The "Routinization of War"?

Mickey Kaus recalls the old Marxist trope that Empires require the routinization of war.  It's interesting that liberal humanitarianism is beginning to look and behave a lot like the traditional liberal Euro-American empire of a century ago.

Pity we no longer have the resources or the will to persevere.  Kaus:

“Humanitarian imperialism.” I think that label will stick. And in a true empire–in this case, the empire of UN approved human rights enforcement–war never really ends. Always someone to protect somewhere. Imagine living in imperial Britain in the mid-19th century. There would almost always be a war or police action–actual shooting and killing–going on.** For a true empire to work– even, or perhaps especially, a humanitarianempire–war has to be routinized. You’ve got two wars going already? No need to change the president’s schedule to start a third. Tour Latin America. Talk about your NCAA brackets. Don’t give a big speech–I mean, you don’t call a press conference every time the police run a sobriety checkpoint do you? The relevant international governing bodies have already determined the appropriate application of force. And “all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.” 

It helps achieve routinization if wars can be conducted by a distinct cast of professionals whom we hire to do the job, as opposed to ordinary citizens who are drafted. That way when soldiers start dying … well, that’s the business they have chosen, right? And they’re largely drawn from a distinct geographic region, the South. Mothers don’t have to worry that their sons will sent to fight against their will, as happened in Vietnam–and if they’re Northern mothers in well-off suburbs they may not even know anyone who has a family member at risk.

Oceania has recognized its duty to protect Eurasia. Carry on with your business.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/27/the-routinization-of-humanitarian-war/#ixzz1Hvve0jKz