razelas said:
Actually the US spends more than the next 14 countries [http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending]... the US is neither that crazy nor that rich. Have you ever looked at what that budget funds? According to this recent Congressional Research Service report [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf], "as of March 2011, DOD had more contractor personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq (155,000) than uniformed personnel (145,000)." Private military companies and defense contractors, particularly Xe Services [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xe_Services] have practically become integrated into the US military [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/middleeast/24contractors.html?ref=blackwaterusa&pagewanted=1] over the last 7 years. In the last fiscal year the Department of Defense spent nearly $316 billion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor#cite_note-Singer-0] (nearly half out of a budget of $689 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png] on defense contractors. These trends do not indicate militarism but rather war profiteering. And game devs are are fundamentally in the same business since have been they releasing annual modern warfare games based on current conflicts.
Alright, we account for 43% of global military spending. Next comes China, at around 7%. Then, Russia at 3.6%. As a percentage of GDP, we're up there with countries that are heavily nationalistic or exist in difficult/unusual situations. It's still a lot, and it's just bizzare to suggest otherwise because some of that money is spent on private contractors-- that's just the collision of militarism with a right-wing privatization agenda. Militarist attitudes directly impact just how much money and support we throw at war profiteers-- just like they impact how much we throw at the military.
I wasn't conflating the two concepts, as it would be as incorrect as making the mistake you made; thinking that the two are exclusive of each other. Militarism without patriotism is not militarism but warmongering. Of course it's possible to be an anti-militarist patriot, but it is not possible to be an non-patriotic militarist. And this is not the first time that the US has spent a ridiculous amount of money on defense spending. The military-entertainment complex, as you put it, is a fairly new phenomenon and not necessary to militarism.
I never claimed that they were exclusive of each other-- just that the terms weren't interchangeable. I don't think that this is a productive branch of discussion; it's semantic and not incredibly pertinent to the topic. I do think that it's possible to be pragmatically militarist without having any real degree of patriotism-- a land owner, for example, thinking that his current country would protect his property rights better than a potentially invading one, or someone who wants access to cheap oil no matter the cost. These people would not call for war, but they would want their country's national agenda promoted without necessarily caring about anything like national identity.
It's also evident that heavy exposure to militarism can change what's 'normal.' Someone who doesn't think about these things but grows up playing militarist games and watching similarly-themed movies might have not much of an opinion on this stuff, but they also might simply consider it unthinkable to really consider pruning down a currently bloated military.
The military-entertainment complex is older than popular home gaming; it has shaped modern attitudes on the very nature of war and the role of the military. I think that's old enough-- it doesn't change its core just because it slides into a new medium.
I think you don't understand the point I'm making with that ad.
Compare that recruitment ad with this WWII ad [http://www.army.mil/cmh/art/Posters/WWI/I_want_you.jpg] and you'll see how patriotism and morality has become significantly divorced from military service. It's interesting to note the difference in attitude between video games and actual military media.
That ad just really proves how much Ed Bernays changed advertising. It doesn't engage you much at all, does it?
You're adding the word "morality" when before it wasn't an issue. Modern militainment deliberately ignores questions of real morality by emphasizing loyalty to faceless authority and using the stock evil characters (Hey, Russians! Hey, Arabs!) that we've been conditioned to accept since the 80s, especially, as enemies. Military recruitment ads are then afforded the luxury, by and large, of being able to ignore even mentioning any sort of opposing force-- it's just understood that, should you go to war, it'll be against shadowy 'bad guys.' Dave Sirota's "Back to Our Future," Chaplin and Ruby's "Smartbomb," and David Grossman's "On Killing" talk a lot about this stuff.
