 years. That’s hardly anything like the War Machine as described.

And Geronimo was “upset”, that’s not without emotion, and he was very attached to his people in their way of life.

The War Machine sounds like it’s just characterizing other groups we don’t understand and often discriminate against, viewing them as something less than as human as ourselves (ie. like the US’s labeling of Japanese as the “Yellow Peril”).

Ted Haggard is the latest evidence of the adage that power corrupts. More generally the Christian Right certainly does believe in a morality, although I believe many leaders in its ranks are now seeking power for powers sake.

By: christopher

christopher — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:33:55 +0000

It’s beyond that. The W-M is pre-philosophic, pre-ethical. It does not feel. It does not attach moral value to anything. It’s not “blinders” because the W-M knows what it is doing.

By: Jeffrey Rodriguez

Jeffrey Rodriguez — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 15:49:24 +0000

This is really good. It’s almost as if the “war machine” has believed so whole-heartedly in their goal that no matter what they come across, they’ve attached blinders as to be not affected. They are singular in their goal, regardless of contrarian evidence. It’s where the Mujihadeen meets Jerry Falwell.