FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Mad Dog, Meet Eris, Queen of Strife

Photo by Marcel Trindade | CC BY 2.0

Photo by Marcel Trindade | CC BY 2.0

 

According to Hesiod in his Works and Days, there are two different goddesses named Eris (or Strife).  It is the second to whom this piece refers.  In this work, Hesiod writes of her: “So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honor due.”  In his work Theogony, he describes her further as the mother of “Ponos (“Hardship”),Lethe (“Forgetfulness”) and Limos (“Starvation”) and the tearful Algae (“Pains”),Hysminai (“Battles”), Makhai (“Wars”), Phonoi (“Murders”), and Androktasiai (“Manslaughters”);Neikea (“Quarrels”), Pseudea (“Lies”), Logoi (“Stories”), Amphillogiai “Disputes”) Dysnomia (“Anarchy”) and Ate (“Ruin”), near one another, and Horkos (“Oath”), who most afflicts men on earth, Then willing swears a false oath.”  It was she who began the Trojan War when she tossed the Apple of Discord into the weeding party of Peleus and Thetas.

It is also she who reigns in today’s world, especially in the Middle East.  The recent US bombing of a bomb shelter in Mosul, Iraq is but one more murderous Apple of Discord.

According to eyewitnesses quoted by news services, dozens of people hid in a house while Islamic State fighters shot at Iraqi (and perhaps US) forces in a Mosul neighborhood.  As the fighting continued, US military planes arrived and began attacking the house where people were sheltering and other targets.  After the planes left, Islamic State fighters had disappeared and a search and rescue operation begun.  After reports began to leak out of a massive number of dead civilians found in the house, US and Iraqi forces at first denied culpability.

As more evidence was made uncovered and more bodies discovered, US military spokespeople acknowledged the possibility of culpability.  However, that admission was cloaked in an explanation that essentially blamed the Islamic State enemy for the deaths.  According to this explanation, the Islamic State “uses civilians as human shields.”  In other words, they live amongst civilians instead of on well-protected military bases like US troops.

Furthermore, goes this circuitous reasoning, it is rumored that IS booby traps houses that are used as shelters.  This means that any missile or bomb attack on a house rigged with explosives would set off what is called a secondary explosion.  Left unsaid in this rather half-assed attempt to shift blame is the fact that the US military should not be bombing buildings used as air raid shelters.  Indeed, if today’s technology is as good as it’s supposed to be, they should rarely if ever even wound a civilian.

The bigger question is why the United States military is even in the Middle East, much less actively engaged in killing them.  The last several decades of US involvement in the region has proven that military solutions are incapable of resolving the issues in the region.  Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that the ongoing military presence in the region has only exacerbated existing problems and created many new ones.  Foremost among the latter are the millions of refugees created by the wars and repression that has been precipitated by imperialist adventurism.  The sheer numbers of refugees have overwhelmed European nations unprepared for the influx.  In addition, the fear of refugees among certain segments of western societies has been inflamed by racist demagogues and liberal politicians alike, resulting in numerous crimes against the refugees and their supporters.

If one looks at more recent history—say since 1991 and the first US invasion of Iraq—it would seem that Washington has a multifaceted approach towards the Middle East.  This approach involves at least three approaches.  The first would be to prop up dictators in the region with cash and military sales in exchange for those dictators support against Washington’s current enemies.  This was the case with US support for Saddam Hussein until August of 1990, when Washington turned against him.  It was also the case vis-a-vis the Assad regimes in Syria until recently.  The second approach involves military invasion and occupation.  One assumes the desired result of this approach would be the installation of a client (puppet) regime in the invaded nation.  The third approach, which seems to occur when the others fail, is to allow and even encourage chaos.  This is the current situation in Iraq and Syria.  Both nations are embroiled in multi-sided civil wars supported by outside regimes and interests.  The actual fighters who aren’t regular military come from criminal gangs, religious sects, paramilitaries and locals merely defending their homes.  In addition, various political organizations of the right and left are represented in the fighting.  The only certainty seems to be that death will come to many.   The again, what would one expect when the man leading the charge is known as “Mad Dog?”

There are no new ideas coming from those powers responsible for the chaos in the region.  Indeed, the recent loosening of the US rules of engagement seems to foretell a return to more classic practices of imperial war.  In other words, there will be fewer targeted drone attacks and more bombings and other less specific aerial attacks.  If this is to be the case (and one assumes it will be in the wake of various pronouncements of the new regime in Washington), there will be many more incidents like the attack on the shelter in Mosul.  There will probably be less concern about such incidents from the White House and Pentagon, either.  After all, a government that wants to put in place an immigration policy that considers everyone from certain nations as suspect would have few qualms (if any) about bombing others who happen to live in the same neighborhood as those it has deemed terrorists.  After all, goes this type of reasoning, who’s to say they aren’t terrorists too?  It is a simplistic reasoning that might ultimately create the exact scenario it pretends it is working to prevent.  The ultimate outcome of such reasoning would be the death of all those who look like those deemed terrorists by the nations whose policies have done much to create them.  This is not reason.  It is madnes

More articles by:

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem.  He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail