War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning 
by Chris Hedges

a Review by Lisa Grab

I picked up this book at a local book sale. I was excited to read it because I had heard Hedges speak on WBAI and found myself agreeing with his strong words, although many were also somewhat vague generalities of political rhetoric that any leftist could agree with without getting too deep into politics.

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning is Hedges first major book. The cover mentions that it was chosen as a "First Year Book" in 2008 for University of Maryland, a finalist in the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, and  "national bestseller." These are typically warning signs that the book is geared toward a broad audience and does not effectively challenge the imperialist paradigms created by society. I should have taken the warning more seriously.

Overall, I was disappointed by the book. Before getting into the content, I can say that it comes across as poorly written--as if Hedges pieced together multiple articles covering his experiences as a war correspondent and mixed in some incoherent, redundant arguments that leave concepts undefined and lack context and power analysis. While the book is divided into seven chapters, his arguments overlap with each individual chapter hardly elaborating on its actual topic. While I understand how these different parts of the arguments overlap and influence one another, he should have considered structuring the book differently. The individual chapters are all a mesh of paragraphs, sometimes with no transition that left me lost in regards to what Hedges is trying to relate to. Perhaps this is because it is his first major book, and he was not able to construct his argument in a way where it evolves rather than stagnates. Or, perhaps he assumed he could rely solely on his experience as a war correspondent and literature student as legitimacy for his arguments, while leaving out broader historical and political analysis.

Now to discuss the content of the book...

Hedges theory about war is divided into the seven different chapters of the book:

1. The Myth of War

2. The Plague of Nationalism

3. The Destruction of Culture

4. The Seduction of Battle and the Perversion of War

5. The Hijacking and Recovery of Memory

6. The Cause

7. Eros and Thanatos

Personally, I felt like "The Myth of War" could be reduced to one paragraph. Hedges' version of this is like a diluted version of Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky without the political context. Perhaps I feel this way because I am already familiar with the arguments, and perhaps Hedges is instead writing toward an audience that is not so familiar with the corruption of the media and our schools. Still, Hedges argument is problematic because it avoids a power analysis between the sides in a war, dismissing both sides as equally corrupt. While it may be true that each "side" in a war has its own historical narrative and interpretation of the war, Hedges seems to think people on both sides should be striving to find the "truth." But is it even possible or desirable to find this "truth" when certain powerful countries are clearly taking advantage of the weaker countries (AKA imperialism...)? Or maybe that is the "truth" that Hedges cannot come to terms with. I believe Hedges is focussing on the wrong points here and avoids confronting a class analysis. This is because it conflicts too much with the argument Hedges makes in his next chapter which is... 

"The Plague of Nationalism." Once again, Hedges seems to think both sides are equally wrong in rallying support behind a national cause, even if the nationalist cause is opposing imperialism. While it is important to critique nationalism, I believe it is even more important to critique imperialism, which Hedges completely avoids.

One of the ongoing experiences that Hedges cites is his time spent documenting the Bosnian War. I know little about this war (I am sure the majority of the US population also knows little about the war), and I was extremely uncomfortable with the claims Hedges was making, based on his experience, with little to no historical context. Whenever Hedges mentions an experience during this war, he puts in one or two sentences about what was going on politically to justify his claim. However, this was not nearly enough to understand whether Hedges had any legitimacy in making his claims, even after piecing together all the information mentioned throughout the book. Also, Hedges' arguments discuss war in a general broad sense; however, his examples are based on individuals' and their experiences. Hedges dismisses these individuals' political alliances as unimportant--showing the individualist roots of this argument and his complete avoidance of power analysis. 

The third chapter, "The Destruction of Culture" relies on the idea of "authentic culture" AKA bourgeois culture that is supposed to exist in isolation from nationalist motive but really does not. I think Hedges would have been much more accurate framing his critique of culture with a critique of propaganda and how all art, even apolitical art, is propaganda by either challenging or perpetuating the status quo. However, he does not get into this. Rather he discusses how tragic it is when any nation destroys art from a previous nation (even if it is a country destroying colonial art signifying colonial repression). Hedges' example of the Greek/Turk conflict in the chapter lacks historical and political context and does not mention which power is oppressing which. Also he does not really make much effort to tie this example in with the point he is trying to make. 

Chapters 4-6 do not offer much more to Hedges' argument--they only serve to expose even more how Hedges is avoiding historical context and indirectly blaming the victims of imperialism. I was disappointed the most with Hedges' framing of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, where he seemed to express how both sides were equally guilty, while offering sympathy to the Palestinians. Hedges mentions the power of Israel on the nationalist level but avoids discussing the country's power and connections on an international level.

Although Hedges wrote the book shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, he almost completely avoids tying this into his analysis. He actually justifies the NATO intervention during the Bosnian War. He also hardly ever mentions the United States' involvement in the examples he cites, placing the responsibility on the reader to make this connection. But really, how many US citizens would make this connection? This has the (hopefully unwanted) effect that Hedges is justifying these wars and interventions.

The book would have been better structured as a memoir, where Hedges could share his experiences and theory without the danger of presenting his ideas as purely factual amidst his lack of historical and political analysis. I am absolutely sure that he has many interesting personal experiences that I think would be better framed around a narrative rather than around sloppily constructed arguments.

While I was disappointed by the book, recent articles by Hedges (which I will hopefully review soon) make me want to read his most recent book, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt to see if his ideology has changed over the past decade.