Episode 03: War & Violence | Dr. Hilary Matfess

Audio & Transcript

Executive Producers: John Lamberger, Lindsey Ferrini, Connor JL Moore

This transcript has been edited for clarity and readability while preserving the speakers’ original meaning and conversational tone. Minor repetitions, filler words, and false starts have been removed. Speaker attributions have been carefully reviewed against the audio to ensure accuracy.

John

Nobody wants to look weak. So maybe you stand a little taller. Maybe you lower your voice. Maybe you act in a way that says I am strong. Countries do the same thing. But instead of a clenched fist, we see an aircraft carrier moving into position, or a country buying guns or rockets firing across a border. And this is where communicating strength can turn into war and violence, where people are asked to fight, suffer and die over ideas.

We discussed this with Doctor Hilary Matfess, who researches war, political violence and the gender dynamics of conflict. This conversation is not about historic battles or what weapons are used. It is about how war and violence shape who we are, how they define strength, dignity, sacrifice, and who belongs. She planned our flock, the fence, and the wolves.

Dr. Matfess

I like to tell my students my career is really a function of a series of mistakes. Happy little accidents. But I never intended to study international security. Never intended to look at the gender dynamics of conflict or war. When I started undergrad, I really thought I was going to be a lawyer. And then I took a con law class, and I was like, wow, I hate this.

I hate the set up. I hate the studying. Hate all of it. And I was in an international trade class, and I was like, wow, I really love economics. And then I realized I am just not good enough at math to be a real economist. And alongside that, all of these studies of economics and particularly developmental economics, where I was focused on during my brief foray into that world, the story always seemed to get derailed by war.

It seemed to always be like. And then they were on track for development. And now this war broke out. And so I found myself really fascinated by this, this interregnum, this interruption. And Paul Collier, who is a very famous world Bank affiliated economist, once wrote that, war is development in reverse. And so I, I kind of came into the world of international security through the roots of economics and the way that I started focusing on gender and security, was because I was working with Doctor Peter Lewis at sites, and I was getting my master's degree.

And I was working with him because my scholarship had run out and I needed money. And so I kind of walked into his office with all of that swagger that a  year old can have. I was like, do you have research funds? And he was like, I sure do. And so even though I had learned Swahili wanted to work in East Africa, I started working with him on a project.

On social violence in Nigeria. And that was around the time that the Boko Haram insurgency was becoming more and more mainstream. Were getting a lot of reporting. The violence was ramping up. And so I spent week after week reading all of these Nigerian newspaper reports about the violence and tallying events and deaths and all of these things.

And I was frustrated that I was learning so much about a place that I had never been. So I, I then pestered Doctor Lewis into giving me like a grand to go to, to Nigeria, and talk to people and get the real story. And, you know, I really thought like, okay, you know, at that point,  maybe, I'm going to go to Nigeria and I'm going to sort out this whole Boko Haram thing.

I'm going to get to the bottom of it. And for me, at that time, that meant talking to, you know, young men with arms. And I had this, like, image of myself. I'm going to be like Christiane Amanpour, like, I'm going to be on the ground, wind in my hair, flak jacket on, talking to these guys. And it turns out when insurgents don't want to be found.

It's hard to find them when you know no one in the country crazy. And so for my first couple trips, really, the only people I could speak to, were women who had been displaced by the conflict. And it's embarrassing to admit, but I treated that like a consolation prize. At first, I was like, oh, talk to these, like, women.

Oh. Well, I wait to, to get the real story from the man. But once I, like, put aside my internalized misogyny, I realized these conversations with women were revealing things that just hadn't been reported on. I was learning about conflict dynamics that weren't being appreciated because we had focused so heavily on the kind of big military story and men's experiences.

And so I, over time, became focus on, really getting women's perspectives on the insurgency and the war against Boko Haram in northeast Nigeria. And that became the subject of my first book, women in the War on Boko Haram Wives, weapons, witnesses, subtitle I liked a lot more at the time that I pitched it. And yeah, I from there I was just like I, you know, became a zealous convert, to kind of feminist security studies and fully believe that we've been leaving a lot of empirical and analytical heft on the table because we haven't paid attention to the the gender dynamics of Camp.

Lindsey

The idea of war. It's an emotional one. It's tied directly to our national identity and to our universal experience as humans. Heated debate can range from being called a warhawk to being weak on defense. How do we discuss war responsibly?

Dr. Matfess

It's such a good question, and it's something that I wrestle with all of the time because there are so many heavy political implications surrounding war and political violence, and who participates and who benefits. And I remember I was briefing at Africom and, I was talking about, you know, why would people join Boko Haram and talking about all of the the state failures and the state abuses and the the lack of opportunity for a generation of young people who felt that, you know, civilian life couldn't provide for them what they expected or what they wanted.

And this military guy, you know, calls me like a terrorist sympathizer. And, I mean, he was really heated about it. And I remember just, like, thinking to myself, what? I'm never being invited back here. Right? I've just been accused of supporting terrorism in front of, like,  people. If I ever get a job with the government, there's no way I'm getting a security clearance.

But I also just remember thinking, like, oh, we have a real problem when we can't, you know, consider what might drive someone to take up arms. You know, how dire does the situation have to be? Or how appealing does the alternative offered by these armed groups have to be in order to to make you put your life on the line?

And so I, I think centering the individuals and the humanity of the people involved is a really important step. In discussing war responsibly. And when I was getting my PhD, I had a very good friend who was getting his master's degree, and he was also a U.S. Army infantry officer. And he would say, you know, every now and then things like, oh, you know, the bad guys.

And I would get so mad because I was like, you are too smart. And like, frankly, too high ranking to be talking like that. That that narrative of bad guys versus good guys is, you know, it's appealing and it's mobilizing, but like, can't actually take that seriously, right? Because I think it is just really dehumanizing and unhelpful.

So paying attention to the, the humanity of folks on both sides or whichever side of of conflicts, I think is really critical for being able to discuss political violence and war and all of these other kind of violent interactions in a way that's ethical and responsible.

John

On that note, Doctor Mattis wore. What is it good for?

Dr. Matfess

Actually some things.

John

O-okay!

Dr. Matfess

Say it, again! Yeah. I mean, it's, there's a real anti-military strain in feminist security studies, which I don't totally disagree with, but I, I sometimes find myself a little frustrated by because I can sometimes sidestep that. Yeah. The war has been linked to, you know, a variety of civil rights movements in the United States and elsewhere. Participation in war has been a way in which marginalized communities have gotten kind of citizenship and become a part of, you know, national communities, all of these imagined communities, as Benedict Anderson would call them.

You know, sacrificing during war has been linked to citizenship rights and valorization. And I think we can't really look past that. Right. When we think about the the United States civil rights movement. A lot of the, the kind of fervor and movement came in the aftermath of World War II to when American troops had served alongside integrated European armies and came back and said, we fought for liberty over there.

Why are we treated as second class citizens at home? And because I also focus on gender. So much of my research, you know, there's this finding that's often treated as paradoxical, which is that civil war can often lead to improvements in women's rights and representation in the short to medium term. And a lot of that is because war opens up opportunities for women to break out of traditionally feminine roles that are devalued, then participate in traditionally masculine roles that are valued.

So that means things like going into the factories. There's a reason that in the United States, Rosie the Riveter became an iconic image. That also means, you know, playing a bigger role in politics in the absence of, you know, men who are mobilized to participate in conflict. So war, what is it good for? I don't want to act like war is, you know, unmitigated good.

Because it's not, War is bad art, but it has been associated with opportunities to advance causes that I think kind of normatively we all agree with. And so it's, I think, a pressing question to think through, you know, are there other opportunities that don't require, you know, militarization or the violence implicated in war to push forward political agendas like civil rights, like equal rights, things like that?

You know, it's also worth considering why do we devalue things that are associated with femininity and work in the home and all of these things? Why do women traditionally only get political rights and representation when they take on quote unquote men's work? And all of those things are worth investigating at the root. But at the same time, we can't ignore that war seems to be a pretty consistent feature of modern life.

Certainly earlier than modern life as well. And we can find ways to, to leverage that opportunity, in order to advance pushes for equal rights.

John

War is unimaginably horrific. No one here is saying otherwise. But Doctor Mathis highlights an uncomfortable history. Marginalized communities have sometimes turned war time participation and sacrifice into claims for citizenship rights, representation and political power. So if war can redefine politics in that way, the next question is where violence comes from. Is it human nature, or is it part of a larger system around us?

Lindsey

We obviously never want to resort to violence. That's not the goal. Do you think violence is built into human nature, or do you think we're naturally peaceful?

Dr. Matfess

I don't want to give in to the like, evolutionary biologist burros who are like, you know, because, like, apes fought, we're going to fight. But I also, I think.

John

You know, this is like a, like a Hobbesian take.

Dr. Matfess

Right? Like, what would what would people be if they were left to their to their own devices and. I'll do that, like academic thing, which is infuriating, which is like, please. Yeah. Which is like.

John

You could say anything.

Lindsey

And do whatever you want.

Dr. Matfess

There's infinite recording space! No, but I, I wonder how relevant the idea of human nature is because it kind of posits like, humans in a vacuum, and it's like, but the vacuum does not exist. You know, like, we have all of these, you know, cultural, political, social, economic institutions that have, you know, evolved, in the face of war that can perpetuate war.

I mean, unfortunately, whether or not human nature is, you know, naturally war like or naturally peace loving, we we do have a system where certain disputes are handled through violence. The United States spends quite a lot of money making sure that we have a large, well-trained, well-equipped army. And you can optimistically say that's to deter violence, but that's also so that we can make good on our threats of violence that we use to try and compel other actors in the international system to do what we want.

And so it's, you know, it really speaks to the importance of making sure that we have good people in a system that is built with kind of violence baked into the available tools.

What the system that's, that has just a foundation of violence. We want peaceful people involved in that to try to balance it out a little bit. Is that kind of what you're getting at? Yeah.

And just folks who understand kind of the the awesome weight and the toll of warfare and political violence and the deployment of the military. And, you know, the, the implicit harm that comes through militarization as well. So when you think through, not just like the deployment of force, but also the training of U.S. military members to be able to practice that violence is is both it's expensive in terms of money, in terms of staff calories, but also it shapes how people think about themselves and their surroundings and shapes how they relate to their community members.

You know, I mean, those training and deployment schedules are also really hard on families. So when we think through that, like total weight and cost, it's not something that should be done lightly or flippantly or without, you know, clear strategic objectives which, you know, I think we've unfortunately seen a lot of missteps in the past ,  years, with the use of American military power.

John

Is violence inherent in humans is an impossible question because there aren't humans in a vacuum to compare. What we can compare are the cultural, political, social, and economic systems. People live inside and inside those systems. Violence can become one of the available tools. So if society chooses violence tomorrow, how does it explain that choice? How does it justify it?

And would everyone agree on what that violence means?

Dr. Matfess

I find it really hard to disaggregate, you know, the the ideological, the political and the economic drivers underneath war. And I think part of that is, you know, you can ask ten members of an armed group, you know, why they're fighting and get ten different answers, because motivation to to join an armed group is often a reflection of an individual's position within that political, economic and social structure.

And so, you know, my partner as all my students now, went to West Point or entered infantry, served his country because in the aftermath of , he wanted to protect American lives. And he has this, like, very kind of an earnest, plaintive patriotism. His father served. There was a real understanding that this was a good he could do for a country that he loved.

I don't the same time, I know you know, folks who had a similar path not to West Point, but into the U.S. Army where it was like, man, I forgot to apply to college. Like, woops, gotta do something or I can't afford college. And this is a way that I can, you know, serve my country but also improve my economic standing.

You know, I think it's also worth considering, particularly in the United States context, the extent to which, like service in the US military has become almost an inherited profession. You know, so it's since the introduction of the all volunteer force, we've seen, you know, certain communities kind of opt out of service entirely. And, a lot more of this, like, inherited.

Oh, my father served. So I served, like, understanding of service. And that's a little bit troubling to me as someone who never served, but I grew up in a military town, has been served, I was really struck when I went back north, for my PhD, that, some people I'd never met in Active-Duty service men in their lives.

You know, we're in our mid s. Had worked, but we're completely divorced from the lived experiences of, you know, our men and women in uniform. And that was, I don't know, that was really troubling to me. We had someone who was getting a PhD who was going to go teach at West Point. And so that's how it came up in conversation was a number of people were like, oh, yeah, it's my first time meeting someone who's active duty.

And that was yeah, I mean, just mind blowing to me. You know, I think that we have a lot of publicly articulated reasons for war. And then there are often much more crass political calculations behind closed doors when we think about the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. What always springs to mind is that, then First Lady Laura Bush gave a guest presidential radio address where she really wanted the American people to know that the Taliban was abusing women and that it was the United States duty to step in and protect these women.

Right. So very similar to that kind of narrative of like our the United States is going into Europe to protect democracy. The United States was going to go into Afghanistan to protect these women who are abused by the Taliban. And certainly the Taliban was engaging in gross human rights abuses, gross violations of women's rights. I'm I'm certainly not a defender of the Taliban's policies, but I also find it very interesting the narratives that are articulated publicly and particularly by women that are associated with like government officials and then kind of the discussions behind closed doors about what is the national security threat presented by the Taliban.

So I don't think that it's possible to detangle all of these because I think they're all wrapped up in each other, but I find it really useful to think through which audiences are being given which set of reasons. And how do they converse with each other, and are there ever going to be uncomfortable moments when kind of the the inherent contradictions that often accompany decisions to go to war, when those audiences kind of come in conversation with one another?

What does that look like? Yeah. If you've been sold a bill of goods about what this war is about, and then someone comes and tells you like, oh, no, actually it's, you know, about getting oil or, you know, whatever. It's about keeping the military industrial complex afloat. All of these things, you know, that's going to lead to some cognitive dissonance and real frustration.

John

War is not one thing. People can experience the same war with different meanings patriotism, economic opportunity, public duty, political calculation, and different audiences can be presented with different reasons for the same violence. But when those meanings collide, any contradiction becomes part of the war's legacy. So before we ask whether any war can be morally defended, we have to sit with that tension.

Who gets to decide what a war meant?

John

The following excerpt from the book With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge. United States Marine who fought in the Pacific during World War two. He recalls when his military unit heard about the end of the war. Quote, we received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with an indescribable sense of relief. We thought the Japanese would never surrender.

Many refused to believe it. Sitting in stunned silence, we remembered our dead. So many dead. So many maimed. So many bright futures. Consigned to the ashes of the past. So many dreams lost in the madness that had engulfed us. Except for a few widely scattered shouts of joy. The survivors of the abyss sat hollow-eyed and silent, trying to comprehend a world without war.

Doctor Matfess, are there just wars? Wars that are righteous?

Dr. Matfess

That’s’ a really beautiful excerpt. It's impossible to think through this question without returning to the kind of hack adage write that history is written by the victors. And so I think during wartime mobilization around the idea that you're going to go fight a just war. And I think that's common to armed groups around the world. All right.

No one recruits on the kind of platform of, yeah, and we're going to be the bad guys. What we're doing here is illegal, wrong and immoral. And then in the aftermath of conflict, you know, those who survived or those who won the war also then get to kind of write the history. And that can come with refashioning their experiences.

It can come with, you know, justifying what they did. I think part of the reason that, you know, this excerpt is so compelling and also the reason that Kurt Vonnegut's writing has been so popular is because it shows the vulnerability and the uncertainty surrounding the end of war and participation in violence. And this this understanding that even though it could be a righteous cause or you participated because you believed it was a righteous cause that comes with tremendous loss, and sacrifice.

And so I, I do believe that there are just wars and that could be me drinking the, you know, US military industrial complex Kool-Aid. But, also the descendant of Jewish immigrants. And it's hard for me to think through. Oh, what those who had been, you know, interned in concentration camps were feeling when they were liberated by, you know, U.S. forces and allied forces and, you know, I just can't bring myself to think that that's not a righteous cause, even when it came on, you know, on the backs and in the face of so much loss, I mean, truly indescribable loss.

In terms of the lives lost, but also just I mean, in terms of the. The wholesale destruction of a generation. So I, I do believe in just wars and I, you know, I don't I don't need to pull out my Sir Thomas Aquinas and be like, oh, here are the conditions for, you know, just war theory.

I'm not a theorist. Never have been, never will be. But I also think it's it's worth particularly as academics and analysts and folks that want to work in policy world really considering what it means when both sides think that they're fighting a righteous war. You know, when those narratives have come head to head with one another and, you know, God, I think I'm going to, I believe, quote, Ronald Reagan, which is a rarity.

But, you know, one man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighter is very real. And part of that is, again, you know, you don't mobilize people by saying, like, we're going to do bad shit to people who don't deserve it. That's that's not a compelling reason to take up arms. But like, if we think through the narratives that are being propagated by the Kremlin right now about Ukraine, it's not.

Yeah. I really think we need this land because, like, we're bigger and tougher, right? They're selling it as this idea of, well, you know, we're going to restore ourselves to this previous greatness by reclaiming territory that was unjustly taken from us. And, you know, Ukrainians are saying, no, we have the right to sovereignty and self-determination and territorial integrity, and we are fighting this just cause to protect ourselves from this illegal onslaught.

And like, yeah. But no, I think it's it's really worth considering, particularly if you're thinking through like post-conflict reintegration or transitional justice, like how do we square different notions of what was right in war? And then coexist in the post-conflict period? I mean, it is a tremendous task. Particularly, you know, if you've been involved in, like, protracted political violence to, to kind of undo the idea of, like, yeah, I was, I was fighting a just war.

Yeah. So I do think there are just wars, as I think most people think they're fighting a just war, which makes it very tricky to to figure out who which war is actually draws.

Lindsey

Well, this next question's kind of about the population on either side of a conflict. And I know we were just talking about the Russo Ukraine conflict. So I'm thinking about the people of Russia and the people of Ukraine. The government has complete oversight of violence and the legal authority to wage war. How responsible are the people for the violence conducted on their behalf by their government?

Dr. Matfess

Such a good question. You know, to say that each individual citizen is culpable for the violence perpetrated by their government kind of invites collective punishment, which I don't want to do. Right. Attacks on U.S. citizens in response to U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan would still be considered acts of terrorism. So stipulating I don't believe in collective punishment.

I do think particularly for those of us living in electoral democracies, I do think that those of us who are living in democracies, whether they be imperfect or well-oiled machines, do have a responsibility to to voice our displeasure. Right. And to stand up and articulate what it is we expect from our professional practitioners of violence, and hold that standard and, you know, really demand that the legal system of checks and balances to restrain the power of any one governmental entity, be respected.

And that, you know, when those who have been entrusted to use violence on behalf of its citizenry misbehave or break the law, that they are punished in accordance with, you know, the guidelines governing them, right? And that means that means that we have to speak out when we see police violence, when we see our military behaving inappropriately overseas.

You know, I, I certainly don't think that we can hold citizens responsible for the violence that that government enacts. But I do think that we can judge people for not when they have the capability to do so relatively safely. Speaking out against that and demanding that their government uphold the values that they believe in. Traditionally we're supposed to do that at the ballot box.

John

In his January 1848 speech opposing the Mexican-American War, Congressman Abraham Lincoln accused President Polk of unjustly rallying war support by, quote, fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory, that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood, doctor madness. What makes military glory and war and violence so attractive?

Dr. Matfess

Man, this Abe Lincoln guy's a real good public speaker, he's really going places. If only he had a signature hat to really stand out of the crowd. Yeah. So like I said, a little bit earlier, so often military glory and sacrifice has been connected to citizenship and respect and heroism, and it comes with the kind of coding of like the public sphere, which is such a like clunky academic term to mean, like anything that's not domestic life, as a place that's masculine and for men, and home and kind of softness and femininity all being wrapped up in this idea of like, womanhood, but part of making the public sphere, you know, masculine and for men is also speaking to like a hierarchy that exists among men in gender hierarchy. Right? It's not just about like men are given more status than women, more prestige, more respect. So it's certain types of men are held up as like the apex of masculinity. And the Association of Militarization and Warfighting and masculinity has so often meant that, like the manliest dude, the guy that's like, most worthy of being in the public sphere is like a military man, is someone with this kind of distinguished career as a practitioner of violence.

And I've talked about this in my classes before, like, you know, that's harmful to a lot of people. Right. If if participation in warfare is a means by which men distinguish themselves and compete with one another, well, then that kind of produces a motor towards militarization and towards war. And that's obviously destructive and problematic. And that's to, you know, have sympathy for men.

What's the tough thing to do in ? But it does seem, you know, exhausting that there's this hierarchy of men is is a never ending treadmill of, of trying to be the toughest and the biggest. And we have all of these really interesting psychological studies about how masculinity is easily lost, you know, like one singular display of feminine behavior.

And you suddenly have to like, quote unquote, like return your man card in a way that, like, I'm wearing pants today. This hasn't dampened my femininity. I don't have to prove myself to be a woman. I'm out here earning money at a job. When I go home, I don't have to be like, My God, let me go full s housewife to reclaim my femininity.

Because it's not attached to as much prestige or stature. Whereas I think, John, if you came to school today in a skirt, there would be like a lot of like, what's up with John? You know, and like, oh, is John as tough as I thought he was? In ways that are really damaging to men. And bringing this back to, to violence, we see in armed groups, you know, state affiliated, non-state affiliated, whatever.

The closer you are to the front lines, the more respect you get. And it I mean, even within like super, you know, specialized aspects of service, you can be an infantryman in the U.S. Army. Do you have your range or tap? Well, have you got your Ranger tab? Did you go Ranger Regiment? Well, if you want Ranger Regiment, then why don't you go over to Delta?

You know, like there's always the next thing about being, like, super tough. There's always a next level of of masculinity to be achieved. So what makes military glory and war so attractive? To go back, because it comes with prestige and respect and kind of climbing up that pyramid of masculinity and status, Yeah. So to the point where I had a friend who was like, very successful at performing masculinity, which is a weird thing to say.

And I think if he heard it, he'd be like, what the fuck are you talking about?

Sounds like a really nice way of putting it. I don't know, I don't know exactly what you're about to say, but it sounds very nice.

He's a good looking guy. He's a tall guy, full head of hair, despite his age, which is compelling. I got it. Yep. It was, my husband does too. And, like, he was in the Army and was, like, doing, you know, cool guy, tough guy. Shit. But he was so frustrated by this, like, performative, preening masculinity that he was, like, wear t shirts about, like, mental health matters, like.

And all of these kind of, like, softer, you know, quote unquote, like girly things I want to point out, like, you know, no, I don't need to I don't need to compete with you guys to be the toughest because I'm comfortable with myself. Which, like, I don't think that this man would be like, yeah, I'm a radical feminist.

But I do think that that behavior, like, does help kind of undermine gender hierarchy and undermine the sort of like, I don't know, race to be a protein powder snorting Neanderthal who, like, hates anything feminine or associated with women.

John

It's like a, like a positive thing that men can do to, like, use privilege to change things in society?

So not to brag on my husband because I, we joke, we don't say nice things to each other. We say nice things about each other. It's great. It's a very solid way to communicate. I highly recommend,

Lindsey

You just go around insulting each other.

<laughter>

Dr. Matfess

Pretty much. Yeah, but behind each other's backs, it's positive.

Yes. Yeah. No, no. To his face. I did, I, I taught our daughter, who's like two and some change, a call and response where I go. What is that? You know, she goes, nothing. 

<laughter>

And I'm like, that's right, daddy. No, nothing. Yeah. It's he gives it as well as he gets it. Don't worry.

But anyway, when we were engaged, we're still living in Connecticut, and he was at his office where there's a bunch of, like, pro dudes. And they were talking some guy in the office whose fiance I wasn't going to take his last name. Basically, like a fucking pussy. Like. Well, my wife took mine. It like an incredible thing to try and flex about.

And my husband is also very successful at performing masculinity. So without a full head of hair, like, he's, you know, he's a tough, strong guy. He's got a military background, all of that stuff that's associated with prestige, like interrupt him is like, my fiance is not going to take my name. Do you have a problem with that?

And they all like, shut up. Because my husband's a strong man. And I think they were a little bit like me. Okay. But I do think, like. Yeah, it matters when men stand up and are like, what you're doing is ridiculous, right? And like, oh, no. Like, disrespecting women are like exerting control over them is not a means in which are like proving what a big tough guy you are.

Like, so yeah, no, I as I say this very frequently to my husband, like, guys that don't respect women aren't going to listen to me. Right. So I can, you know, I could literally talk all day about like, patriarchy and gender hierarchy and discrimination and, you know, precarious masculinity, blah, blah, blah. But like, they're not going to take me seriously.

And so it requires people that are already pretty high up on that hierarchy of men to say, like, this is all bullshit, and the way that you're acting is ridiculous. For for change to come about from certain, you know, subsets of people.

John

At the height of the Cold War, the president of France, Charles de Gaulle, announced that France would withdraw from NATO's integrated military command, and he asked the US to remove its military bases and armed forces from French soil. President Lyndon Johnson reportedly then asked whether that decision also applied to Americans buried in French cemeteries. Doctor Memphis do the dead of past wars belong to history?

Or does the meaning of their deaths continue to guide how societies should act in the present?

Dr. Matfess

I'm trying to think of this in a way that's not quite so America centric. Because the United States has this particular relationship, to to those that we lost in war. Right? We have annual commemorations of it. We have. I mean, Arlington National Cemetery is a national icon. It is a revered space because of the kind of weight and the understanding that those men and women sacrificed our lives in the service of the American project.

And what there's always debate over what is the American project, right. Like, should we be intervening to promote democracy? Should we be doing x, y, z? You know, there's intense political debates around it, but it's kind of anathema in American political life to say anything along the lines of like, we need to forget about the dead, or, you know, their their sacrifice was in vain.

Because we have it so deeply ingrained, in our national consciousness that there's was a sacrifice that is to be respected and lauded and remembered. And as an American that grew up near a military town, though in a deeply civilian family, you know, I was I was obviously raised in that. And so.

You know, I, I don't think really anywhere there's like a kind of waiving off of past sacrifices that have been made in people's minds. I do think in places where, you know, the military has been complicit in violence against their own civilians, that there's perhaps more complicated, feeling. But I do think when we we think about what motivates people to take up arms, to join militaries, to join non-state armed groups, it is worth considering the kind of narratives we tell about those that have lost their lives in the service of that cause.

Because I do think it's a compelling way in which, you know, imagined communities of all sorts really define themselves. So I don't think they belong to the history. I think that kind of the sacrifices of those who served in armed groups are unfortunately very frequently politicized in the service of this idea that, like, their sacrifice shouldn't be in vain.

But yeah, that's, that's all I've got to say about that. No, I will also say, like, as I'm like, realize like, you know, I can't even bring myself to, like, speak ill of of those who lost their lives in service of their country. I do you think it's worth noting you can serve your country quite a lot of ways.

And we have a tendency to valorize military service, but, like, if you've ever toured the CIA headquarters, you also see that they have a, a wall full of those who, you know, died during their their service to the intelligence community. And there's also those who lost their lives as diplomats, as aid workers. I certainly don't want to suggest the only way that you can serve your country is through the military.

Lindsey

With conflict and thinking about, just devastation. We tend to focus on Taiwan, Venezuela, Iran, Ukraine and Gaza. What wars are we not hearing about and why aren't we hearing about them?

I've spent a lot of my career working on political violence in sub-Saharan Africa. So like my initial slate of like I have one should be paying attention to these conflicts is pretty much focused there. So, like, I'm really struck by how quiet the press has been about the war in Sudan. Right? There was a kind of initial burst of reporting, and now it's kind of faded into the background of like, oh, yeah, still war in Sudan isn't that crazy?

And it's like, yes. And geopolitically quite important. More broadly, you know, we focus a lot on kind of declared wars between, you know, either different government in two different governments or a government and a non-state armed group. But I don't think that the international community, academics, analysts are paying enough attention to kind of inter fighting, between non-state armed groups.

So battles between, you know, Salafi jihadist insurgents in the Sahel, disagreements between cartels and non-state armed groups. Yeah, all of those are really significant contributors to the instability and insecurity throughout the world. And then the final thing I'll say that we we don't really focus on that we should is the the loss of life and the violence, that go on in the home and the kind of really troublingly high rates of intimate partner violence and domestic violence.

And we don't frame it as a war because it's not, but it is a significant form of violence that shapes, you know, so many people's lives. And we frame it often as a private matter. And that takes away a lot of the politics of it and the ways in which it's, you know, an assertion of masculinity and men's power over women.

Let's step back and widen the frame. Our conversation began where conversations about war usually begin countries, militaries, armed groups, and clearly defined conflicts. But Doctor Mattis pushes us beyond that. She is careful here. Domestic violence is not war, but it is a significant form of violence. And when it is treated as a private matter, we can miss the politics inside it power, gender control and whose safety gets treated as a public concern.

John

So the next turn may feel sharp, but it follows the same thread. If violence can be framed as protection, dignity, discipline or control, then stopping it becomes much harder than simply deciding the harm should end.

Lindsey

We've been talking a lot about what causes war, what prolongs it, why does it happen? What is it with ending a long and difficult war? Is it the perception of weakness on the world stage? The global stage? Is it an aversion to betraying the public good?

Dr. Matfess

You know, the sunk cost fallacy is a really powerful force, right? This idea that like, well, we've already sacrificed so much, we've spent so much time, we have to at least accomplish this objective before we can get out. And, you know, I'm, I'm a s baby, so I was raised in the kind of era of America's endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And from my perspective, it seemed like so often there was just this sunk cost fallacy of like, well, we can't cut and run. We've already spent so much there. Iraq's going to be a democracy, you know, like we're we're going to democratize and that there's just no way around it. And, you know, that the the Taliban was going to be eradicated.

And, it's safe to say here in , neither one of those goals were achieved. And I don't think had we stayed on for another  years, they would have been achieved that. But it's very difficult to admit defeat. It's very difficult to admit that, like, you have spent a lot of time, money, energy, and lost so many lives in the service of an objective that you did not accomplish.

So, yeah, I mean, that would be. That would be my guess.

Lindsey

If violence is being committed against me, aka if someone punches me in the face, I would feel the need to respond violently by punching them in the face. In self-defense, of course. Is there a paradox to violence, and is war self-perpetuating?

Dr. Matfess

Yeah. I mean, I definitely think that there's kind of an inherent escalatory nature to this. And, you know, in conflict studies, there's this idea of kind of the escalation ladder, and how I was one person is advancing up the other party feels the need to, to advance further so that they're not caught off guard. I mean, you can also see it in the sort of arms race that accompany the cold War.

This idea of, like, you don't even have to be punched in the face so you can see someone, you know, putting on brass knuckles and you're like, oh, shit, should I get my brass knuckles? And then someone cocks their fists and you're like, guess what? Both hands have brass knuckles on it. Now, I've never been in a fight.

I assume people just carry their brass knuckles with-

John

-I left mine at home.

<laughter>

Dr. Matfess

Oh, no. Oh, I hate when that happens. But I do think that there's there's something self-perpetuating in that kind of cycle of escalation. And then also, I think in, in kind of the sense of we have to restore our dignity through enacting harm, which like, I like chuckled midway through because it sounds ridiculous on its face, but that is at the heart of quite a lot of violence.

Right? Like from bar fights where it's like, hey man, you couldn't again never been in a bar fight. But like, do you cut in line or you bumped into my girl and like, that harmed my dignity. So now I need to throw punch all the way to, you know, the Cuban missile crisis and the encroachment. You know, too close to America's territory with Soviet nuclear weapons.

And, yeah, I mean, if I'm going to go full feminist security studies, it's worth considering the ways that that attempt to restore dignity through a show of force is linked to masculinity and militarism and and that kind of Gordian knot that really has implications for all of our well-being.

John

If we could like, scale this to like how states perceive like a fist. Yeah. Coming out or anything, is it is it almost like a, like a language of like recognizing, oh, you're moving muscles in Cuba. We have to react.

Dr. Matfess

Yeah. I mean, you see-

John

Miscommunications as well.

Dr. Matfess

Miscommunications and perception and there's this sort of inherent tension. But yeah, you think about like in the aftermath of like tough talk, you'll hear like, oh, you know, the United States moved an aircraft carrier closer to Taiwan and it's like, okay, that is to some the equivalent of taking a defensive posture, but could be perceived to others as a raised fist.

And so what do you what do you do from there? How do you make sure that, like if you see someone advancing towards you in a way that's threatening, how do you adopt a defensive posture that isn't kind of cowering in fear? And we see a lot of this in international relations, a lot of posturing at the same time that you try to reassure someone, saying, like, I'm not going to attack you first, but if you attack me, you're going to regret it.

You know, if you're a casual consumer of the news and you read these reports about like troop movements and deployments and even, you know, high level talks about like weapons sales or transfers, it's worth considering, like, okay, what are they reacting to? And what is the message that they're trying to portray? There is a lot of like performance of national identity wrapped up in this, and attempts to like, protect the, the dignity of your nation.

John

In an undelivered speech written just before his death, President Franklin Roosevelt summarized his hope following the Second World War, quote, but the mere conquest of our enemies is not enough. We must go on to do all in our power to conquer the doubts and the fears, the ignorance and the greed which made this horror possible. Today, science has brought all the different corners of the globe so close together that it is impossible to isolate them from one another.

We are faced with the preeminent fact that if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships, the ability of all peoples of all kinds to live together and work together in the same world at peace. Doctor Matfess, is a better world possible? Are we capable of cultivating this ability to wage peace?

Dr. Matfess

Not to be too self-serious about what it is we're doing here at Korbel, but that's very much the mission. Is cultivation of a a more stable, more peaceful, more prosperous world through the study of international relations, and by training the next generation of analysts and policymakers and thinkers and doers to work towards a more peaceful world. And, you know, to tie back to the, our discussion of World War Two earlier and whether or not there can be just wars to also be prepared to fight when there's a challenge to that.

Karl Popper, who was a political theorist, has this idea that for a tolerant society to emerge, the only thing that we cannot tolerate is intolerance. And it becomes this, like fun little paradox. But I very much think that way about like, yes, a more peaceful world is possible, but it also requires standing up to or pugnacious and dominating forces, unjustly, using violence when necessary.

The debate comes in when it's necessary. But yeah, no, I, I think there are a God. I hope there can be a brighter future. I've got a two year old here, like two competing approaches to this is a better world possible question. And one is yes, and it's radical. And we have to uproot the whole system and put in place something brand spanking new.

And I have a lot of friends who believe that, and I respect that. And it's very romantic. And then on the other hand, there are the like marginal improvements over time. People, and I count myself amongst them. And it is boring and unsexy, and it's very hard to convince people like you don't go out marching like, what's the GI Bill for this generation?

I want like a marginally better set up for upward mobility through tax credits and education subsidies like it's not a great rallying cry, but that's also like where I see a better world being possible is using and reforming existing institutions to improve our lives and work towards that world. Yeah. I want to direct to the front like, yeah, I'm not huge into revolutions because they tend to blame the Jews and I don't feel safe.

So yeah, no, I think like the there's a really compelling debate about is it is the revolutionary or the incremental approach the way to go? And I think what's really fun about being at Korbel is you have people on both sides of that debate, and you can learn, you know, what each side expects.

Lindsey

Well, we would like to thank you for taking the time to do this and answer some of these tough questions. So to lighten the mood, we have two more fun questions to end it. One of them being, if you could personally recommend one place that everyone should visit for its beauty or culture. Where would that be? 

Dr. Matfess

There's so many places that spring to mind. I loved living in Ethiopia. I just, I love coffee, I love kind of I was had the ability to kind of travel in the North a little bit. And it's got this, like, really beautiful mountainous terrain. And, there's this great little, like Lake City and Amhara state called Vardar and like, I was able to take a boat to all of these little islands that had old Orthodox churches on them and you'd like kind of island hop.

And I saw a hippo in the lake. And Ethiopian food is just so good. And as a vegetarian, that is not always exciting when you're traveling. But in Ethiopia, there's a ton of incredible vegetarian food. So that would definitely be one the other one, and I'll limit myself to two. Crested Butte, Colorado, to do one domestic is just one of the most breathtakingly beautiful places I've ever been.

My husband and I have gone two years in a row now, and just. It is stunning. And for the parents out there, really incredible playground, which is something I never, ever thought I would care about. But after, like, driving the five hours or whatever to get there, my toddler wanted to play, and she was able to, like, play on this gorgeous playground.

And I was able to look at these, like, beautiful panoramic mountain views. And they've got great pizza, a place called Secret Stash and a little local bookstore that's also great. Like, a very solid mountain town that often does not have the crowds of Vail or Breck. So Crested Butte, Colorado.

John

Here at Mooreposts. We want to make it a point to promote nonprofits or organizations that create positive impacts. Are there any you would like to share with us?

Dr. Matfess

Yeah. Since we focus so much on global violence, right. I'll kind of direct my, recommendations in that vein, Doctors Without Borders does incredible work. All over the world, they provide lifesaving medical care in some of the most intense conflicts, and they are one of the most worthy organizations in the world I can think of. So, yeah, Doctors Without Borders is incredible.

I also am so deeply grateful to the folks at places like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, who are really focusing on providing clarity and well-researched accounts of how wars are actually fought. So any of those three, I think, are also incredibly deserving. And then the last one I would say would be, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, who provide reproductive and women's health care all around the world.

And I think her fighting the good fight, in a particularly difficult time to provide those types of services.

Doctor Hilary Matfess, thank you so much for being here. This is awesome.

No, thank you all.

John

After discussing maybe the heaviest subject imaginable, we ended somewhere quieter. Family trips to beautiful mountain towns and the work of health organizations. I don't think those are separate from the conversation. I think they point to the same reality. War and violence are not just things that happened far away or long ago, or only between armies. They reach into how we understand strength, dignity, sacrifice and who belongs.

And maybe restoration begins with what violence tries to take away family, truth and the chance to live without proving anything through force. So the question is not only how we prevent war and violence, it is how we start mistaking them for strength. Thanks for listening.

If you enjoyed this work, please consider sharing our content and website or donating to a non-profit organization linked in the Donate tab.

DISCLAIMER

The views and opinions expressed by podcast guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Mooreposts, its editors, contributors, or affiliates. Podcast transcripts are edited for clarity and readability; section headers have been added for navigational purposes. The substance and intent of all remarks remain unchanged.