War and Politics

[gagenater]

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?

He never said that all wars were matters of fight or capitulate, or that these wars in particular were examples of that. He was making a comment on the aspects of human nature involved in war, and the consequences of that human nature

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

Again, part of the discussion of the psychology of war. If you choose to take it in this manner, you will not have any discussion to have. The example of the war over tern's eggs is used precisely because it is a bad reason for a war.

 

[Asudulayev]

War is often an overly simple solution to a very complex problem (simple solutions are those that do not require alot of thinking and are often short sighted).

I am curious as to what extent the National Will of any group (nation) is the will of the people or the will of the leaders dictated to the people? Come to think of it I cannot think of any offensive war that was ever the will of the people. War as any other political act (an act carried out by politicians) must have some practical purpose for that (those) politican(s). Wars often stifle debate, in recent history, the Iraq war was a more aggressive and visible substitution to (continuation of) "the war on terror" which conviniently stopped people from talking about such moot points as the economy.

On the topic of war and its effect on soldiers I think that generalizations are more misleading than not, I think that to say that all soldiers are serial killers and rapists is as inaccurate as saying that all soldiers are knights in shining armor, searching through the history of war one finds extreme and moderate examples of all sides, people risking their lives to save enemies and or enemy-alligned populations, people tormenting, torturing, and executing enemies, and everything in between.

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.

I do not doubt the authenticity of that story, but there are other Vietnam stories, one vet with whom I talked spoke in a joking-content-reminiscent way of the use of napalm on his enemies, a cousin of mine who serving with the US army in Iraq said that after the Beslan shooting in Russia (he is Russian) he was HAPPY to kill Iraqis as a sign of revenge (I have no interest in discussing the logic or lack thereof of that statement). Finally, in a recent interview a professional US soldier in Iraq was asked his opinion on the general atmosphere he was in, at some point he said that, "shooting is fun." My conclusion? People do different things in war and one generalization is as bad as another.

War, as any adverse situation, often brings out a side of people that may never surface (or exist) in other situations, bravery, valor, cowardice, malice, and cruelty are just some of the things that some people may see in war, which brings me to my next point...

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

I would go far enough to say that it was never meant to be such, at least not in the way that Full Metal Jacket or Saving Private Ryan were (though I doubt how close those came). Rather Apocalypse Now is a remake or more accurately a movie remake of a book, by Joseph Conrad, called The Heart of Darkness. This book is not about war at all, rather (being written in the Victorian Age) it is about the Belgian colonialization of the Congo and how the "villain", (for lack of a better word), Kurtz, turns from a noble and great citizen of the enlgitened world to a barbarian (the kind who puts heads on spears). My point is that certain conditions bring out the worst in people, maybe even these conditions create a side of someone that was not there before. My theory is that in desperation people lose their (our) rather artificial value of civilization and revert to their (our) animal instincts, on a positive side one may survive, on a negative side the civilization of an individual or an entire society may be destroyed as a consequence.

War is alot like coloniazation, the thought behind it (on a grand strategic level is) "I am right and my enemy is a stubborn jerk (native) who will not accept my correctitude [not actually a word]" it is often a one sided argument that has only one possible conclusion for the side arguing it.

As for capitulation and fighting, that raises an interesting point, "Hey the Austrians are pressuring the Serbs, a fellow orthodox country, we [Russia] must assert our power!" (a bit later) "Ah, so the Austrians and Germans are not backing down, well we cannot backdown either, eh let's send a whole population to die at the front, if we back down we will look like wusses, but if we send thousands to certain doom we [the leaders] will be taking a brave stance." (just a peculiar historical scenario with many paralels).

I often think that the best way to resolve wars would be, as suggested in All Quite on the Western Front, to have all the belligerent leaders get into a collosium and fight each other with padded bats, while the world population watches, when the leaders get tired and bruised enough everyone can go home after a day at the games, that way war could be both fun and festive.

Finally (finallement) the view that war is nither good nor bad is an interesting position, it means that either (1) war is sometimes good, sometimes bad or that (2) everyone sees in a war what they want/need to see in it.

If 1 then I challenge anyone to give me an example of a good war, WWII is not one, for example, since no good thing was acheived in it and one tyranny was replaced with another, Germans replaced by Soviets, and it brought the cold war which effectively killed many people in third-world countries as well as stifling the Soviet economy with "defence production" making things like toilet paper a second (if at all) priority. If no one can come up with an example it is fair to say that according to rational 1 all wars are inherently bad.

If 2 then war is niether good nor bad on an emotional-ethical level and must be judged by its economic and sociagraphic implications, at which point one concludes that war is simply disastrous, that being a generally bad thing.

Edit:

you have to turn it to an "America is great!" speech

just out of curiosity and fairness, where did you read that, I do not believe that Halsey at any point said that, though I am not saying that someone in a similar position would never do such a thing.

I'm done, sorry for the needlessly long post, but I often fail (as now) at being concise.

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Asudulayev, the cold war stifled american economy too and still does. For a little while when the Berlin Wall had just come down Americans talked about Peace Dividend, the money saved by less military spending. Then this idea disappeared and as much continued to be spent, but without enemies.

To me Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness are about the conditional value of human life, that people can go outside their countries and kill without consideration because the people are not "their" people.

gagenater, when I say "tern's eggs," I also mean other causes of wars, which do not justify them. That is why the quotation marks, because things such as "Germans in the sudetenland" are also "tern's eggs" reasons for war.

I think there is less discussion of the psychology of war in this thread, than demonstration of it. To judge by the post that is the beginning, there is a lot of thought here that war is sport and the thread is to slap backs and congratulate about a war fetish. If you want the joy of danger, please take up ice-climbing. If it must be from bullets, stand in a batting-cage and have a friend shoot at you from where the machine that throws the balls is. If you need a buddy, take someone in the batting-cage with you to stand in front of the bullets.

To say war is the greatest joy of all is the product of a society where all wars are "wars over the telephone" where only soldiers die. If you like to say war makes you so joyful, might as well say the happiest thing is to cut other people's hearts and eat them. Whether you like it or not, it's still murder! So if you "discuss the psychology of war" by talking about how good it is, don't startle if someone says to you, "to hell with your discussion, you are saying the best things about the worst things." Even if war is a carnival for you with rides, it's not what should happen. You think every year we need a war tournament, for fun? Is this a good idea?

 

[Willard]

It was a case of politics dictating war aims.

Halsey -

The above comment struck me as odd. Is there a case where war aims were not dictated by politics??

I think all wars are fought for two basic reasons: The "aggressor" is desiring either money, resources and land; the "defender" is trying to protect money, resources and land. No one should take this as any sort of Marxist-Leninist BS either. I think generally, the ideas of "nationalism" or "communism" or "facism" are terms and ideas used to cover-up the real reasons that people go to war.

Lets take Hitler's Germany as an example. Hitler used the idea of demanding *germanic* land back from the Poles as a pretense to attack. Why did he do this??? Well it is quite easy to convince people to fight for and liberate their *oppressed* brothers. Fundamentally, people want to *believe* in something and history has shown that ideas can galvanize nations far better than the truth. Imagine if Hitler and Goebbels had told the German public the truth --- "Yes we want to invade Poland so we can take all there stuff and kill them...who's with me???" It just doesn't fly to well in the PR department.

Politics, in my opinion, is that PR tool for manipulating events and people to get what you want. Hitler was able to use *politics* to obtain the Sudatenland from the Czechs. He played on the war fears of France and German with the same basic premise of the *oppressed Germans.* The same result was accomplished as above, except the only difference was that no blood was shed at that time.

In 1991, the US *liberated* Kuwait from Iraqi oppression. Although I am not a big fan of Saddam Hussein and I love my country (I am American), I am under no illusions that the US was there to liberate Kuwaitis. If Kuwait had no oil, the US would simply not be there. US interests at that time were dictated by a need to secure oil reserves in the region. I might add, that alot of other countries such as the UK, France, Germany and Japan felt the same way also. But seriously, did *liberating* Kuwait really help the Kuwaitis? All the US did was replace one dictatorship (the Iraqis) with the pro-American one (the Kuwaitis). Its not like a democratic system was set up when the Americans got there. Of course the war cry here in the US was to liberate Kuwait, not "We have to kill the Iraqis to ensure that we $1.00 gallon of gas."

I think there is something in intrinsic in all human beings that they need these types of ideas to hide the truth. Its funny how on a local level, it is against the law to murder, rape and rob your fellow citizens. These are considered to be the most heinous of crimes on the individual level. However on a global scale, we as humans can condone and in some instances promote these acts. What is that Stalin said?? One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

Don't get me wrong...I dont think soldiers are guilty of murder or robbery. I understand that when human beings are faced with life and death situations, none of this means anything. All that matters is survival. Dehumanizing the enemy is a necessary defense mechanism needed for survival. I don't think the majority of people could kill someone if they didnt or werent conditioned to do so. Fortunately I have not been faced with that question. But I don't think if I was, that I would be thinking about war aims or politics or facism or communism. I probably would be worrying about crapping myself!!! :rofl:

That being said, there is another side to the coin IMO. The very same forces of politics or religion or national will can have very positive side affects. Damns have been built, famine destroyed, medical discoveries and breakthroughs...heck even space travel is possible. Societies and nations can achieve great things when focused in the right direction. The problem is and always will be human nature. As was written in the Federalist Papers, "If men were angels..."

 

[Asudulayev]

To me Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness are about the conditional value of human life, that people can go outside their countries and kill without consideration because the people are not "their" people.

A logical interpretation as well...

I think there is less discussion of the psychology of war in this thread, than demonstration of it. To judge by the post that is the beginning, there is a lot of thought here that war is sport and the thread is to slap backs and congratulate about a war fetish. If you want the joy of danger, please take up ice-climbing. If it must be from bullets, stand in a batting-cage and have a friend shoot at you from where the machine that throws the balls is. If you need a buddy, take someone in the batting-cage with you to stand in front of the bullets.

I do not think that the first post on this thread was meant to say that war is a fun sport, rather that there is an undenyable adrenaline rush that accompanies it (running for one's life also has that kind of rush). This is also a very interesting point about the phsycology of war since the "adrenaline rush" is simply one of many human emotions like love, hate, revenge, fear, etc. that can trun perfectly rational human beings into beings who's actions defy reason and logic (like extreme bravery or cruelty).

To say war is the greatest joy of all is the product of a society where all wars are "wars over the telephone" where only soldiers die. If you like to say war makes you so joyful, might as well say the happiest thing is to cut other people's hearts and eat them. Whether you like it or not, it's still murder! So if you "discuss the psychology of war" by talking about how good it is, don't startle if someone says to you, "to hell with your discussion, you are saying the best things about the worst things." Even if war is a carnival for you with rides, it's not what should happen. You think every year we need a war tournament, for fun? Is this a good idea?

Who exactly are you talking to in that last scentence? It does not really make for an interesting discussion of war if it must have an early end with the words "t'is evil", as true (or not) as that may be, we are not dsicussing in a direct manner the ethical charecteristics of war, though that would make for quite a discussion as well.

I do not think that this is a discussion on the ethics of war, but rather on how the abstract concept of war is able to manifest itself when there are really very few people who would be able to kill a human being at point-blank range and walk away unshaken?

Edit:

But I don't think if I was, that I would be thinking about war aims or politics or facism or communism. I probably would be worrying about crapping myself!!!

Agreed

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Asudulayev, I was responding to the first poster, who quoted a source saying that war was the "greatest joy" in life.

Dress it up as "interesting" and "adrenaline rush" if you will, but in the final estimation the appeal of war at a visceral level boils down to the facts that for some people there is a sick fascination in it, and their own danger also, and as for how wars begin, aggressive leaders have confused ideas about what is important and think it is worth war for territory, or ephemeral ideals (like honor or racism), or wealth (of money or resources).

Concerning how people can kill, many people do not have the squeamishness and are not "shaken" as you say, but there is so much distance in modern war between combatants that a revulsion to killing is mostly not entering into the picture. Especially true for American military doctrine which favors distance killing (cannot fully discuss on this forum). Even when it does, there is "Heart of Darkness effect" where non-nationals don't really count.

How much talk is there to have about this?

 

[Asudulayev]

Dress it up as "interesting" and "adrenaline rush" if you will, but in the final estimation the appeal of war at a visceral level boils down to the facts that for some people there is a sick fascination in it, and their own danger also, and as for how wars begin, aggressive leaders have confused ideas about what is important and think it is worth war for territory, or ephemeral ideals (like honor or racism), or wealth (of money or resources).

Do you really believe that all people who are at war are there for senseless carnage?

That seems to be a generalization and an over simplification. The reason for which soldiers go to war (join military units freely) and the reasons for which leaders "lead" people to wars are often quite different. I do not think that military leaders (be it Hitler or anyone else) have any "confused" views on war, rather, they clearly know well enough that the money that they get will not benenfit the dead and wounded, they just do not care (the leaders will not actually be in combat), all that matters are certain people's coffers.

The people who do the fighting are usually people who can stand killing someone else, true, but that is conditioning (a sick kind of conditioning). They are brought to war by lies and ideals (is there a difference?) and those who stay on freely are those that are able to distance themselves from the death. Some also stay because they are so captive by the ideals or lies that they cannot leave despite their disgust with what is occuring.

The appeal of war is not the adrenaline rush (for most who join), but something "ephemeral", the "visceral joy" comes into the equation when one must make the decision to stay or go when the "ephemeral" illusion fades into the grim reality.

How much talk is there to have about this?

More for some than for others

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Asudulayev, reading your latest post I do not think we disagree all that much.

Where you say leaders "do not care" about the value of their citizens' lives, this is also what I mean by "confused." Beyond borders, legends, or arsenals, a country is truly its people, and the leader of a country who will throw his people away can be said to be confused about what it means to hold his position and why for he should do things.

"All people are at war for the senseless carnage" is not quite how I would put it... more like, they are there in spite of the carnage, which they do not fully sense, or perhaps do not fully contextualize.

In the modern world, who cannot be said to be "conditioned" to some degree, especially in the "first world" of powerful belligerent nations? In 1936 all citizens of Britain or Germany and other similar countries have been exposed to the ideology of war from a very early age and there are many conditions where they would welcome war. This is still true now but to different extents for different nations.

"More talk for some than others" -- a bit of a cheap shot yes? But it's true. However those who dwell on such things are to be wondered at. "Gaze long enough into the abyss and it gazes also into you." as Nietzche said. Best to just glance into the abyss, get the idea, and go on.

 

[gagenater]

gagenater, when I say "tern's eggs," I also mean other causes of wars, which do not justify them. That is why the quotation marks, because things such as "Germans in the sudetenland" are also "tern's eggs" reasons for war.

OK, I mis understood your context. I agree most wars are started for such 'unjust reasons' I think (although cannot prove) that even most 'just' wars have at their root rectification of a previous unjust war.

 

[unmerged(38751)]

The best way to make wars 'just' is to make sure they are short. That unfortunately can require the application of overwhelming violence.

After reading this so far interesting debate, I want to look back at what Halsey said. To me it looks a bit like an explanation of how certain persons or groups think(no personal insult intended).
I remember a qoute, though im not sure who said it and when, but it goes along the lines, that every war that one is planning, shouldnt be planned and looked at to be "short", but to plan and execute it as a long, attritional style showdown, to make the decision to wage war as hard as possible.

Good example for lack of thought and then waging a war is, of course, WW2.
The Poland campaign for example lasted 4 weeks, so according to you, short and just?
Where is the connection between a short war and a just?

 

[Asudulayev]

Asudulayev, reading your latest post I do not think we disagree all that much.

I never felt that we did at all.

Where you say leaders "do not care" about the value of their citizens' lives, this is also what I mean by "confused." Beyond borders, legends, or arsenals, a country is truly its people, and the leader of a country who will throw his people away can be said to be confused about what it means to hold his position and why for he should do things.

Alright, I did not understand what you meant originally about "confused", I now understand what you meant and that makes sense.

In the modern world, who cannot be said to be "conditioned" to some degree, especially in the "first world" of powerful belligerent nations? In 1936 all citizens of Britain or Germany and other similar countries have been exposed to the ideology of war from a very early age and there are many conditions where they would welcome war. This is still true now but to different extents for different nations.

I'll agree to that also, living in the United States there is often something of an equationin in which the life of a US citizen equals the lives of many foreigners, but I fear that this is not the place for such discussions. Wars are built on the belief that people can be trained to be apathetic towards others, to the extent that mass death can be cheered on, which is why I think that war is one of the greatest assets of any state, war is a time when everyone will shut up and follow the leader, forgetting their own qualms with the aforementioned leaders. "War is the health of the State" as Randolph Bourne once said of WWI.

"More talk for some than others" -- a bit of a cheap shot yes? But it's true. However those who dwell on such things are to be wondered at. "Gaze long enough into the abyss and it gazes also into you." as Nietzche said. Best to just glance into the abyss, get the idea, and go on.

I meant no offense and I think that you have hit the nail on the head (Kudos on the Nietzche quote), however some would stare at the abyss longer than others, no one forces anyone to stare at it either, but it is always more fun to do it with company.

Where is the connection between a short war and a just?

I would think that the poster (Halsey) meant less 'just' and more 'humain', I think it was von Moltke (though it could have been someone else, I am not good with dead, german military "philosophers") who said that the most destructive weapons are also the most humain since they may end the war sooner. I must disagree with that, I think that it is derived from the other Clasuwitzian doctrine of "total war" where it is not on the battle field, but in the minds of citizens that a war must be fought, I must disagree, doing things to "break down" resistance among civilians (who are often the ones funding the war) often creates an equal if not greater push back, as is the case whenever a country, with superior firepower, invades another only to find a recalitrent population.

 

[unmerged(40167)]

As for war being "fun", I really think it depends on the intensity of the fighting. You take a war like Iraq, where the threat of death for US soldiers is minimal, I suppose it could give you enough adrenaline to become exited without getting you extremely stressed out or psychologically damaged.

But for a war like WW2, my grandfather fought on the german side, which sustained (I do beleive) something like 2 million casualties. Obviously the threat of death was always prevalent, and pretty much to be expected. I couldn't imagine him saying that he thought the war was fun, or that he had a good time or whatever. They were all probably scared shitless(literally).

 

[unmerged(42743)]

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?

I did not say “all” wars were fight or capitulate. To be precise, I said “there are times when the choice is to either fight or capitulate”. Surely you can’t disagree with my conditional expression?

Your citing of other wars brings up a different point though – something the original author of the article touched on when he claimed that large nations fighting small nations was not “just”. In fact, the US intervention in Somalia was in the service of humane goals, to stop the famine and forcing the faction in power to release food stores which were being withheld from large segments of the populace. That, to me, is unassailably a ‘just’ cause regardless of the size of the combatant nations. The NATO intervention into Bosnia/Serbia was also based on their perception of humane crisis – the international concern was the genocide of Albanian peoples, which served as the causus belli for intervention. Again, let's separate individual feelings about that intervention from the stated 'justness' of the cause that led to it.

I am curious as to what extent the National Will of any group (nation) is the will of the people or the will of the leaders dictated to the people? Come to think of it I cannot think of any offensive war that was ever the will of the people.

You make a good point.

Defensively it's another question -- In the case of WW2, while it was the policy decisions of our leadership which set the stage for the Japanese attack on Pearl, I think there is no question that after that attack it was the will of the American people to go to war with Japan. Ironically, of course, the whole focus of our leaders’ policies before that had been on Germany. And we went to war with Germany mostly because Hitler foolishly declared war on the US after the Japanese attack. But it was Japan which motivated the population to war fervor.

As you indicate, most wars are a combination of the will of the leaders and the will of the people – certainly, the German leadership in the ‘30s and ‘40s fomented extreme nationalism and militarism among their people, but one basis for that was the injustice they felt from the Versailles treaty. The open question is whether the Nazis could have found other causes with which to unite the Germans before the war. I can’t speculate.

I do not doubt the authenticity of that story, but there are other Vietnam stories, one vet with whom I talked spoke in a joking-content-reminiscent way of the use of napalm on his enemies, a cousin of mine who serving with the US army in Iraq said that after the Beslan shooting in Russia (he is Russian) he was HAPPY to kill Iraqis as a sign of revenge

No doubt there are cases like that. (Again, the reasons soldiers kill and their feelings about it are a separate subject from the larger issue of why nations go to war). I lost a very good friend in Vietnam, who was sitting in a vehicle next to me when a sniper bullet ended his life at the age of 18. For the next six months I can’t say I “enjoyed” killing, but I did seek out opportunities to punish the enemy who killed him. It’s not something I enjoyed, nor is it something I am proud of today. At the time I felt like I was doing it for him.

War, as any adverse situation, often brings out a side of people that may never surface (or exist) in other situations, bravery, valor, cowardice, malice, and cruelty are just some of the things that some people may see in war

Well said!

Rather Apocalypse Now is a remake or more accurately a movie remake of a book, by Joseph Conrad, called The Heart of Darkness. This book is not about war at all, rather (being written in the Victorian Age) it is about the Belgian colonialization of the Congo and how the "villain", (for lack of a better word), Kurtz, turns from a noble and great citizen of the enlgitened world to a barbarian (the kind who puts heads on spears). My point is that certain conditions bring out the worst in people, maybe even these conditions create a side of someone that was not there before. My theory is that in desperation people lose their (our) rather artificial value of civilization and revert to their (our) animal instincts, on a positive side one may survive, on a negative side the civilization of an individual or an entire society may be destroyed as a consequence.

Very good point about the Apocalypse movie (to be honest, it took me over 10 years after returning to ever want to see a Vietnam movie, and when I did I was always left feeling like the public was being misled on the nature of that conflict). I think there is much truth in what you say, as long as we understand that it is still a generalization. I knew some real heroes during my service, and their heroism often had nothing to do with killing enemy. In one case, a friend of mine started a volunteer work group that spent our off duty hours helping a local orphanage to repair damage. We sent home for blankets, toys, and clothes, and basically adopted that orphanage as our own – it was a side of some of us that I don’t think we knew was there, just as much as the side of us that stopped feeling any revulsion or sorrow at the sight of dead young VC boys. (After about two dozen corpses, they stop meaning much to you)

War is alot like coloniazation, the thought behind it (on a grand strategic level is) "I am right and my enemy is a stubborn jerk (native) who will not accept my correctitude [not actually a word]" it is often a one sided argument that has only one possible conclusion for the side arguing it.

Think about that, though. The best way to get your troops to willingly slaughter the enemy is to convince them that the other guy is evil, dangerous, and intent on torturing your women and children. It’s the dehumanization of the enemy that helps soldiers to willingly murder that enemy.

Finally (finallement) the view that war is nither good nor bad is an interesting position, it means that either (1) war is sometimes good, sometimes bad or that (2) everyone sees in a war what they want/need to see in it.

If 1 then I challenge anyone to give me an example of a good war, WWII is not one, for example, since no good thing was acheived in it and one tyranny was replaced with another, Germans replaced by Soviets, and it brought the cold war which effectively killed many people in third-world countries as well as stifling the Soviet economy with "defence production" making things like toilet paper a second (if at all) priority. If no one can come up with an example it is fair to say that according to rational 1 all wars are inherently bad.

As a veteran of war, I can safely say that – in general – wars ARE bad. However, I think it would also be fair to say that wars can have good goals, and even good outcomes. You mention WW2, and while it’s true that the Soviets asserted power over the Eastern half of Europe, it would also be true that (1) Hitler and his Nazi party were thrown down, (2) Jews regained a homeland, (3) Western Europe was resurrected from the ashes and lived under their own governments. I would also submit that Stalin would probably have retained power in Russia regardless of whether WW2 had happened or not – unless the Soviet people overthrew him.

More often, however, wars are instruments of national policy which seek to extend that nation’s will – be it Grenada, where US troops prevented the Cubans from spreading their influence; Korea, where the goal was to stop the defeat of democratic South Korea by the Communist north; or Iraq, where the US seeks to stem the tide of Islamic extremism by implanting a democratic alternative (please, I don’t wish to debate that – the advisability, righteousness and success of the endeavor are different matters. But that is the national policy goal at this time, for right or wrong). I think this keeps with Clausewitzian principles to a great extent.

Asudulayev, the cold war stifled american economy too and still does

All economic measures would argue against that. Our GNP and GDP have steadily risen since WW2.

To say war is the greatest joy of all is the product of a society where all wars are "wars over the telephone" where only soldiers die. If you like to say war makes you so joyful, might as well say the happiest thing is to cut other people's hearts and eat them. Whether you like it or not, it's still murder!

As I said in my original post, I’m not sure “joy” was the right word for the author to use. I do, however, think that many soldiers find a thrill in combat. It’s understandable – they are living on the edge of death constantly and, as one said to me, nothing makes you feel as alive as knowing that you could die at any minute. These are not men who handle joysticks and remote bombs. These are men carrying MP4s and clearing rooms in Baghdad. Those who have never experienced combat are probably going to have a hard time understanding that, and to me it is not a reflection on the heartlessness or lack of soul of these men. It is simply a reaction to the extreme risk and adrenaline that comes with violent combat. It has much in common with a drug like cocaine.

I am under no illusions that the US was there to liberate Kuwaitis. If Kuwait had no oil, the US would simply not be there.

True enough. Again, war was an instrument of protecting national interest.

But seriously, did *liberating* Kuwait really help the Kuwaitis? All the US did was replace one dictatorship (the Iraqis) with the pro-American one (the Kuwaitis). Its not like a democratic system was set up when the Americans got there.

Actually, the Kuwaitis have been busily trying to establish a parliamentary democracy ever since that war ended. They are struggling with the complete lack of any middle class (unlike Iraq), and their nation contains a large population of Palestinian refugee workers. But they’re trying.

But I don't think if I was, that I would be thinking about war aims or politics or facism or communism. I probably would be worrying about crapping myself!!!

Well, of course, that happens too : ) As I said in another post, the object of training is to help soldiers react out of instinct under fire, so that the training takes control instead of the fear. And it’s also been my experience that men can surprise themselves when placed under extreme duress. Men you would never think of as “heroes” have given their lives to save friends and even innocent civilians during combat. Until they were placed in such an unfortunate, violent situation they would never have known if they had it in them.

 

[unmerged(26131)]

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.

It is unclear who "most of us" is, from context it is either leaders, former soldiers, "hawk" warmongers, posters on this forum, or everyone in general. In any of those cases it is highly disingenuous to dismiss reservations about war by saying that "most of us understand that there are times when the choice is to either fight or capitulate." Maybe there are times like that, but they are much rarer than wars!

The best example I can think of in modern history where this actually had some bearing is the German invasion of Soviet Union -- and what was Germany going to do that was worse than Soviet Union was doing already? Lots of Ukrainian, Cossack, Russian people fought on the German side because they thought it would be better. But since it was an invasion by a hostile army, stealing food from peasants on the line of march, you could say it was "fight or capitulate" which is certainly how the government saw it! Still wasn't that simple though.

A rising GNP/GDP doesn't mean that it wouldn't have risen faster without wasteful cold war spending. It also isn't the final word on economy. If you look at figures for American concentration of wealth and real value of common wage, you see a very different picture, especially as "cold war" continues. Aside from military spending there is also related debt. And no matter how you look, money spent on extra nuclear weapons is being thrown down a hole. There is enough of American nuclear weapons for all "military" purposes -- why have more? No way to get any return on the investment for those. If they are used, "worst case" is happening. Throwing money down a hole is not good for a country or a country's economy.

Your unassailable just causes are part of most invasions. Hitler went to war for "humanitarian" causes, to "liberate" and "unify." Japan also made a "humanitarian" invasion of Manchuko. Once a country has been set on the path of the effort to go to war, it is trivial to also find the effort to make up an excuse. Only in the rarest cases is it simply said "we want what you have." People think it is better to have an "ideal" instead. Real-life Melian Dialogues almost never happen if ever. (Thucydides probably made it up to comment on the war.)

To say military force is excused for "humanitarianism" is therefore an empty word because it is the same as what everyone says. As for Somalia, why is it that Clinton wanted to send military there to "help" and "save" people, but send military to Iraq to kill? What is so different between Iraqis and Somalis? Answer is, nothing, just different excuses. "War is the health of state" so they're good no matter how you get there!

Bosnia/Serbia: cannot discuss genocide on this forum.

Please do not bring up "Islamic extremism" and then say it's beyond question and not for argument. These insular nationalist movements arise as a reaction to foreign control by colonialists. It's not some crazy magic evil. It says "hands off!" Overthrow is how governments properly evolve; invasion just resets the process back to square one.

These are not men who handle joysticks and remote bombs. These are men carrying MP4s and clearing rooms in Baghdad.

When I say "war over the telephone" I do not mean the soldiers are over the telephone, I mean the homeland is over the telephone. The war kills only American soldiers, not common American citizens. True since American civil war -- no broken cities, destroyed houses, cutoff of electricity, water, food... no massive disease and starvation. These things are part of war for the countries that "host" it.

And of course, lot of American soldiers ARE handling joysticks and remote bombs, and like any modern army most soldiers are not front line soldiers. There are the ones who get exciting war stories where they shoot the enemy, and also the ones who drove a truck back and forth for a year and then went home. Both part of the war and the war's consequences. Maybe less "exciting danger and really being alive" for the truck driver though.

I hate nationalist feeling and I hate to be the one saying "Americans this, Americans that." Please do not think I am talking about every American with a stereotype or racism. But there are a great many Americans on the Internet I see who fit the stereotype regrettably and are always threatening and bragging. I do not say you are a stereotype Halsey but there is a problem with some Americans where they can never think even handed about their government and support everything it does. I know sometimes this happens in every country but I never see (as example) a French person on the internet saying "If national will had not failed in the holy land, it would be ruled by christian knights and peaceful today" or "we must take back our rightful Indochina that has become sick and degraded without our moral rule."

When this happens with any government it is like a blind spot about war, where what is actual fact is not appreciated as much as "ideals" of the country.

Cocaine is probably better for you.

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Thought of this just after posting above... appeal of military service has changed. The modern way is instead of "for duty and honor and your country" it's "war is a unique experience, it's very exciting, it will be profitable for you and teach important skills" in other words now there is more appeal to personal selfishness.

 

[gagenater]

As for war being "fun", I really think it depends on the intensity of the fighting. You take a war like Iraq, where the threat of death for US soldiers is minimal, I suppose it could give you enough adrenaline to become exited without getting you extremely stressed out or psychologically damaged.

But for a war like WW2, my grandfather fought on the german side, which sustained (I do beleive) something like 2 million casualties. Obviously the threat of death was always prevalent, and pretty much to be expected. I couldn't imagine him saying that he thought the war was fun, or that he had a good time or whatever. They were all probably scared shitless(literally).

Iraq is hardly a 'fun' war for those stationed there. For a few units stationed in safe areas, it is boring - a bit more stressful than being stuck in the U.S. on a military base there. However for most people and units, it is nerve wracking. I know a number of people who are in Iraq now, or who have recently returned from tours over there. Granted, the total casualties in %ages are low, but there is a very random quality to the attacks and casualties. They have all more or less said that you have to be ready for all sorts of things to happen at any time - ex. RPG attacks on the mess hall, ambushes while on patrol, roadside bombs, local Iraqis acting as informants or suicide agents, etc. Most of them have learned to adapt to it, but it is definately not an exciting situation - more of a long boring and deadly game of poker, where you never know what cards the other guy is holding.

 

[HHornblower]

It is unclear who "most of us" is, from context it is either leaders, former soldiers, "hawk" warmongers, posters on this forum, or everyone in general. In any of those cases it is highly disingenuous to dismiss reservations about war by saying that "most of us understand that there are times when the choice is to either fight or capitulate." Maybe there are times like that, but they are much rarer than wars!

Actually, I believe that most of us DO believe there are times when you either fight, or capitulate, but they do not necessarily happen on the scale of an all out war. The clerk in a bank with a gun pointing at her has those two options - and those alone. Either capitulate (that is - do whatever the robber is telling you) or fight. Anyone who has ever been witness to an armed robbery will tell you that.
(You might argue that there is a third option - don't do anything - but as I see it that is very close to capitulating, as it hardly improves your position.)

When it comes to war or not, in most cases the options are probably of a wider range - but that is if you are the one initiating the war, or if you are not yourself threatened with direct invasion. One can argue that in WW2, the US had three choices after Pearl Harbor; declare war, stay out of it, or capitulate (not going to judge wheter any option is better, nor do I want to discuss that in particular. This is just an example). The Poles, on the other hand, only had those two options - fight or capitulate.

 

[unmerged(29044)]

all i can say is, I have been in fighting situation in the army and when you are a soldier, you belong to a group, which belongs to a regiment , which represents your country or cause. Once you are in, you get daily reminder by high ranking officer of what is your duty and it is often in complete opposite to reality on the ground. In the army it is not always fighting....nearly 95% is march, sleep, train, relax and eat, clean weapon etc....fighting is only a tiny portion but that 5% is taking 150% of your brain and energy....when you fight you do not think about anything else than achieve your goals while surviving. Of course killing someone is really disgusting and difficult but if your survival depends on it, you do it, no matter what. I have seen platoon wiped out by grenades in 1 second, combat is a mix of luck, skills and group ability. When you fight the last thing you think about is your parliament or president who send you there and the cause of it....you think about it when you are not in combat situation.....but when you are in combat you only think about not getting wounded too much or not being killed in action. soldiers do not enjoy killings unless in the course of the combat, something happen and make them going mad...There is a fine line between sanity and insanity in combat...when you are at the camp you have time to reflect about life, commitment, cause and why you are here....but on the ground the only thing is , where is the ennemy who is going to try to take my life. The group effect is something to take into account. When a war breaks out , your first thought is fear....for you and your familly , then you react and upon danger for what you consider as an intrusion in your freedom and liberty , a group a people or a country will intervene and send troops. In the world wars the group will enhance his courage together ( fools ) and go to war.....but this is not really war, jsut going to war....this is where politician plays, they are telling you what is right or wrong etc....Hitler played on German pride after the defeat of 1918. The french and Brits play on the defense of the free world but fear the trench rememberance of 1915. This where propaganda or spirit play. Then you arrive at the camp and feel the strain , then combat arrive and the only thing left is the bloke on your right, the one on your left and bahind you. They are the only one who will try to help you, and their common thought will be : SURVIVAL, together.

 

[unmerged(42743)]

It is unclear who "most of us" is, from context it is either leaders, former soldiers, "hawk" warmongers, posters on this forum, or everyone in general. In any of those cases it is highly disingenuous to dismiss reservations about war by saying that "most of us understand that there are times when the choice is to either fight or capitulate." Maybe there are times like that, but they are much rarer than wars!

Jof already mentioned the Poles. Any time a nation is invaded -- or threatened with invasion -- the choices are there. When Hitler wanted the Sudentenland, the west had the choice of fighting or capitulating. Chamberlain capitulated (of course we know how far it got him). I'm not arguing that the "fight or flight" choice applies in every case, but it's very difficult to separate the aims and needs of a people from the aims and needs of a nation. Certainly, the Poles did not benefit from a forced union with the Germans.

The best example I can think of in modern history where this actually had some bearing is the German invasion of Soviet Union -- and what was Germany going to do that was worse than Soviet Union was doing already?

You mean other than the siezure of territory that did not belong to them? Or the mass executions of Slavs, Jews, and accused "Bolsheviks"? There is a fine line of legality there, I think, that separates Stalin's excesses from Hitler's. But not much to choose from as far as leaders.

A rising GNP/GDP doesn't mean that it wouldn't have risen faster without wasteful cold war spending. It also isn't the final word on economy. If you look at figures for American concentration of wealth and real value of common wage, you see a very different picture, especially as "cold war" continues. Aside from military spending there is also related debt.

1. The Cold War is over.
2. Periods of economic slowdown have historically been related more to the export of jobs overseas, changing technologies and the relationship between workforce skills and industry needs. Defense spending is, in fact, an economic booster rather than a deficit-generator. It does not generate near the deficit that social spending (retirement, health care, welfare) have.
3. Debt cannot be evaluated independently of GNP -- no business I know of looks at debt without also looking at it as a percentage of assets. In that respect, our debt as a percentage of GNP has only grown by around 3 to 4% in the last 10 years. This doesn't mean it's not a matter of concern but I do believe it's given far too much weight by some people.

And no matter how you look, money spent on extra nuclear weapons is being thrown down a hole. There is enough of American nuclear weapons for all "military" purposes -- why have more?

Irrelevant. The U.S. is dismantling much of our nuclear arsenal.

Your unassailable just causes are part of most invasions. Hitler went to war for "humanitarian" causes, to "liberate" and "unify." Japan also made a "humanitarian" invasion of Manchuko. Once a country has been set on the path of the effort to go to war, it is trivial to also find the effort to make up an excuse.

Here is where we get into a discussion on what exactly a "just" war is. I would submit that the justice of a war would depend NOT on what rationale is given before the war, but on the outcomes. In that respect, we could reasonably say that WW2 was a just war, since Europe was relieved of the shadow of Fascism and the nation of Israel was founded. No outcome is ever going to be 100% to the positive, but we must look at the relative weights of positives and negatives. Soviet domination of Eastern Europe would not have occurred without WW2 (maybe), but we could also question the diplomatic policies of the US & Britain which allowed that to happen.

To say military force is excused for "humanitarianism" is therefore an empty word because it is the same as what everyone says. As for Somalia, why is it that Clinton wanted to send military there to "help" and "save" people, but send military to Iraq to kill? What is so different between Iraqis and Somalis? Answer is, nothing, just different excuses. "War is the health of state" so they're good no matter how you get there!

First, Clinton did not send troops to Iraq. Second, the stated goal of intervention in Somalia was to stop the famine. The troops sent there had a mission of enabling food distribution, not the taking of territory or the defeat of any organized faction. I'm not sure what other mission goals could be more admirable than to halt a famine, unless it would be to halt genocide.

Please do not bring up "Islamic extremism" and then say it's beyond question and not for argument. These insular nationalist movements arise as a reaction to foreign control by colonialists. It's not some crazy magic evil. It says "hands off!" Overthrow is how governments properly evolve; invasion just resets the process back to square one.

Different kettle of fish here, because the terrorists do not have an organized government (state) and probably could not manage one if they did (Taliban). The value of any ideology, to me, rests in what it offers a society -- that value could be religious, it could be material, it could simply be unified sets of values along racial lines. But the ideology must also offer more positives than negatives -- if it unnecessarily punishes its people with death for minor infractions, if it squelches free expression of ideas and possibly even engages in a cult of personality (North Korea), then it is only right for us to question the viability and value of that system. Further, there is a slight difference between "Islamic extremism" and the death cult of terror which has sprung up among some parts of Islam -- I submit that the cult of terror has nothing to offer society that is of lasting value. It is everything other societies fear and hate.

When I say "war over the telephone" I do not mean the soldiers are over the telephone, I mean the homeland is over the telephone. The war kills only American soldiers, not common American citizens. True since American civil war -- no broken cities, destroyed houses, cutoff of electricity, water, food... no massive disease and starvation. These things are part of war for the countries that "host" it.

True enough, but I think the attacks of 9/11 did occur on American soil. And I think it would also be true that families in any nation whose sons are sent home in caskets feel the effects of a war in very real terms.

I do not say you are a stereotype Halsey but there is a problem with some Americans where they can never think even handed about their government and support everything it does. I know sometimes this happens in every country but I never see (as example) a French person on the internet saying "If national will had not failed in the holy land, it would be ruled by christian knights and peaceful today" or "we must take back our rightful Indochina that has become sick and degraded without our moral rule."

Of course, there was no internet in 1954 when the French lost Indochina

Still, I think you raise a good point as long as it's not confined strictly to Americans. In today's world, the internet lets common folks communicate anywhere -- just like you and I are doing here. It is going to naturally bring their differences into sharp focus, but it is also going to increase the free flow of information. Have you read about the efforts of the Chinese to limit internet access? I think there may be a fear there that their people will learn of things too easily without government filters, or that their people will tell foreign countries too much about what is going on inside that country.

I'm serious when I say I'd rather this thread not get into pro-and-anti-American rants. We did that in another thread and it quickly devolved into a childish pissing contest. Let me only say that the America I know, beyond the public figures and leaders the rest of the world sees, includes the most generous, caring people you could want. As a people we are willing to consider anyone a friend and when that happens, we will stand by our friends in their time of need. (Our politicians, of course, do tend to screw things up royally). I'm hoping that with the advance of the internet and the freer flow of information, the differences between us and the rest of the world will diminish over time.

Cocaine is probably better for you.

Well at least when you snort coke, nobody's usually firing RPGs at your head

 

[unmerged(26131)]

The Cold War is over.

The Cold War as a specific rivalry between NATO/Warsaw Pact is over, but a more general "cold war" of heavy military spending despite the absence of a war (don't counter by citing Iraq, strictly a colonial-scale action -- would be like the difference between the British Empire putting down a revolt in an African colony, and WWI) continues.

Periods of economic slowdown have historically been related more to the export of jobs overseas, changing technologies and the relationship between workforce skills and industry needs. Defense spending is, in fact, an economic booster rather than a deficit-generator. It does not generate near the deficit that social spending (retirement, health care, welfare) have.

I see you are a class warrior. The road into such attitudes is not debate, discussion, analysis, example, or study. You will not be taking that road out. In a similar thread another poster raged against paying "fifteen percent of my income" for social security but spoke in glowing terms of "untold sums" spent on the Cold War. So be it. Better you than me.

Debt cannot be evaluated independently of GNP -- no business I know of looks at debt without also looking at it as a percentage of assets. In that respect, our debt as a percentage of GNP has only grown by around 3 to 4% in the last 10 years. This doesn't mean it's not a matter of concern but I do believe it's given far too much weight by some people.

Still worthy of mention though.

Irrelevant. The U.S. is dismantling much of our nuclear arsenal.

I don't see why that makes it irrelevant. Dismantling doesn't mean "never happened."

Here is where we get into a discussion on what exactly a "just" war is. I would submit that the justice of a war would depend NOT on what rationale is given before the war, but on the outcomes. In that respect, we could reasonably say that WW2 was a just war, since Europe was relieved of the shadow of Fascism and the nation of Israel was founded. No outcome is ever going to be 100% to the positive, but we must look at the relative weights of positives and negatives. Soviet domination of Eastern Europe would not have occurred without WW2 (maybe), but we could also question the diplomatic policies of the US & Britain which allowed that to happen.

How much of this can be said to be "good" or "bad" let alone "worth it?" None of this makes the war "just" to me. Would you tell the Soviet peasants who died when their food stores were raided by German Army, "cheer up, this is justice because after the war, life will be better for other people, although not for anyone around here?" Tell drafted American soldiers dying in field hospitals that "don't worry, after the war our country will use its influence to rekindle the holy war in the middle east?"

The truth is that all of these outcomes are complicated enough that you can't just say "right" or "wrong" about them, and with that much uncertainty over even what is supposed to be the right thing, to say the war was just in making it happen the way it did is unsupportable. We cannot talk alternate history with any certainty -- without the war, maybe one thing happens or maybe another. But there is nothing special and righteous about the way things did happen. It could have gone better or worse.

Knowing as they did from the start that the war would hardly have been bloodless, some nations may fairly say the war was forced upon them but none can call it just. So many sides were tugging at the balance that the broader outcome of the war was mostly an accident for everyone. There was no way to know how things would work out at the beginning and go into the rest of the war knowing it was "justice."

Clinton did not send troops to Iraq.

I did not use the word "troops." He sent bombs.

If we can ever say that a war is a question of "fight or capitulate" then Poland's defense against Germany is an acceptable example. But I didn't say it never happened. Obviously it does happen sometimes. Vietnamese defense against the American invasion is also a good example. But it's not a common question for your country and in every war there is at least one side for which that is not the question, at least not until things go really badly! (Example, Germany vs Soviets.)

In fact, I think most of the wars I mentioned are examples of "fight or capitulate" for the other side. The assumption here seems to be that it's always better to fight but in honesty it might have gone better for some of those countries to capitulate. What's the worst that can be done, compared to war -- especially when you lose anyway.

Also I forgot the Philippines.

I think the attacks of 9/11 did occur on American soil.

You think? Proof please. Kidding.

However, 9/11 was not an act of war as it was not done by a government. There was no declaration of war, no mobilization of an opposing army, in fact no opposing army at all. Therefore it has nothing to do with this discussion except perhaps peripherally as it pertains to mob psychology (very good example of that).

And I think it would also be true that families in any nation whose sons are sent home in caskets feel the effects of a war in very real terms.

Not nearly so much as personally being killed by shells, or starving to death. There is quite difference between grief and death! Or not having your son come home vs. every building in your town burned and destroyed.

There is a fine line of legality there, I think, that separates Stalin's excesses from Hitler's.

Now we're getting somewhere! You refer to Soviet territory as belonging to Soviets. These sentiments are in line with the basic principle of international law that the government of a nation has the highest authority within that nation's borders. Let's apply that!

the stated goal of intervention in Somalia was to stop the famine. The troops sent there had a mission of enabling food distribution, not the taking of territory or the defeat of any organized faction. I'm not sure what other mission goals could be more admirable than to halt a famine, unless it would be to halt genocide.

And yet doesn't "legality" also protect Somalia? Why violate their borders for ANY reason? And let's not be naive: if the question was merely "food distribution" it could have been the Red Cross not troops. Obviously some military operations were anticipated. Troops crossed the border = war = breaking the law. (Although I read somewhere that the US no longer formally declares its wars in order to get around some kind of internal legal limitation and hasn't been "at war" since Korea. Do you know if this is true?)

The value of any ideology, to me, rests in what it offers a society -- that value could be religious, it could be material, it could simply be unified sets of values along racial lines. But the ideology must also offer more positives than negatives -- if it unnecessarily punishes its people with death for minor infractions, if it squelches free expression of ideas and possibly even engages in a cult of personality (North Korea), then it is only right for us to question the viability and value of that system.

So you suggest that it is good to judge other countries, and if they seem bad, to invade? Doesn't the "legality" mentioned above protect North Korea as well as the Soviet Union? Under what circumstances would it be acceptable for other countries to "question the viability and value" of your own?

I submit that the cult of terror has nothing to offer society that is of lasting value. It is everything other societies fear and hate.

And will not men who are injured be deteriorated in that which is the proper virtue of man?

Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debts, and that good is the debt which a man owes to his friends, and evil the debt which he owes to his enemies, --to say this is not wise; for it is not true, if, as has been clearly shown, the injuring of another can be in no case just.

I believe that Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban, or some other rich and mighty man, who had a great opinion of his own power, was the first to say that justice is 'doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies.'

I much prefer the sound of "but they are protected by the law" to that of "but they are pure evil and must be destroyed."

the America I know, beyond the public figures and leaders the rest of the world sees, includes the most generous, caring people you could want. As a people we are willing to consider anyone a friend and when that happens, we will stand by our friends in their time of need.

How such decent sentiments can be widespread in your society yet totally unrepresented to the world at large, I have no idea. With so many good people, perhaps a few of them might make it to the next generation of public figures and leaders?