With the Middle East rapidly spiraling out of control, adding to the global chaos, it may seem that the planet is broken. Yet, the way the world works is not broken, it is performing exactly as has been designed to by those with the highest capacity for cruelty, also politically correctly referred to as world powers. As it always happens, it is the cumulative casualty report that will represent the baseline of just how much of the human cost of war is thus leading to considerations for drawbacks and peacekeeping. For now, the focus is on taking the maximum lead over the ‘enemy’ by causing unspeakable destruction on humans, installations, systems and their environment using the most recent but barely tested, efficient ordnance and geopolitical alignments whilst all the while calling it winning.
Is it not time to revise this definition and collectively decide that the new and separating term for world powers means those having the capacity to center humanity from an empathetic perspective? For goodness sake does maintaining a looping news cycle of arguing about whether or not the killing of children, women and innocent civilians is a war crime not make us morally complicit? As it is now custom, we move on to debating which group of humans should not have the inalienable right to life from the rooftop of our lives being sacrosanct.
Can we talk about the deafening silence around pointing out that the majority of these wars are often triggered by one singular man whose only qualification is that he made it to the top rung of the political ladder? The powers and privileges of the Commander-In-Chief automatically being assumed by a politician because s/he won an election though absurdly comical and carefree happenstance aligns within this white supremacist, capitalist and patriarchal world order.
The Commander-In-Chief could as well use his constitutional powers and political authority to create, build and sustain peace within his nation and as a collective with Commanders-In-Chiefs of other territories. Yet, historically this is not the case in most corners of the world. As a matter of fact, the meetings about shared global peace are approached by the Commander-In-Chiefs in their authority as politicians.
In ideal circumstances outside of coups, it takes no less than 30 years for a soldier to train and grow his or her personal and professional muscle to qualify for the rank, title and privileges of General let alone to command some part of but not all of the military. In order to work most jobs in the majority of the world, people must put in varied durations of time to study, train, sit for and pass exams, go through an internship, get certified and pass the mandatory re-tests that occur every so often.
Why is the qualification threshold for the job of Commander-In-Chief so low yet the decisions made, unlike those of a neurosurgeon, have national and world-wide dire consequences? We must consider changing it so that the title of Commander-In-Chief is decentralised to make way for a supreme authority over our territorial borders made up of a diverse council which is not only populated by military blowhards but by those who have always suffered the most when war is declared. This was the way of the Agikuyu people prior to the colonization of Kenya. It served them well.
Theoretically, war is a last resort for self protection against the relentless pursuers of territory and life or death interests through violence. This is not what has been practiced in the recently documented wars. Another myth that we must resolve is that there is no such a thing as soldiers disobeying an unlawful command. The locus of the military is overall discipline achieved through hierarchical command, control and communication. There is no section of the training syllabus from basic to discharge that reads, ‘How to obey your consciousness when in doubt of direct orders.’ It is not that soldiers chose war, it is that they obey the orders of the system they have been indoctrinated into.
Is now the time that we admit to ourselves that the order of arrangement pertaining to politics and the military is a vulnerability that at best can and has been used to control the local population for political expediency and, worst of all as had been previously demonstrated, a threat to the world? The last myth is that the president assumes the title of Commander-In-Chief in a ceremonial capacity. Citizens often assume the fly by thinking that it is for their psychological comfort or an ego boost for the president. History has proven time and time again that a president keen on his political survival will not only assume the powers of the CiC but operationalise them. And no one can stop him. Only time.