Veterans Week?

Next week I'll be in San Francisco, where I will be part of a panel discussion about Roger Stahl's excellent book, Militainment, Inc. In sum, his argument is that the overlap between the military and entertainment industries, including sports, have morphed into a new form of interactivity, wherein citizens are invited to "play" in the context of war. Video games like America's Army or facilities like the "Army Experience Center," to name only two examples, invite citizens to participate in the machinery of war. Of course, that participation is sanitized and made "fun." After all, no one wants a trip to the mall to include unexpectedly landing on an I.E.D.


One of Roger's chapters focuses on extreme sports and the ways that the aesthetic practices of skydiving, snowboarding, skateboarding, and other related sports, have seeped into the logics of military recruitment. This is especially notable, he contends, in television advertising and Hollywood cinema. His dissection of Behind Enemy Lines, for example, artfully demonstrates how willing a film studio is to turn its product into a giant recruitment commercial in exchange for some really spiffy toys to shoot and blow up on screen.


In any case, the chapter on extreme sports also offers some review of how popular spectator sports have been increasingly implicated in our culture of militarism. I've been thinking a lot about this because of the conference, but since the timing overlaps with Veterans Day, I've also been thinking about it because of the extent of pro-military messages I'm seeing sports media, especially ESPN. The near-constant drumbeat of celebrating "America's heroes" began in earnest during the Monday Night Football broadcast, and has been propelled by live broadcasts of several signature shows, including Mike & Mike in the Morning and The Herd with Colin Cowherd, from military locations.




The image above is from last year, when Mike & Mike broadcast live from the USS New York. The hosts were invited to sit in a real helicopter, and in the case of Mike Greenberg, even put their hands on a real trigger. This, I believe, is exactly the kind of thing Roger has in mind when he talks about "interactive war." Sitting in the cockpit of a helicopter with your finger at the ready fulfills any number of war-inspired fantasies. It inevitably positions the participant to view members of the military heroically, and undoubtedly short-ciruits any possibility of critique.


This is not to say that Mike & Mike, or anyone else, should be spending Veterans Day finding ways to criticize the troops. Indeed, and I want to be clear about this, I am entirely in support of having a day marked to memorialize and honor those who have lost their lives while serving the United States military. What I do not support is the relentless and ubiquitous presentation of the military in and through sport as if it was the normal, default choice to do so. During the week, as I've been watching sports as I usually do and preparing for my conference presentation about Roger's book (this post gives you a hint of what I'll talk about), I found myself thinking: Exactly when did Veterans Day become Veterans Week?


There can be little doubt that the prominence of pro-military rhetoric weakens any arguments against the use of military force. This is especially so because, at least in the world of sports, honoring "America's heroes" isn't merely about paying respect to veterans of the past. Rather, it is as much, if not more so, about valorizing those who are serving in the present. And here is where I am particularly troubled. Common to these celebrations are declarations about thanking the troops "for all you do for us," or being grateful for "what you do over there so we can do what we do over here." What this implies rhetorically, of course, is a direct cause-effect kind of relationship, a relationship that is almost certainly rarely there. In the case of the Iraq War, for example, there is little to no evidence that what the U.S. military has done has advanced the cause of democracy or freedom here at home. Indeed, there is likely a stronger case that what our policy (note I stress policy, and am not "blaming" the troops) has done is to ensure that Americans remain a target of resentment and retributive violence (what Chalmers Johnson labels, "blowback").

Even beyond the reasonable critiques of the wisdom of American foreign policy, is the critique of what that policy does to the troops themselves and their families. When so much of the focus of pro-military rhetoric is geared toward "support the troops," how can it be that so little attention is paid to keeping the troops from getting shot in the first place? I've made this point before, but I can't emphasize it enough: If we really want to honor and celebrate "America's heroes," maybe we could stop sending them into military conflicts that are morally and politically suspect.


As an American, I do feel a sense of responsibility to properly respect those who have had the courage to wear a military uniform and serve with honor. Yet, I also regret that our common discourse neglects to honor those patriotic Americans who have fought for democracy and freedom without a gun in hand: those who have conscientiously objected to war; those who have publicly protested state aggression; those who have led efforts to find diplomatic alternatives to military interventions; those who insist that we really can give peace a chance. Moreover, as a rhetorical critic, I feel a sense of responsibility to challenge ideologically-based rhetorics that, persuasive though they may be to many, actually risk the health of the democracy they claim to defend.


Have a happy, and safe, Veterans Day