Understanding The Dominant System Of Power & How It Relates To The War In Afghanistan

Understanding the Dominant System of Power & How It Relates to the War in Afghanistan

In contemporary America (and when I say ‘America’ in this essay, many times I am including Europe and the rest of “the west”), it is easy for one to ignore the basic structures of power, and how they have been formed and reinforced over the years. It is also easy to disregard the basis – as well as the repercussions – behind these dominating power structures in America.

At its most base level, America was founded upon a capitalistic, patriarchal racist system. The elite of America (and indeed the rest of the ‘Global North’) have enjoyed this system nearly uninterrupted for the bulk of modern history. During this time, the exact system has become harder and harder to distinguish, as it continues to perpetually reinforce itself. Although this system of power might continue to become more and more imperceptible as time passes, its effects in contemporary society are still very real and can be felt across the global system. There is no better illustration of this point than the 2001 US–led invasion of Afghanistan.

When defining the dominate systems of power in America, one has to look at the varying factions that make up the ruling elite (as they’re the factions that naturally define the systems of power in any society). The US, as put forth by C. W. Mills, has three natural groups of elites – the Military, the Corporation and the Government. These three spheres of power can naturally overlap, as is evidenced in the former military / corporate politicians who saturate government positions in various tiers. Regardless, these three factions are not often seen as the elite in US society, since they tend to obfuscate their power, and insist that a more widely dispersed form of power exists, as R. Dahl explains it to be.

Whether they are widely seen or not, the elite in any society define the systems of power that that society will follow. And the system of power of choice for much of recent history has been a system of capitalist, patriarchal racism.

It is capitalist, because that has been the domineering economic platform for the elite for the last several hundred years. It gives justification for the increasingly stratified society we live in, and juxtaposes hard-work with economic gain, thus justifying the elite’s status and power. It also, coincidentally, justifies the other two major characteristics of today’s system.

It is a patriarchal system, because of the way that gender is constructed in the United States, and then how that construction is translated into the government, into the corporations and into the military, justifying the male dominance in each (and then, by extension – male dominance in the elite). Gender is a social construction, through and through. The contemporary interpretation of gender, while perhaps not as linear as in previous centuries, is still as patriarchal and domineering as ever. While those in the spotlight might not publicly parade this fact, it still holds true regardless, as evidenced by the sexual division of labor and the disparity between men and women of economic, political and social status. As Zillah Eisenstein demonstrates in her book, “Global Obscenities”, women make up half of the world’s population, but still trail men in income and property ownership, and still lag behind men in political and social status – even though they do approximately two-thirds of labor worldwide (which is partially attributable to the ‘triple day of work’ phenomenon, which involves wage labor, domestic labor and consumer labor). Witless rhetoric to the contrary does nothing to remove the basic fact that we live in a patriarchal system that is well established worldwide, and that has been able to continually reinforce itself throughout the ages.

And finally, the dominate system of power in the United States, as well as the global system, is an inherently racist one. Throughout human history, there has been conflict in every corner of the globe. The fundamental conflict between ‘us’ and the ‘other’ has played itself out ad nauseam, with no regard to location, time, etcetera. And the easiest way to create an ‘other’, the easiest way to demonize them, is based on physical, recognizable traits. This system of demonizing the ‘others’ has been passed down throughout all of human history, until finally the elite must rely on it to further solidify their power.

This inherent racism has had both overt and covert effects. It has been most distinguishable when it has resulted in open conflict, from the Atlantic slave trade, to the Rwandan genocide of Tutsis, to the riots following the police brutality of Rodney King.

But racism has been far more pervasive than such overt instances would lead one to believe. For instance, the pay inequalities between the races is just as pronounced as it is between the sexes in the United States. This is because racism has always been a useful tool for the elite. The elites’ profiteering of slavery and imperialism can not be disputed. And the fact remains that the same underlying currents remain in today’s society. Racism helps to continue the status quo, as the elites are able to continually use it to their advantage, as was the case in the war against Afghanistan.

These three systems are all closely connected with today’s power elite. And since they are all intertwined and have been part of the ruling ideology for as long as they have – capitalism the youngest of the three, and still several hundred years strong – the idea that any one of them could be separated, singled out or targeted is absurd. Indeed, perhaps the closest connection that they have with each other, is how each one is intrinsically related to upholding the elite and the status quo. And this collective system of power, involving these three main pillars, can explain many actions taken by those in power today. Including the US–led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The invasion was sold as some type of instinctive reflex on the part of the US after September 11th, 2001. That we were somehow able to create a concrete, informed and supported case for war in the time between the terrorist attacks in America and the invasion of Afghanistan is somewhat suspect. Regardless, the systems of power that I have talked about were evident in the lead-up, the justification, and the resulting outcome.

The racist overtones of the war were fairly transparent, and the creation of the ‘other’ was quick and decisive for the American people.

“Why do they hate us?” 1 became the common theme in the media. Overly simplistic questions like these devalued any constructive discussion that could of been put forth, instead relying on making everything black and white for easy consumption by the masses. “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” 2 was another common phrase, emblematic of the kind of constructions that the elite created to distinguish us from the Afghans, from the ‘others’. The fact that Afghanistan is so far away, and such an alien culture, cemented the deal on this front.

The second, most noticeable thing in regards to how the war was presented to us, was how we were “freeing” the people of Afghanistan. Especially harped upon, were the burkas of the Muslim women. While it may at first glance seem a tad counterproductive for the elite to be pressing for women’s rights in another country, it only stands to follow that they would only support such rights up to the extent which they are present in this country, at the very most. Indeed, with the benefit of hindsight, all of the concern over the women of Afghanistan seems to have been mostly rhetoric. 3

To understand the capitalistic aspect of this war, one must have a basic understanding of the military-industrial complex which fuels such wars. Afghanistan is a fairly barren desert. It does not have any amount of important resources such as oil. Yet companies will still make money off of this venture. Why is this? Because the military-industrial complex, comprised of large corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon, get large contracts from the Department of Defense. In fiscal year 1999 for instance, the Department of Defense gave out 118 billion dollars to contractors for miscellaneous goods and services. 4 War is a profit-making venture for the companies that supply the toys.

While the Afghan war was sold to the public as a war of retribution, and then later, as a war of liberation, if one stops to think about why we would be doing either such thing, it doesn’t immediately make sense. Sure – We needed to retaliate against someone. But that doesn’t examine why the elite in the United States would feel the need to attack Afghanistan. Only by trying to understand the structures of power in the United States, can you figure out their possible motives for doing something as significant as making war. That type of thoughtful reflection was what was missing from the media, and indeed, from the entire debate, whenever this latest war in Afghanistan is brought up.

-

1. President-select George W. Bush. “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People”, September 20th, 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

2. President-select George W. Bush. “President Bush Pushes for Homeland Security Department”, November 12th, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021112-1.html

3. Human Rights Watch. “Afghanistan: Women Still Not ‘Liberated’”. December 17, 2002 http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/herat1217.htm

4. Center for Defense Information. “Military Industrial Complex”.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/complex/