War and Politics

[unmerged(42743)]

One thing that has struck me recently in some of the threads which cover history -- Clausewitz' dictum that "war is a continuation of policy by other means" is no more obvious than in the passion and dedication which some of us have championed our political ideals here. We're playing a wargame, of all things, and yet we cannot easily separate the issues of the war we model from the impact it had on the politics of today. Surely I'm not alone in finding that remarkably interesting.

I realize that perhaps it's beyond the reach of Hearts of Iron to model political outcomes -- its purpose is soley as a tool to model strategic and operational outcomes at the military level, with political boundaries pre-painted onto the canvas.

I'd like some discussion of this website:

Reader's Companion to Military history

The author makes some interesting assertions on war, some of which I agree with and some of which I think are naive. But it's nonetheless thought provoking, especially quotes like this:

The decisive question, then, is what makes the troops—who represent the vast majority of those involved—prepared to lay down their lives. To this question there can be only one answer: many of the greatest works of art of all history, as well as the entire field of sport and games, prove that coping with danger is a source of joy, and that war, which is not subject to rules and in which anything is permissible, is the greatest joy of all. To quote Nietzsche, a just cause does not make a good war; a good war makes a just cause. A good war, by definition, can be waged only against an enemy at least as strong as oneself—and the longer the conflict, the more true this becomes. The secret of victory is to wage war in such a way that soldiers can fight while at the same time keeping, even increasing, their self-respect as human beings. Only after that do numbers, organization, strategy, technology, and so on enter the picture.

Having been in combat myself, I can attest to the unimaginable adrenaline rush that accompanies combat (most of it manifested by the soldier's pure fear of dying). But from my own experience, I would also suggest that soldiers don't go into combat thinking about the cause for which they fight -- soldiers fight, and die, for their comrades. The buddy next to you in the foxhole. The most amazing acts of heroism I ever witnessed had no ideals or heroics as their motivation, but instead were prompted by comradeship and the knowledge that, in combat, the only friends we had were each other.

Thoughts?

 

[unmerged(41243)]

i wont make a long reply, but i really do agree with you from an outside perspective as i have not participated in any wars, but i can see how your point may be true in times of war and on the battlefield

 

[unmerged(41397)]

One thing that has struck me recently in some of the threads which cover history -- Clausewitz' dictum that "war is a continuation of policy by other means" is no more obvious than in the passion and dedication which some of us have championed our political ideals here. We're playing a wargame, of all things, and yet we cannot easily separate the issues of the war we model from the impact it had on the politics of today. Surely I'm not alone in finding that remarkably interesting.

I realize that perhaps it's beyond the reach of Hearts of Iron to model political outcomes -- its purpose is soley as a tool to model strategic and operational outcomes at the military level, with political boundaries pre-painted onto the canvas.

I'd like some discussion of this website:

Reader's Companion to Military history

The author makes some interesting assertions on war, some of which I agree with and some of which I think are naive. But it's nonetheless thought provoking, especially quotes like this:



Having been in combat myself, I can attest to the unimaginable adrenaline rush that accompanies combat (most of it manifested by the soldier's pure fear of dying). But from my own experience, I would also suggest that soldiers don't go into combat thinking about the cause for which they fight -- soldiers fight, and die, for their comrades. The buddy next to you in the foxhole. The most amazing acts of heroism I ever witnessed had no ideals or heroics as their motivation, but instead were prompted by comradeship and the knowledge that, in combat, the only friends we had were each other.

Thoughts?

You are right but what happens when the war take a pause or your comrades vanish. Not so fun any more?

 

[unmerged(42743)]

You are right but what happens when the war take a paus or your comrades vanish. Not so fun any more?

Please clarify your meaning of "paus". That is not an English term I'm familiar with.

As for "fun", it's not about fun. The author's point was that the adrenaline rush of extreme risk can be addictive (at least I think that was it), even though when you're in the middle of it you're scared spitless. He called it "joy", which I found to be strange but I think I can understand what he meant.

On a larger scale, I think the author is wrong in another aspect. Soldiers don't start wars, so his "joy" theory doesn't apply to how wars come about. Wars come about mostly, as Clausewitz noted, as the continuation of policy by other means. Furthermore, the object of wars is never about being fair, and while a war's purpose may be defined as just or unjust, the actual (tactical) conduct of that war should never have anything to do with justice -- a soldier's purpose is to win, nothing more. If that means applying overwhelming force to the enemy's weakest point, then that's what it takes. The best way to make wars 'just' is to make sure they are short. That unfortunately can require the application of overwhelming violence.

 

[Brasidas]

I don't know about the best way to fight a war being to make sure that they are short. I look back on history, and I see examples of inconclusive or unsustainable truces created out of short wars.

Was the first Gulf War really the best way to do it? By holding back from invading Iraqi territory, internal revolts were crushed and the population turned against the states by a combination of blockade and propaganda.

By stopping short of a decisive peace, you can merely set the stage for the next war.

 

[Asudulayev]

Having been in combat myself

If no one deems this question inappropriate, may I ask, where have you seen combat? You do not have to answer if you do not want to.

I have never been in combat, nor do I hope or plan to, so anything I say is pure speculation. I am also curious whether or not the author of that article has himself ever been in combat. The reason that I ask is two fold; (1) many of us who have never been in combat will often make up ideas of moral highground and righteousness for a somewhat more romanticized, perhaps more appealing (for some) view of combat and war in general and (2) it is quite possible that different people take different emotions out of war, some say, "shooting is fun," others say, "I am fighting for democracy [or some other ideal]," finally some may say, "I want to kill kill my inferior enemy", these may be true to some and far from the truth for others.

As for the famous clauswitzian maxim (war is the continuation of politics), I think that it is more true on the strategic level than on the tactical level, a soldier probably has more important things to think about while in a foxhole than the geopolitical and economic causes and consequences of what is happening on the larger scale, though I by no means am implying that soldiers never consider such things while in or out of battle.

Edit:

Was the first Gulf War really the best way to do it? By holding back from invading Iraqi territory, internal revolts were crushed and the population turned against the states by a combination of blockade and propaganda.

On the flip side a prolonged conflict may often leave a region or nation distabilized and this may have consequences even more disastrous than those of war, like the effect of WWI on Russia, France and Germany.

 

[unmerged(42743)]

I don't know about the best way to fight a war being to make sure that they are short. I look back on history, and I see examples of inconclusive or unsustainable truces created out of short wars.

By "short" I meant 'short and decisive'. You're right, short wars (Suez 1956) are not always decisive. However, short violent wars which end in decisive victory are always preferable to long ones no matter how decisive.

Was the first Gulf War really the best way to do it? By holding back from invading Iraqi territory, internal revolts were crushed and the population turned against the states by a combination of blockade and propaganda.

Of course, at that time the political limits of the coalition prevented further action. Had the Alliance advanced into Iraq, the Coalition would have fallen apart. It was a case of politics dictating war aims.

By stopping short of a decisive peace, you can merely set the stage for the next war.

True in many cases. The debate would be whether the Allied victory over Germany in WW1 was "decisive" enough -- certainly Versailles was a decisive treaty, but it only fomented resentment and a resurgence in German militarism.

If no one deems this question inappropriate, may I ask, where have you seen combat? You do not have to answer if you do not want to.

I'm fine with the question. I was in Vietnam, Central Highlands, 1968-1969. I was wounded and medevac'd home in Sept. of 1969.

I have never been in combat, nor do I hope or plan to, so anything I say is pure speculation. I am also curious whether or not the author of that article has himself ever been in combat. The reason that I ask is two fold; (1) many of us who have never been in combat will often make up ideas of moral highground and righteousness for a somewhat more romanticized, perhaps more appealing (for some) view of combat and war in general

I think that's true. Real combat is unlike anything people normally experience -- having organized bodies of trained men actively trying to kill you definitely focuses your mind and scares the bejesus out of you. There is nothing desirable about war from a soldier's viewpoint. Everything about it is dangerous and dehumanizing.

and (2) it is quite possible that different people take different emotions out of war, some say, "shooting is fun," others say, "I am fighting for democracy [or some other ideal]," finally some may say, "I want to kill kill my inferior enemy", these may be true to some and far from the truth for others.

I worked with some units of the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam. Their infantry platoons were often made up of kids, and often prided themselves in the VC fingers and toes they wore around their necks. It was my own observation that most of the ones who thought shooting and killing were fun were either very young, very disturbed, or very mislead. Much of their posturing and bravado was for the benefit of their buddies.

As for the famous clauswitzian maxim (war is the continuation of politics), I think that it is more true on the strategic level than on the tactical level, a soldier probably has more important things to think about while in a foxhole than the geopolitical and economic causes and consequences of what is happening on the larger scale, though I by no means am implying that soldiers never consider such things while in or out of battle.

My own thoughts about my country's goals in that war went to the back burner while I was over there. I was more concerned with surviving. Only when I got home did I have time to think about the larger picture.

 

[unmerged(42432)]

many of the greatest works of art of all history, as well as the entire field of sport and games, prove that coping with danger is a source of joy, and that war, which is not subject to rules and in which anything is permissible, is the greatest joy of all

Altough it is very true that toying with danger can bring great joy (most benevolent form would be gambling, extreme sports etc.), to say that war is greatest joy of all is just plain wrong.

Before you read my opinion, I think that it is important to know that I am an anarchist. Not anarchist like a crazy pierced punker, I'm a normal person just like you. The difference is that I don't believe in institutions like states or nations. Also, please realize that I do believe in social institutions like laws, social security, free healthcare, free legal advice and freedom of speech (not absolute freedom of speach - we shouldn't insult each other). I'm a liberal socialist that just doesn't believe in abstract things like nationality.
One more thing: I've never been in combat, this is just insane ranting of a quasi-intellectual.
Please, read on...

Joy is a very personal thing and there is no such thing as an individal in war.
Ab ovo...

Every person has many faces which him and his peers may or may not see during their lifetimes. One of these sides is a dark side which finds joy in combat, killing, mutilating and raping which is common for every human and animal. This dark side is always a part of a person, though it lies dormant during normal circumstances. What discerns humans from animals is the fact that humans have sets of rules which are called moral code, ethic code, laws and taboos. These rules are a integral part of every society, and I might say it's very foundations. Humans are the most social animals on this planet - leave a man alone for a longer period and he will go mad despite that he has every other need satisfied. Because a person needs to be a part of a society it needs to be able to live with that society in peace and understanding. It is impossible for one to live in peace with its surroundings if one kills, rapes and mutilates other people in those surroundings. Therefore, for a society to be successful and to thrive, every member of it must abide same set of rules. So members must supress their dark drives to live a fulfilling life. There are always deviations from this rule - there are murderers and criminals in every society. Society deals with such problematic members by removing them from itself - it imprisons them and denies them from that most basic need, the need to be a part of a society.

When times become stressful for a society, like during great social change/test (revolution, natural disaster etc.), whole society is shaken down to it's roots - rules of behaviour and the society begins to fall apart. A normal person in an everyday situation would never pick up a rock and throw it at a police officer - it can't force itself to break social rules. However, a normal person could throw a rock at a policeman if the situation is far from ordinary. One might kill a policeman that secures the goverment that opresses you. It is also important to say that an individual would never comit such an atrocity even during times of great stress. For a person to murder a policeman, he/she needs to supress its individuality and find someon to be responsible for it's actions. A person supresses individuality in a group of people trying to do the same thing - an angry mob. Mob is capable of doing atrocities unheard of because it's truly free - noone can be held responsible for the actions of a mob because there isn't such a thing as a conciouss action of an individual - there is no individual. It is also interesting that a mob cannot be formed if a certain level of anger isn't achieved. When a critical mass of anger is achieved that anger consumes every part of a mob. It spreads itself even beyond the mob causing innnocent bystanders to join the mob even if they don't have a good reason to do so. This level of anger is achieved by a single person or a small group that are called leaders. They give the initial mass of anger to the mob and the mob intensifies that anger and gives it back to the leaders who are then swayed by it and lead the mob in commiting atrocities like lynching whole police station. This effect of an angry mob have sufficient inertia to produce revolutions. The weakness of the angry mob is it's leaders. If the leader of a mob is removed from it - the individuality will arise because there is noone to think for the people and the angry mob will disperse. This also happens if the leader questions its motives even for a moment.

Different situation is war time. Wars are always waged by whole societies against another societies. In case of war the society is unified and the effect of the angry mob cannot appear. To win a war it is neccessary for the society to kill and maim the other society. However the society is an abstract thing and it doesn't have actual arms to hold the rifle. The individuals that make a society have fingers to pull the trigger and many other extremeties used in war... As I explained earlier it is almost impossible for an individual to break the rules of the society (to kill), even if that same society now tells him that it is okay to do so now. We obey these rules from the day we were born and they cannot be easily overrided. A single person won't kill the enemy by him/herself (unless he/she is a deviation I spoke of earlier). Therefore wars are fought by units (divisions, corps, armies...) and the army plucks an individual from its society (family, peers) and puts him in a new society (unit) with new rules. These new rules tell a person to kill because he must do so. A person replaces his previous set of rules with new one. However a single person can't do so all by itself. An individual must shift the responsibility of self change to another person - it's commander (the mob leader?). Because these commanders are also human they shift they responsibility further to their commanders. And so on and on until responsibility for murders reaches a single person - the leader of a society fighting the war. The leader has no problems accepting the responsibility because he is far away from the actual killing and maiming. And the responsibility for murder dissapears and it is possible for a whole society to try to eradicate the other society.

Now when I explained this I can turn back to the question of combat:
I can hear you think: "Finnaly!"...

Individuals march to combat because they aren't individuals any more. They are a unit which is propelled by the sheer will of it's leader. When the actual combat begins (especially close combat), there is no need for a person to be convinced to fight anymore. The bullets that are flying all around are all the reason you'll ever need. A person ratio is lost in the heat of the moment and it's actions are controlled by those dark drives from the beginning of the story. A person in combat isn't a part of a society. He is an animal killing other animalls which gives joy on a physical level ONLY. A person killing doen't think about it while it kills. It doesn't contemplate of the children of the man his killing right now and how they'll be sad when hear about their daddy's demise. Only when combat dies down, there is no need for dark drives to control actions and individuality poppes out. Only after combat an individual can question it's motives, not during. And when an individual thinks about it later, it doesn't want to go again in one and he feels bad about what he's done. That's the point when the society of the army and the responsibility of a commanding officer steps in and enables a person to fight again. When the war is over, a person still feels bad about its actions but it doesn't have a security of a society to back him up when he's in doubt. Hence, PTSP.

Joy is an individual thing and combat isn't enjoyable because combat isn't an action of an individual. Only social deviants like murderes and criminals conciously kill other people and can therefor enjoy it.

I'll shut up now...

 

[mbrownii]

I agree with the Quasi part.

 

[unmerged(41397)]

Re: Lvx

So you are a true westerneuropean. All the things you mention the majority in west-europe wants, but the nationalism is fading away. The most westerneuropeans dislike their politicians and think their country have the biggest crisis in the westworld. But after all the westerneuropeans are the most pacifists in the world. I don't think that you nowadays could put up an army for war in any country in West-europe, some have tried and failed tremendous (Italy, Spain), Britain (if they can be counted as West-europeans?) still tries.

 

[unmerged(42432)]

So you are a true westerneuropean.

It might suprise you that I live in Croatia, the most balkan state in whole of Europe. Many of my fellow countrymen would strongly disagree... Unfortunately...

But I'll work on changing things whenever I can!

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Lvx, I can only applaud your outlook, although admittedly this is because it mirrors my own.

I must heartily disagree with anyone who suggests that war is worth pursuing for its own merits; I do not believe that war should be pursued for ANY merits. The reason I play Hearts of Iron 2 and other wargames is not because I am a 'fan' of war but because war is best as a game rather than a reality, as a memory rather than a danger, and as an excercise in thought rather than the avoidance of thought.

As it is said, 'It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye.'

 

[Asudulayev]

I must say that this is one of the most interesting threads that I've seen on this forum in a while!

I've never been in combat, this is just insane ranting of a quasi-intellectual.

That can be said for most people here...

What you have said is well thought out, well written, and thought provoking, Kudos.

I can only add that the "mob mentality" of war has several uses for all kinds of governments. A society can often be blinded by a war, people join a mob that has a leader and they do that which the leader tells them to do, even of he (or she) is robbing them blind all the while. It is during times of war that governments will often find that it is easier to repeal all kinds of civil rights and liberties in the guise of defense and security while the people go along since the thought of the enemy lurking around the corner or on the other side of the world overshadows one's wants of basic rights and needs.

What I am trying to say (possibly not too successfully) is that while war may be easily classified as the continuation of international politics in a strong-arm fashion, war can also be classified as a continuation of domestic politics, such as in WWI when many prominent socialists joined hands with conservative governments to defeat the "common enemy", not too unlike themselves.

The reason I play Hearts of Iron 2 and other wargames is not because I am a 'fan' of war but because war is best as a game rather than a reality

Well put, I heartily agree, better in a game then in real life...

***

Finally, I have found that the movie "Apocalypse Now" is a very interesting reflection on war, dehuminization, and how certain conditions bring out the worst in many people, can a rank and file soldier be blamed for participating in a war or for even in participating atrocoties inherent in war if he or she is simply reacting to the conditions set before him or her? Thoughts?

 

[unmerged(19908)]

War would be fun were it not for politics making it dull. It'd be cool if we could just set up wars without all the old men in parliament squabbling for years before. Of course wars are only fun in games from what I've read. Real soldiers only starve, get maimed and suffer in every way possible. I wonder if there was ever a war in which soldiers did not starve. In WWI, the armies ate only carrots raided from gardens while on the march during the early mobile stages. In the static stage all they ate was mud. In Iraq, they just drive around in humvees until they get blown up by roadside bombs. I'm glad I'm not a soldier.

On the bright side, were it not for real wars, there would be no cool war games. So real wars are cool too. Okay, I need to get off the glue. o

 

[unmerged(42743)]

Every person has many faces which him and his peers may or may not see during their lifetimes. One of these sides is a dark side which finds joy in combat, killing, mutilating and raping which is common for every human and animal. This dark side is always a part of a person, though it lies dormant during normal circumstances.

Let's be very clear, here. Being a soldier has nothing to do with raping, mutilating and torturing. Well trained soldiers do not engage in that sort of thing (see the Russian reserves who followed up the regulars during the invasion of Germany for a comparison). Combat is the scariest thing I have ever encountered, but at no time did I ever lose my humanity or forget the rules of civilization.

Different situation is war time. Wars are always waged by whole societies against another societies. In case of war the society is unified and the effect of the angry mob cannot appear. To win a war it is neccessary for the society to kill and maim the other society.

Not always the whole society. Sometimes it's only necessary to remove their leaders (Afghanistan, Panama).

As I explained earlier it is almost impossible for an individual to break the rules of the society (to kill), even if that same society now tells him that it is okay to do so now.

I'm glad you admitted you've never seen combat. I hope you never do. The aim of combat training is to give soldiers a way to cope with the extreme fear of being shot at. Well trained troops react from instinct, and the instinct comes from training. That training involves as much taking cover and keeping contact with neighbor units and commanders as it does how to kill. Mostly, I remember just shooting back at the direction of the enemy in order to make them stop shooting at me. At no time did I, or my men, forget we were human beings.

A person in combat isn't a part of a society. He is an animal killing other animalls which gives joy on a physical level ONLY. A person killing doen't think about it while it kills.

You were doing well right up until you started implying that soldiers enjoy killing. I never knew any who did. I certainly didn't. In one case I remember, a comrade of mine shot a young Vietnamese boy who had tried to infiltrate our security fence (the VC used teenaged boys all the time). When we swept the perimeter and found the body, my friend was devastated. I'm not sure he ever got over it, even though he knew the boy was carrying satchel charges and meant to kill us.

By the way, Apocalypse Now was a great movie. But it had all the relevance to war and to Vietnam as a Disney ride. Hollywood again.

 

[unmerged(38835)]

Hi,

1. Clausewitz
After reading the reference website, i want to point out that i think it is important to see Clausewitz in the context of the time he lived in.
I think Clausewitz was in one of the reformers who actually understood the power of a "Peoples Army" that started to evolve in France after the revolution of 1789. The German States, especially Prussia, bound the military service to citizenship, aborted the physical punishment within the army, etc....in short it was part of the "duty" for "protection" deal that we still know today. (in some countries it has developed to duty for benefit = spend some years in the army-get a scholarship... you get the point).

So, to comment on the part you quoted in your post about the devotion of the soldier and the readiness to give his life for something abstract (ideology, state, you name it) my thesis is that:
Clausewitz gives out the motivation, the recipe to change a civilian consciousness (family and money first, health) to a military/national mind (we the people/nation stand as one)

2. I think, and this refers to the original text, which says Clausewitz Theory is flawed because in the 20th century most regular armies were defeated by ragtag militia (vietnam, somalia...).
I think this critic is invalid, because:
a. Clausewitz Theory is based on warfare of the 19th century, and does not take "assymetric warfare" into account.
b.even if we try to spin on the thought, was vietnam, somalia etc. really a military defeat of the stronger force? or was it more of a political defeat ?
(clauswitz mentions in another chapter that war is never "pure" it is always influenced by politics and other factors...so actually i see it confirms his theory)

3. I think that war brings people in extreme situations and that is what makes it so interesting, especially to people who have not experienced it.
That is also, why in my opinion, it is easily seen as sth adventurous, maybe even romantic. Most of us have read about how troops went into the war in 1914 singing and cheered by the crowd, while in 1918 the mood had changed drastically to "No War Ever Again !".

ok just my 2 cents
cheers
chris

ps: i always get the impression that for a lot of hawks sending others to war is always an option, but going themselves is not an option at all.

 

[unmerged(42432)]

Gosh, Halsley, I wasn't bashing at soldiers. All I tried is to explain the psychology of mob, war and combat to myself and everyone who cared to listen. And you just had to go personal on my ass, didn't you? There is no point in having an intelligent conversation with you, beacause you have to turn it to an "America is great!" speech. Nuff said...

 

[unmerged(42432)]

What I am trying to say (possibly not too successfully) is that while war may be easily classified as the continuation of international politics in a strong-arm fashion, war can also be classified as a continuation of domestic politics, such as in WWI when many prominent socialists joined hands with conservative governments to defeat the "common enemy", not too unlike themselves.

This gave me goose bumps! A leader who is a good psychologist is a dangerous leader.
Besides, anyone who actually wants to be a leader shouldn't be allowed to do so because he's obviously insane.

 

[unmerged(42743)]

Gosh, Halsley, I wasn't bashing at soldiers. All I tried is to explain the psychology of mob, war and combat to myself and everyone who cared to listen. And you just had to go personal on my ass, didn't you? There is no point in having an intelligent conversation with you, beacause you have to turn it to an "America is great!" speech. Nuff said...

Lvx, my comments to you were not intended to be personal. I simply didn't agree with some of your post, which doesn't make you "wrong", it simply means we disagree. I thought the point of a discussion board was to discuss -- how interesting would it be if we all agreed? If you'll re-read, most of my post was a reference to my own experiences in war. I did not serve with the Germans in 1942, nor with the Soviets in 1944. I wasn't there with Custer or Caesar Augustus so there are some aspects of warfare I (and you) can only know from our studies.

Here's my peace offering to you: Find a copy of John Keegan's "A History of Warfare" and after you've read it, let's talk. In it, he examines the ethos of warfare through history and makes the point that war cannot be "evil" because it is inanimate -- in fact, he thinks it is a natural outcome of human social evolution. He points to the natives on the Easter Islands, who stage annual 'wars' over something as silly as terns' eggs. It's a fascinating book and probably worth a thread all its own here.

1. Clausewitz
After reading the reference website, i want to point out that i think it is important to see Clausewitz in the context of the time he lived in.
I think Clausewitz was in one of the reformers who actually understood the power of a "Peoples Army" that started to evolve in France after the revolution of 1789. The German States, especially Prussia, bound the military service to citizenship, aborted the physical punishment within the army, etc....in short it was part of the "duty" for "protection" deal that we still know today. (in some countries it has developed to duty for benefit = spend some years in the army-get a scholarship... you get the point).

Christian, excellent post! I was thinking about this yesterday, and about how Napoleon was really the first to exploit the idea of a national conscription for patriotism. He was building on the work of Clausewitz and of Prussia before him.

2. I think, and this refers to the original text, which says Clausewitz Theory is flawed because in the 20th century most regular armies were defeated by ragtag militia (vietnam, somalia...).
I think this critic is invalid, because:
a. Clausewitz Theory is based on warfare of the 19th century, and does not take "assymetric warfare" into account.
b.even if we try to spin on the thought, was vietnam, somalia etc. really a military defeat of the stronger force? or was it more of a political defeat ?
(clauswitz mentions in another chapter that war is never "pure" it is always influenced by politics and other factors...so actually i see it confirms his theory)

Vietnam and Somalia were defeats by virtue of loss of national will (or leadership will, in the case of Somalia). National Will is really political to some extent, though I think Politics probably sets the agenda and National Will determines the vigor and determination with which that agenda is pursued.

3. I think that war brings people in extreme situations and that is what makes it so interesting, especially to people who have not experienced it.
That is also, why in my opinion, it is easily seen as sth adventurous, maybe even romantic. Most of us have read about how troops went into the war in 1914 singing and cheered by the crowd, while in 1918 the mood had changed drastically to "No War Ever Again !".

The stories about the First Battle of Bull Run in the American Civil War are similar -- Washington citizens rode their buggies out to the battlefield to have a picnic and watch the war. When the rebels routed the Union forces, those picnickers fled back to town without their belongings. They probably weren't expecting such a bloody, horrible carnage while they ate.

ps: i always get the impression that for a lot of hawks sending others to war is always an option, but going themselves is not an option at all.

Possibly, in some cases. But Hitler was a former solidier. So were Churchill and John Kennedy. I think the difference is that those with combat experience never send others to war lightly -- we understand how unpredictable war can be and how it can ruin the lives of millions of families, disrupting the fabric of entire societies. While we don't take war lightly, it would also be true that most of us understand that there are times when the choice is to either fight or capitulate, and we would rather fight.

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Fight or capitulate, My Ass! Please do not make things up out of the thin air! Vietnam and Somalia were "fight or capitulate" choices for your country? What would have happened without intervention that means "capitulation" for the United States? Korea? Grenada? Serbia? Iraq twice? Afghanistan? Nicaragua? Cuba? So many others? Leaving other people in peace "capitulates" what?

Go ahead and give yourself a few pats on the back for your "National Will." Every time there is a war, the nationalists come out of the shadows and presume with temerity to speak for the whole country and the objective universal morality. Every war is Right and Just and Warranted and either Regrettable or Glorious but always Necessary. And oh how unanimous it always is! Always the National Will is there to declare the start of hostilities (festivities?) and Support the Troops.

Please, enough. On this forum I confess I expect more thought about war and less putting your hand where you can feel your heartbeat speed and with watery eyes thinking about such beautiful things as mine fields and barbed wire and aerial bombing. Where is your excuse for president-Clinton ordering the bombs to fall every time he wanted to make a headline! There is no excusing such activites, but a lot of praising them apparently.

If some people want to start a war over "tern's eggs" it doesn't make it a good idea. Thankyou.