War and Politics

[Asudulayev]

I took a nap and the thread grew, whoah...

But for a war like WW2, my grandfather fought on the german side, which sustained (I do beleive) something like 2 million casualties.

Actually, I think that it was closer to 10 mil, but maybe I'm off...

[QuoteHalsey]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.
[/Quote]

Er, since discussing these things is a big no-no, it suffices to say that military intervention in Bosnia/Serbia did not not amount to much in the long run.

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.

Agreed, though I think that one of the inherent problems in this discussion is that we often speak of different groups in the same language. There are three groups when we consider war in relation to "them" or "us", there are the abstract nations (usually embodied by the leaders and often not by the population), there are the civilians who are not at war (the people that I and, I think, Arakcheyev often refer to) and finally there are the people who are doing the fighting (the group that Halsey refers to). All three of the above groups should be noted in discussion to avoid confusion. In reference to the above quote, you are obviously refering to soldiers, they are convinced that they are serving a higher cause and defending the defenceless. In my opinion, the leaders (and the people) are the ones who are victim to the argument that I made (that you [Halsey] quoted), though the general public is often happy enough to be apathetic.

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.

You make several interesting points, I will adress them one by one:

1. Yeah, but the memory remains, apparently (this may be hearsay) Eastern Germany has many a Nazi-fan-club-like organizations (as do the US and Russia), a government was toppeled, but the idea that drove was not killed off (sadly), Hitler's power would have atrophied and disappeared even without war (with more civilian casualties and less military ones possibly), such an empire would never hold.

2. I think that discussion of that is usually banned so it suffices to say there is some disagreement as to what extent that land has become a land of Milk and Honey. To be fair, considering the (tragically) anti-simetic nature of some europeans (in the 1940s and '50s) the possiblity of a state that could be run by jews for jews was not that far off, though WWII did jumpstart the idea (I wonder, though, if the 6 million were worth it), but I shall say no more.

3. I will agree to that, the end of the III reich coupeled with the Marshal plan did bring about the rebirth of Europe to a more peaceful and prosperous land, though it is an interesting thougt that the parts of Europe that most benefitted from this were the ones that saw the least fighting, while Russia is still god knows where on the road to progress.

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.

Just because a country is "democratic" does not mean that it is a "good" country (funny, how both are rather subjective terms), not that I am some sort of Stalinist-let's-follow-the-leader-back-to-the-good-old-days-Reactionary-jerk. Interestingly, you did not bring up Vietnam, why? Is it because the Saigon Government was not really that much "nicer" than the Hanoi government.
This does put evidence behind the "clauswitzian dictum".
I will agree that any discussion of Iraq (2003-2005?) now is quite meaningless, since it is still happening, we are still too close to the event to discuss it objectivly and there is another forum for that sort of thing.

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

Yay, economics argument/debate/discussion (what the hell is the difference?).

Since the population has been increasing exponetially in the USA in the times since the war, the fact that the GNP and GDP (basically the same thing) have increased is no surprise, there are more people at any given year producing and paying taxes than there were at any other year earlier. The war has had zero effect on that (aside from jump starting the USA out of depression), the population would grow irregardlessly (also not a word).

As for the concept of wars "helping economies", that is a very scary street to walk down. True, wars will create jobs (manufacturing and general military logistics contracting) this is done at the cost of human life (funny if not tragic), but even more importantly is that this tends to subside right after war, so the natural solution is a war-is-peace-1984-ish-orwellian scenario (a ghastly thought).

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.

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.

Quite amusing (in a scary genocidal way), choose: imprisonment and death because of being born in the wrong family, with wrong preferences, genes, or having contrary views to the gov. OR a flat 37.6 % chance of being abducted by the government for work in labor camp for some twenty-odd years and/or death. Tragic really...

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.

Well said, Kudos...

[Qoute=Arakcheyev]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.[/Quote]

Ture, funny how war has gone from frontal warfare to pseudo-colonial-interventionism (since WWII).

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."

To be fair, that can be said of any country or group, what I hear from other Americans (I am one) about Iraq and the middl-east is the same as what I hear from many Russians about Chechenia. France also has some foibles since (A) France did (to my knowledge) not just leave Vietnam, but did some fighting (thankfully, very little of it) and France did have that whole ALGERIAN WAR thing so I cannot say that the French (or any nation) fit the archetype of a great nation. I think that most Europeans are pacifist not because they are just superior beings, but because they have no recent history of military victories to refer to (unlike the USA or Russia).

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.

Actually, I agree with Arakcheyev, to liken a war to a fight or a robbery (between a tiny group of people, ie robber-victim) is rather ineffective for analytical purposes. A war is not two nations, as people "duking it out", but rather two (or more) governments sending people to "duke it out" for them, I doubt that many Russians, in 1914, were interested in protecting the Slavic-Orthodoxy of Serbia...

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.

1. the cold war has truned into the war on terror (which is a direct product of cold war era imperialism, which was a direct product of WWI era expansionalism, which was a direct product of WWI)

2. Nuclear bombs are rarely useful for the populations of nations, social programs are usually more loved. In an objective view both military and "welfare" (a dirty word here in the USA) are spending that have no real return, "welfare spending" allows a cosiety to progress, while the lack of it leaves to sink or swim.

3. Fun little detail eh? Also note that a government is not, nor should be a business...

 

[unmerged(42743)]

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.

The "Cold War" specifically refers to the Warsaw Pact/NATO standoff. I hope we can avoid future misunderstandings by sticking to that definition.

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.

I firmly believe in a free economy and in individual freedom to succeed or fail. Even income taxes are a limit to that freedom in a sense. I don't think that makes me a class warrior -- the balance between a "just" society which provides for the less fortunate and a "free" society that allows people to succeed or fail on their own is a delicate one, and a debate that has yet to be settled in the 20th and 21st centuries in ANY nation. My gut feeling is that the ideal is a combination of the two, but if I have to choose, I'll take a free society over a just one any day. That's just me.

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

I was responding to the assertion that we (the U.S.) were building more nukes. We are not. It was a false assertion. Your comment is out of context.

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?"

There is NO way to have a war which does not kill innocent people and destroy the property of people who cannot afford the loss. That's tragic, and I would agree a side effect best left undone, but that's not how reality works. Wars kill people, they destroy property, but the "Justness" of a war has nothing at all to do with collateral damage and injury -- justness must be measured by the goals of the war and more importantly by the outcomes. Otherwise, 2-bit dictators are going to be able to run all over the rest of us and we'll be afraid to shoot back because we might kill some farmer's chickens.

Put another way, perhaps the best way to measure Justice after a war is by looking at the greater good vs the greater harm, rather than individual stories of loss or death.

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

I don't go along with such moral relativism. I do think that wars can be judged -- after the fact -- with the relative amount of good they did versus the harm they did. Otherwise, if we're not in the business of making such judgements at all, we are left with no moral scale by which to measure the enslavement of Tibet or Poland or Vietnam versus the destruction of Hitler or Tojo. There is a major moral difference in those.

Vietnamese defense against the American invasion is also a good example.

The North Vietnamese infiltrated (invaded) the South, crossing the 1954 Geneva treaty DMZ to do so. Our initial intervention was limited, as a method of supplying advisers to the South. Not as an "invasion".

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.

So you are an appeaser, then?

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).

You stated that America had never been attacked or invaded. We have (and I skipped the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, as well as the Civil War).

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.

Red Cross representatives were shot, tortured and harrassed. There was no option left but military intervention. Let's not be naive, indeed.

Obviously some military operations were anticipated. Troops crossed the border = war = breaking the law.

Somalian society had collapsed. There was no effective government. By the end of 1992 about 350,000 Somalis had died. Another 1.5 million, close to one-fourth of the remaining population, were thought to be in danger of starvation without massive food aid. Tell me where 'law' existed inside Somalia? Would it have been better to simply stay out and let them all die off? In my book, those who have the power to make a positive difference but refuse to help are just as responsible for the sorrow and tragedy as those who raped and pillaged.

(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?)

American law allows our President to use the War Powers Act in limited fashion to dispatch troops without first getting approval from Congress. However, such interventions are limited by law and in the case of the 1991 Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq, the President did seek Congressional approval first. A formal declaration of war would be reserved for those larger-scale crises where the national resources must be mobilized and would provide the government with much wider powers. No such crisis has arisen since 1941, and the terrorists have no country upon which to declare war.

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'm not suggesting any such thing. Yes, that legality protects North Korea at this time, however any act of aggression toward the South would necessarily involve the US as treaty partners for the ROK.

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?

Or, possibly the rest of the world could stop looking at the U.S. through politically shaded glasses. We haven't changed THAT much since the Clinton Administration (except for 9/11 and the fallout from that), but because Bush is less willing to kowtow to the U.N., we're given the bum's treatment in the foreign press. We're still the same America. We're still not out to conquer anyone else or to tell anyone else how to run their country (forget Iraq, we're allowing the Iraqis to decide their own government). We're simply less willing to compromise when it comes to fighting and killing the outlaw terrorists who have sworn to destroy us. Even if it costs us the good will of people we once thought of as friends.

I hope that 9/11 doesn't happen to our European friends, but if it does perhaps they will understand our stance a little better. I'm sure Americans would be right there with offers of help and friendship.

 

[unmerged(26131)]

The "Cold War" specifically refers to the Warsaw Pact/NATO standoff.

Yes, that would be "the Cold War." There is also however the more general concept of "a cold war." These are distinct terms with distinct definitions.

I firmly believe in a free economy and in individual freedom to succeed or fail.

I see, so it's not poverty, it's the freedom to fail. Land of the free indeed.

I was responding to the assertion that we (the U.S.) were building more nukes. We are not. It was a false assertion. Your comment is out of context.

My comment certainly is out of context -- where you put it. I referred to nuclear weapons built in the past, not the present. I may have gotten the tenses wrong, but is it not correct to, for the past, say "spent" rather than "being spent?" Which I did.

Wars kill people, they destroy property, but the "Justness" of a war has nothing at all to do with collateral damage and injury -- justness must be measured by the goals of the war and more importantly by the outcomes.

Collateral damage and injury is not an outcome of war? I think it tends to be the most important one.

I don't go along with such moral relativism.

I'm no moral relativist either! But war's outcomes are so uncertain and its costs so certain that going to war hoping for a "just outcome" by which the aggressor can look back and call himself justified is irresponsible and dangerous.

Somalian society had collapsed. There was no effective government. By the end of 1992 about 350,000 Somalis had died. Another 1.5 million, close to one-fourth of the remaining population, were thought to be in danger of starvation without massive food aid. Tell me where 'law' existed inside Somalia? Would it have been better to simply stay out and let them all die off? In my book, those who have the power to make a positive difference but refuse to help are just as responsible for the sorrow and tragedy as those who raped and pillaged.

You mean other than the siezure of territory that did not belong to them? (disallowed content deleted) There is a fine line of legality there, I think, that separates Stalin's excesses from Hitler's.

In other words, what happens in one country is one country's business. Once you accept otherwise you justify every invasion with the bother to have a cover story. As a lawyer told me once "you have to avoid not just actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety." Therefore your army should go nowhere unless your blameless intentions are obvious (responding to an invasion).

This cautious and careful approach would conveniently have avoided the mess that Somalia really turned out to be. Before the war it's easy to say "it will all go well and turn out like we expect." How often does that happen though. When the Russians declared war on Japan before WWI they thought they were getting into a "short victorious war."

We haven't changed THAT much since the Clinton Administration

No joking there! It's too true. Really American foreign (and as far as I can tell domestic) policy hasn't changed at all. And I wouldn't say it had!

The North Vietnamese infiltrated (invaded) the South, crossing the 1954 Geneva treaty DMZ to do so. Our initial intervention was limited, as a method of supplying advisers to the South. Not as an "invasion".

Ho Chi Minh, organizing against the French after WWII, wrote a letter to the American president at the time, asking for American help in achieving independence from their colonial masters. No American assistance was provided but the Vietnamese overthrew the French anyway.

The South Vietnamese made up much of the northern army. The southern army was for the most part not interested in fighting and there were few loyalists to the southern government, which was widely acknowledged as corrupt. Were it not for the invasion the southern government would have quickly collapsed. During the course of the war the southern government was marked with instability and internal violence.

American intervention began with an "advisory" stage, as you say. It escalated until it could no longer be misleadingly called such. In terms of scale, it was for America a brushfire war but for Vietnam definitely a full-scale conventional war.

American troops occupied the south amidst serious unrest, protest, and hostility. Many of their operations targetted the general population of the south because the north had such widespread support there that distinction was difficult. Also the "Firepower" doctrine (is that the name?) called for a lot of collateral damage (artillery, napalm, agent orange). Cannot fully discuss here.

Official and even unofficial reasons for going to war are somewhat confused. Most commonly repeated is "Domino Effect" which predicted a successful Vietnamese revolution sparking other wars of independence and/or reform in the area. If this is the reason for going to war then America won because Vietnam is still a poor country from the war. South Vietnam was devastated.

I realize you were there. That isn't always the best vantage though.

 

[unmerged(26131)]

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.

So you are an appeaser, then?

So you consider the Iraqi resistance to be an alternative to appeasement then? (And therefore good since appeasement is always bad?)

You stated that America had never been attacked or invaded. We have (and I skipped the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, as well as the Civil War).

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.

I said that wars have not been fought American soil since American Civil War. Revolutionary War is before then. War of 1812 is before then. American Civil War is then. So all these are not since.

 

[The Witch-King]

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


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.


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.

You obviously know nothing about what happened in Afghanistan.

As for war, the individual and the psychology of responsibility, your post shows little to no understanding of the topic we are discussing. Lvx' post was the best one I've seen in these forums in a long time, if ever. Too bad that you didn't understand a single word of it. Or maybe you just got all defensive and overreacted?

And I think it's only fair to tell you this: Apocalypse Now is about something completely different than whatever you think it's about.


(Incidentally, the usual misinterpretation of Apocalypse Now that I see is the quite common misconception among jingoistic people in the US that it is intended to be a nationalistic and inspiring, albeit somewhat raw, action war movie. It always baffles me how people can be so square-headed and lacking in insight and imagination - sad, isn't it?)

 

[unmerged(38751)]

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.

Clausewitzs work "On War" was first published 1832, so it would have been problematic for Napoleon to get influenced by him. Prussia didnt have the concept of conscription before 1807, and it was introduced as a result of the defeat vs the French in 1806, against the peoples army of France. FYI


Interstingly, this discussion started with the website you, Halsey, posted. Has anyone besides you and Christian actually read and tried to understand what the author wanted to say? van Crefeld is university professor and author, and in his books he claims to have discovered a problem with "Clausewitzian" thinking within the staffs of the armies of the western world.
Far from talking about things like "joy of war", or other fairy tales that either you or your willing participants are discussing lengthy.


OTOH, funny how quickly this turned into a bash-your-country-no-****-your-country-thread .

so much to sophisticated people sharing their right to speak

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Drescher, if somebody starts a thread about how "war pumps me up, does war pump you up, it sure pumps me up" I somehow assume we have more important things to talk about than Clausewitz. Reading Halsey's first post, he does say "go read this article" but also a lot of other things meriting reply.

I might add that none on this forum knows my country although Konig15 thinks I am a Communist (and therefore must die).

 

[Asudulayev]

Wow, what a surprise a thread that started as a discussion of "War and Politics" turned into a discussion of war on a broader scale, that turned into a just-war-paradox-problem, that in turn became a debate about current wars and policies, which turned into a heated political argument.

What a shame that these things always happen.

 

[unmerged(38751)]

Arakcheyev, do you honestly think that if someone, who claims to have seen combat, talks about combat just like he did(you named it), will be "manipulated" by posts about the real nature of war? At least i dont think so, and as there were some interesting points in the article, it could have made up for an interesting discussion, perhaps, especially because the thesis of this article is questionable indeed.

 

[The Witch-King]

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.

(1) A good thing, I agree.

(2) Neutral thing at best, and certainly bad in the way it was handled. But you and I come from different directions here - your words imply that you think every "volk" has a right to its own "reich", whereas I think people should just get along and not worry so much about what nationality they are. Your view has started many wars - mine have not, and that is why I stick with it.

(3) Errr... the war is what put Europe in ashes, remember? And as for Russia, what was before Stalin was worse, regardless of what Tsarist nostalgics will tell you. And a successful counter-revolution in Russia at that time would almost certainly have resulted in completely horrible oppression and purges much worse than what Stalin conducted. But let's save those theories for a really interesting alternate history thread later...

Good goals, good outcomes - I don't know...

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

I shall resist the temptation to take apart your almost religious analysis of those conflicts, but I will say this:

It's interesting how you carefully take a moment to present all these examples of US aggression as just wars and/or defensive actions. In doing it, you are illustrating very well some points made in this thread by others.

It reminds me of a very articulate and very confident college-educated woman from the US, that I spoke with. She firmly believed that her country had only ever fought defensive wars in its entire history - she believed it so strongly that there was no reason at all for her to check independent sources for confirmation. Fight or capitulate. It was all just, and thus she never had to ask herself if the killings were worth it - it was even as if there weren't any killings. For justified deaths are not tragic, are they?

The flag-waving, obedient and unthinking nationalism we see in the US today does indeed lack comparison in post-war Western and Central Europe. The country is at present a perfect machine for wars of conquest. And its leaders are certainly using it. I hope the humanist and democratic forces that we know to exist in the US do make a comeback eventually.

please, I don’t wish to debate that

Then don't bring it up.

 

[MAC]

I think the point is that we have evolved a lot in the last 60 years.
If you take WWI and compare WWII with it (and that was just a short timespan) its astonishing how technology, doctrines and such developed.

But one thing remains: the population needs actually to agree with its leadership when it comes to war. And the leadership had and has its ways to achieve it.

Since we have evolved there are more subtle and scientific methods needed to actually make people believe that the decisions made by the states leadership are good and just, that a war is good and just. But on the other hand there has never been a time where TV had such a power over the opinion of the masses and therein lies great danger.

There is an interesting book written by two german journalists out there called "Die Globalisierungsfalle" - unfortunately I dont know if it was translated into other languages. Its quite old (like 10 years) and the funny thing is that most of what they predicted has come true (Germany having highest unemployment rate since decades) - even though the German Gouvernment already started to follow the "liberal" economical way.

But if you read the book you actually get that nowadays the "real" war is already going on. Money is what its all about and most major companies are no longer national but international / global players. And they belong to a mixture of investors, mostly not of one country.

Nationalism and such is a good thing - it keeps people "willing" to sacrifice rights and money for their country. It simply makes you feel good, feeling like a part of something bigger. Still we should rather watch out that we are not abused and defend the rest of democracy that is in fact still left. The point is that what your gouvernment tells you (and mine tells me) and whats really good are two pair of shoes.

I am pretty sure in another 60 years people might have the same opinion about us like we have about the people in the SU and Germany in the 30's.
How could people actually believe Goebbels? How could they follow Stalin and Hitler - didn't they see what is going on?

But since nowadays nations are not that important and the real power is the economy a war is more and more likely to be not a war in the sense of WWII but to protect personal interests of a few people. For example the people in the US could ask themselves who benefits from the enourmous deficit the US is actually creating (especially if you look what the money is used for)? Who benefits from the interventions in Iraq?

But this is no US specific thing (maybe just the incredible "believe" in everything the gouvernment is doing is) - the majority of people is simply not interested in democracy the way it would be needed. To inform from several sources and to think and draw your own conclusions. To question what your gouvernment tells you if needed. So propaganda can do its work, so tittytainment via TV and such keeps people from "wasting" a thought about the state of democracy and people come to power who only care for themselves - the death of democracy. Orwell at its best (The problem with any form of gouvernment is that power corrupts).

I firmly believe in a free economy and in individual freedom to succeed or fail. Even income taxes are a limit to that freedom in a sense. I don't think that makes me a class warrior -- the balance between a "just" society which provides for the less fortunate and a "free" society that allows people to succeed or fail on their own is a delicate one, and a debate that has yet to be settled in the 20th and 21st centuries in ANY nation. My gut feeling is that the ideal is a combination of the two, but if I have to choose, I'll take a free society over a just one any day. That's just me.

Halsey, you are a refreshing difference from the usual us-rightwing-you-are-just-jealous-poster. Still (and I really hope the book is also availiable in english) when you are talking about these economical issues you should think twice:

For example a free, liberal economy states that there should be no interference by gouvernments into economy. In fact as long as the economy benefits from that this is what is propagized. But as soon as the economy / major company is in trouble suddenly they call for aid and the gouvernment will usually spent your had earned tax dollars to fix the problem to keep the economy from crashing. This alone leads liberal economy ad absurdum. There has to be at least a slight control to avoid a worst-case scenario.

I am a strong proponent of the slogan that work should pay out - and for sure also risking an investment. But nowadays there is a LOT of hard work that does not pay out too well and many people have 2 jobs just to survive. I am also no fan of the actual "social system" in Europe - simply because nowadays there is so much abuse that there is not enough for the people who would really need it. But on the other hand it makes not much sense to me that a few people own the majority of the money. The masses have to have some purchasing power to make the economy run well - actually its more like this: we need to dismiss more employees to produce at lower costs because people have no money and cant afford our products. Now even more people cant afford it so we have to dismiss more employees to produce at lower costs - and so on. And I strongly feel that greed needs to be in control to some degree - if you just try to keep all for yourself and push your fellow men with the back to the wall you might make a mistake, higher crime rate or even a social revolution/uprising (LA) might take your life - and what does all the money help you now? Many already "hide" in their protected suborbs - but that might not save you all the time.

Having explored being soldier, employee and nowadays running a small business, having a dozen employees myself showed me many pros and cons and different points of views. The point is that there are always two sides of a medal and sometimes they are totally different. Truth often lies in the middle, but the most important thing is to make up your mind and not just repeat what others tell you. After all we are human beings while liberal economy is not too human.

I dont know what we face in the next two decades, but it seems the pretty calm times after WWII might not last if we dont manage to solve our worldwide economical, social and ecological problems, we should not forget that we all live on the same planet. I dont expect politicians who care nowadays only for themselves (regardless of what they pretend) and the masses stupidified by TV to solve them. My fear is that it will once again have to come to the worst before humanity can evolve again.

 

[The Witch-King]

Clausewitzs work "On War" was first published 1832, so it would have been problematic for Napoleon to get influenced by him. Prussia didnt have the concept of conscription before 1807, and it was introduced as a result of the defeat vs the French in 1806, against the peoples army of France. FYI

I seem to recall that Clausewitz was in the Prussian army during the Napoleonic wars, and himself stated that his work was written to a great extent as reflections upon the insights he gained during that time.

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Drescher, no, I don't think I or anyone else will change Halsey's mind. I don't know if anyone's mind will change. I doubt it. All the same I don't want talk about "just wars" and war as a catalyst for the great human spirit to stand just unchallenged.

I read the article. It did not stir me. I will tell you why.

The author addresses as though they are failures of broad military doctrine what are actually failures of policy. Clausewitz as I recall did not much discuss policy and simply talked about war, assuming policy would be in the picture somewhere. (Skimmed "On War" a long time ago. Hard to read books that were groundbreaking in their day but have now been widely accepted. "Origin of Species" has the same problem now.)

The reasons for failure are clear when examined as policy failures. There was no societal need for (example) the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. This is important because to soldiers when there is no reason for war there is discontent. An army that does not want to be there will do a bad job. Somebody else's game of Risk is not enough reason.

If you argue that there must be another way to make them interested and obedient, maybe so. But the question is why? Why is it important to conduct wars which are a bad idea in the first place? Did the Soviet leadership think that Afghanistan would be a big asset to their country, or that Afghanis would like to be Soviet? Who knows what they thought. They were confused.

Clausewitz assumed that war would happen sometimes and policy would lead it. Thucydides wrote on war but his work deals with a broader picture as well. (Imperial Athens, colonial Sparta, and ambitious Thebes and Corinth.) The author of the article dismisses policy completely, preferring to focus on how, hypothetically, one might motivate troops fighting for nothing to best troops fighting for their lives. Difficult and unwise -- and unnecessary.

... and not, by taking chances against men who had given up hope of living, to find out about the courage of men deserted by fortune.

As for "the Art of War," policy is completely ignored there except if you choose to read it in. For example "first win and then seek battle" can be interpreted to mean "choose reasonable goals" as well as "make sure of the strength of your forces."

Sun Tzu wrote his book about Chinese warlords, each trying to unify China. This goal was not beyond reason for them. I don't think he ever thought much about his book being used by people outside that context. The goals of wars were very straightforward in this environment which is why he doesn't talk about them.

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.

The missing word is "defensive." An attacking army can win, and a defending army can lose, but defenders in general exhibit far more "heroism" and dedication than attackers. But of course where policy doesn't matter and war is an assumed necessity under non-specific circumstances, "keep your hands to yourself" isn't enough answer.

The impotence of the Russian Army in front of a few ill-armed Chechen is merely the latest proof that the developed world's "strategic" view of war is bankrupt. Sooner or later, those who cannot fight will find themselves forced to do so

Because the Russians had no other option? I doubt that. "No point clinging on to a hedgehog" as the saying goes, with the traditional response, "or rather there are many." Meaning that in any relationship, national or personal or otherwise, when someone is certain they wish to leave standing in their way is only trouble.

Van Creveld's essay is somewhat disorganized -- a jeremiad on operational changes should have a concise list of key points or a straightforward single statement of resolve -- but let me see if I can extract his key points.

1. Indoctrination.
2. Discipline.
3. Intelligence.
4. Counter-intelligence.
5. Minimum force.

New ground is not exactly broken by the first four, especially conerning Clausewitz and modern armies. As for the fifth, I think most people would hesitate to endorse it.

These frameworks, the expressive and the instrumental, are diametrically opposed. Truth must combine them both—and, at the same time, negate them both.

What does this mean if anything? Or am I just too stupid to understand its masterful postmodern wisdom?

 

[MAC]

Wow, what a surprise a thread that started as a discussion of "War and Politics" turned into a discussion of war on a broader scale, that turned into a just-war-paradox-problem, that in turn became a debate about current wars and policies, which turned into a heated political argument.

What a shame that these things always happen.

I dont think its a shame. In fact IMHO it shows two things:

- Nowadays politics, economics and war are even more merged as they were before.

- A strong believer will not change his opinion because of a few forum postst. Still the heat in such debates shows that many people at least try, because they see parallels for example in the US, Italy and Russia to the development in Germany 36 where Hitler came to power in a democratic process. And since we all live on the same planet these are things that affect us all.

 

[The Witch-King]

Or, possibly the rest of the world could stop looking at the U.S. through politically shaded glasses. We haven't changed THAT much since the Clinton Administration (except for 9/11 and the fallout from that), but because Bush is less willing to kowtow to the U.N., we're given the bum's treatment in the foreign press. We're still the same America. We're still not out to conquer anyone else or to tell anyone else how to run their country (forget Iraq, we're allowing the Iraqis to decide their own government). We're simply less willing to compromise when it comes to fighting and killing the outlaw terrorists who have sworn to destroy us. Even if it costs us the good will of people we once thought of as friends.

So you just don't know, do you?

 

[MAC]

The impotence of the Russian Army in front of a few ill-armed Chechen is merely the latest proof that the developed world's "strategic" view of war is bankrupt. Sooner or later, those who cannot fight will find themselves forced to do so

Ah, I find something else very interesting - despite of all that atrocities and suffer on both sides it strengthens the gouvernment and people call for even more use of force instead of the (logical?) conclusion - to protest against the gouvernment that pushed the nation into such a war. Usually (as long as you dont commit genocide, which "civilized" nations hopefully are not doing full scale due to the international pressure) force just worsens the situation, since it makes even those sympathize with the terrorists who usually are no friend of them. Sounds silly but I think its true that you need to win the hearts, which you usually cant by force.

And I think there are some parallels between Russia and the US...

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Having had my attention drawn to an ambiguous statement I made above, I just wanted to clarify that when I said:

Konig15 thinks I am a Communist (and therefore must die).

I meant that Konig15 thought that I should die for being (he thinks) a Communist, not that I think Konig15 should die for thinking I am a Communist. So while I had better watch out, you are all perfectly safe to think I am a Communist if you like!

Sorry for the clumsy statement.

 

[unmerged(26131)]

Almost forgot to follow this up but caught it checking for new posts...

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.

Red Cross representatives were shot, tortured and harrassed. There was no option left but military intervention. Let's not be naive, indeed.

Thus you have my point: the mission is not food distribution only, which Red Cross could do, but military intervention which is why troops and not Red Cross.

 

[HHornblower]

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.

The loss of basic rights and needs on a long timescale are in my opinion worse than the sufferings from a short war. And as it is extremely difficult to judge whether a coming war is going to be short, I believe it's better to try than to end up sorry. This is if you have but those two choices, "fight" or "capitulate".

Most wars have that element - but not all. And definitely not all participants in ANY war. There's always at least one with more choices, the "agressor", and certainly at times maybe everyone had more than those choices. But my point was that when you are in that situation, as I stated above, you fight.

Of course, in my case, this assumes that you already have those basic rights, but as I believe Arakcheyev said, the way of dealing with that internally would be by rebellion.

 

[unmerged(19877)]

...the balance between a "just" society which provides for the less fortunate and a "free" society that allows people to succeed or fail on their own is a delicate one, and a debate that has yet to be settled in the 20th and 21st centuries in ANY nation. My gut feeling is that the ideal is a combination of the two, but if I have to choose, I'll take a free society over a just one any day. That's just me.

Some interesting, if not typical ideas in this thread. Now, I'm not looking to influence the course of discussion but the comment above stuck with me as I sifted through the post. I am compelled to comment.

Are these two notions, the notions of a just society and a free society, truly independent concepts? That is to say, in order to have a just society must there not be freedom? And in order to have a free society must there not be justice?

Cheers.