Why is War?

[richardfinegold]

I think the anthropologist's view I refer to above is that, indeed, it is. Even if some tribes/communities/states want to live peaceably, there will always be others who covet their resources or land, or wish to impose their religious or cultural values on them. It has been ever thus. It is just that in historical times the means for waging war have resulted in ever more disastrous or potentially disastrous conflicts. But it's part of the human condition. There will never be world peace. Population increase, pressure on resources and the consequences of climate change (resulting in wholesale movements of population) mean that war will continue to be the normal way to behave. Peace is the preferred option of those those who currently benefit from the status quo.

Agreed. And thanks for alerting me to the newest Jared Diamond book.
I agree with vints in that it's just to easy to say that all war is bad. Some Wars are clearly justified, and WWII is the most obvious example. What would people want us to do, simply lie down and accept aggression and domination from the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese Imperialists? How many millions were saved when the Khmer Rouge were toppled, or the Rwandan Hutus?
There are no winners in war, only losers. Even wars that are justifiable are notto be celebrated, but tolerated as necessary evils.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

in my present maturity [more than it was at any rate!] i am grateful that in both World Wars the German and Fascist axis was defeated even though one might have wished for much else that was not to be; that outcome is still to me undeniably welcome, and i owe a debt of honour and gratitude to those who lost their lives or limbs in those struggles ..... but i do not feel i can say that about all the subsequent fighting, in all cases we should have known better ... as to the coming wars we should do well to be as peripheral as possible ....... we may not have that option

the recent efforts to commemorate the WW1 casualties and mark the turning of time from living memory to the past, have brought home to me what was otherwise obscured by the recency and scale of WW2 in my own lifetime, hard to see WW1 in its true light through that apocalypse and the subsequent nuclear threats of the Cold War [truly scary to me as a kid]

[Serial_Apologist]

We speak in banal generalities about human greed and aggression, but resort to war in a modern sophisticated world in which science reveals what the better parts of religion taught, namely that we all as people at root have more in common than divides us, can only be acceptable in defense against those who have been misled by others they consider their superiors into potentially sacrificing their lives to some false ideology, religious or nationalistic. Blind obedience is conscience's betrayal and stands against everything our generation were taught about the evil and futility of war, and sought to eradicate for all time by campaigning for justice at home and against its absence in other countries: the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind. The only solution for those taken to war on a false prospectus is to mutiny. There is no excuse to go to war as a consequence of for examples climate change or depleting resources, problems caused by defective political systems which can be overcome by "ordinary" people divorcing their allegiance from their rulers, speaking across barriers they themselves never created, and conjointly solving their problems. I can only think of one war of invasion in my time that was justified, namely that by the Vietnamese against the Khmer Rouge in neighbouring Cambodia engaged in genocide against their own people.

[Richard Tarleton]

There is no excuse to go to war as a consequence of for examples climate change or depleting resources,

S_A, this is all wars have ever been about, with a bit of religion and/or political ideology thrown in to dress them up a bit. Nothing has changed, in spite of us living in a "modern sophisticated world", as you call it. When exactly do you think this "modern sophisticated world" dates from? 1945? 2000?

To look just at the last two thousand years, think for a moment on: the westward expansion of peoples from Asia into Europe in the first millennium AD; the movement of Bantu peoples into southern Africa at the expense of the indigenous people, who became marginalised in the areas with no resources, like the Kalahari; the rise and fall of successive and particularly bloody empires in central and south America; the overseas empires of Spain, England, Holland, France, Germany in the last 500 years; the Russian empire has risen and fallen at least twice in the last 500 years, and is currently trying to rise again. China is trying to mop up the world's mineral and timber resources, as well as land to feed its new appetite for meat, but is doing it by peaceful if equally aggressive means. Empires throughout history have collapsed as a result of lack of resources and/or climate change, as a principal contributory factor if not a main cause.

It's all about resources: and climate change . What do you think lies behind the current movement of peoples northwards into Europe from sub-Saharan Africa? Climate change will see massive movements of peoples following desertification and the flooding of densely populated low-lying coastal regions (think Bangla Desh). We ain't seen nothing yet.

problems caused by defective political systems which can be overcome by "ordinary" people divorcing their allegiance from their rulers

All political systems are defective, all are made by people. We might understand things a bit better, but we still do exactly the same things, if sometimes by other means.

speaking across barriers they themselves never created, and conjointly solving their problems.

You mean like the Russians and Ukrainians, or ISIS in Iraq and Syria? What could possibly go wrong?

[Sir Velo]

It's all about resources: and climate change . What do you think lies behind the current movement of peoples northwards into Europe from sub-Saharan Africa? Climate change will see massive movements of peoples following desertification and the flooding of densely populated low-lying coastal regions (think Bangla Desh). We ain't seen nothing yet.



All political systems are defective, all are made by people. We might understand things a bit better, but we still do exactly the same things, if sometimes by other means.



You mean like the Russians and Ukrainians, or ISIS in Iraq and Syria? What could possibly go wrong?

SA has a touching faith in the ultimate goodness of humans. Quite where they're going to get the power to make these revoutionary changes remains to be seen. Perhaps SA should read Animal Farm for starters (pace Will Self ) to see what happens inevitably to all idealistic movements. It reminds me of an interview with some university professor (can't remember what or when but recently) who commented that things were looking up because young people today were more "engaged" than ever before with environmental and other social issues.

Sadly, these good hearted folks don't seem to realise that it is the natural progression of the generations to start as idealists, progress through to realists; get overwhelmed by materialism and end up the cynics that they thought their parents' generation were. One only has to look at how many of the "baby boomer" generation who grew up in the sixties are now directing the very corporate strategies which are bringing about unprecedented global climate change etc (Richard Branson anyone?).

[Pabmusic]

S_A, this is all wars have ever been about, with a bit of religion and/or political ideology thrown in to dress them up a bit…etc.

Now I (remembering an early series of posts) can offer to hold your coat.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i too have faith in the goodness of my fellow humans [cf Steven Pinker] but none in the wisdom and goodness of governments and the calculations of the psychopaths and moral imbeciles who inhabit the corridors of power ...

[Serial_Apologist]

S_A, this is all wars have ever been about, with a bit of religion and/or political ideology thrown in to dress them up a bit. Nothing has changed, in spite of us living in a "modern sophisticated world", as you call it. When exactly do you think this "modern sophisticated world" dates from? 1945? 2000?

1945 would be a good starting point; my experience was of my generation being given assurances that following two devastating world wars - one following on from another that people had been informed had been "the war to end all wars", the other ending in the nuking of two major cities. Maybe they missed you out?

To look just at the last two thousand years, think for a moment on: the westward expansion of peoples from Asia into Europe in the first millennium AD; the movement of Bantu peoples into southern Africa at the expense of the indigenous people, who became marginalised in the areas with no resources, like the Kalahari; the rise and fall of successive and particularly bloody empires in central and south America; the overseas empires of Spain, England, Holland, France, Germany in the last 500 years; the Russian empire has risen and fallen at least twice in the last 500 years, and is currently trying to rise again. China is trying to mop up the world's mineral and timber resources, as well as land to feed its new appetite for meat, but is doing it by peaceful if equally aggressive means. Empires throughout history have collapsed as a result of lack of resources and/or climate change, as a principal contributory factor if not a main cause.

All cases cited, excepting China today, being from far back in history before out times; and even Western apologists are having to acknowledge the amount of R&D China is devoting to environmentally-friendly energy alternatives, even as they build coal powered power stations. Ordinary Chinese people have always proved themselves remarkably adaptable to change.

It's all about resources: and climate change . What do you think lies behind the current movement of peoples northwards into Europe from sub-Saharan Africa? Climate change will see massive movements of peoples following desertification and the flooding of densely populated low-lying coastal regions (think Bangla Desh). We ain't seen nothing yet.

Yes it's all about resources! - its about wise husbandry and critiqueing a system that constantly raises hopes and then dashes them, while delivering unsustainable product.

All political systems are defective, all are made by people. We might understand things a bit better, but we still do exactly the same things, if sometimes by other means.

But which people?? This is the question we should constantly be asking, instead of falling for disillusioned generalisations.

You mean like the Russians and Ukrainians, or ISIS in Iraq and Syria? What could possibly go wrong?

Some people are brought up never to question, querying what the elders and betters have told us being considered ungrateful and disrespectful, and then spend a lifetime accepting what they've been told, trying to measure up to the peer group pressures emanating from a fake trickle-down system. We should be saying to these people - whose interests are served by your blind obedience? Or maybe, if they're religious: how will you justify your life decisions before St Peter at the pearly gates?

[Serial_Apologist]

SA has a touching faith in the ultimate goodness of humans. Quite where they're going to get the power to make these revoutionary changes remains to be seen. Perhaps SA should read Animal Farm for starters (pace Will Self ) to see what happens inevitably to all idealistic movements. It reminds me of an interview with some university professor (can't remember what or when but recently) who commented that things were looking up because young people today were more "engaged" than ever before with environmental and other social issues.

There's been argument over what Animal Farm was about, usually to do with it having either been a condemnation of Stalinism or a critique of Labourist state welfarism. What is was surely not about was what happens to all idealistic movements.

Sadly, these good hearted folks don't seem to realise that it is the natural progression of the generations to start as idealists, progress through to realists; get overwhelmed by materialism and end up the cynics that they thought their parents' generation were. One only has to look at how many of the "baby boomer" generation who grew up in the sixties are now directing the very corporate strategies which are bringing about unprecedented global climate change etc (Richard Branson anyone?).

Again not all - not myself, for starters, and certainly not the late Tony Benn. Anyone who elects to join the employer class has always been forced to obey the laws of competition or go under.

[Serial_Apologist]

i too have faith in the goodness of my fellow humans [cf Steven Pinker] but none in the wisdom and goodness of governments and the calculations of the psychopaths and moral imbeciles who inhabit the corridors of power ...

We nevertheless have to maintain perspective - the main problem with capitalism is systemic, not I believe moral. It's not about creating wealth but who usurps and either wastes or misdirects it. If we forget that it is under its aegis that those reared for leadership are fast-tracked into positions of dominant control, and that under a more democratic system whatever qualities and abilities they may (stress may) have to offer society could represent something useful and non-enviable to contribute and make meaningful lives with, then the socio-political explosion that is bound to take place, given capitalism's inherent contradictions, will take the vengeful forms that lead others to become apologists for the status quo. After all we are from childhood presented with such heroic figureheads - the trouble is that war is more often instanced as a prime arena in which their virtues are allowed to act as role models than in leading change for the better.

At the proverbial end of the day, we have no alternative but to trust in our natures, individual and, by extension, collective. It is the environment nurturing of our best qualities that is in the main lacking, or is found banished to to the peripheries like social workers placed in untenable circumstances, there to be scapegoated until some other unfortunate stand-in can be found.

[Richard Tarleton]

Apologies to Saly, this thread has developed into a sort of "War, what is it good for" sort of thread.

All cases cited, excepting China today, being from far back in history before out times

Er, Russia, 1917-89 and today? Germany, twice in last 100 years? Arab caliphate, 1000 years ago and today? Japan? (which I didn't mention). Only the methods and accompanying ideologies change (sometimes). The human condition remains the same.

But which people?? This is the question we should constantly be asking, instead of falling for disillusioned generalisations....
Some people are brought up never to question, querying what the elders and betters have told us being considered ungrateful and disrespectful, and then spend a lifetime accepting what they've been told, trying to measure up to the peer group pressures emanating from a fake trickle-down system. We should be saying to these people - whose interests are served by your blind obedience? Or maybe, if they're religious: how will you justify your life decisions before St Peter at the pearly gates?

Sorry don't understand any of this S_A. I think I'll have to leave it at that.

[Serial_Apologist]

Apologies to Saly, this thread has developed into a sort of "War, what is it good for" sort of thread.

War is always likely to raise issues in any discussion.

Er, Russia, 1917-89 and today? Germany, twice in last 100 years? Arab caliphate, 1000 years ago and today? Japan? (which I didn't mention). Only the methods and accompanying ideologies change (sometimes). The human condition remains the same.

Now you're raising different examples. I think one could nevertheless argue issues of class as being at the root of each of these.

Sorry don't understand any of this S_A. I think I'll have to leave it at that.

So be it, if that is what you wish.

[Richard Tarleton]

Now you're raising different examples.

I have to respond to this, S_A. You have clearly not read my post properly. I mentioned Germany (twice in last 100 years recent enough for you?). I said

the Russian empire has risen and fallen at least twice in the last 500 years, and is currently trying to rise again

I mentioned the current Russia/Ukraine issue (a continuation of the same theme) in my penultimate sentence. I mentioned the Arab Caliphate in my penultimate sentence ("ISIS in Iraq and Syria", in case you missed it). My only new example was Japan, which I acknowledged as such.

My first post was to draw attention to the work of a great anthropologist who has looked at wars prehistoric and modern to see what they have in common and where they differ. My second was to draw attention to what all wars, throughout history (including now) have in common.

You mention China

All cases cited, excepting China today, being from far back in history before out times [not so by the way, see above] and even Western apologists are having to acknowledge the amount of R&D China is devoting to environmentally-friendly energy alternatives, even as they build coal powered power stations. Ordinary Chinese people have always proved themselves remarkably adaptable to change.

I would only add, what I clearly didn't make sufficiently clear, was my view that that China is currently achieving the same ends [as would be achieved by war] by other means, namely by asset-stripping the environment on three continents.

In the context of the present thread I don't think I can add much more.

[aeolium]

My first post was to draw attention to the work of a great anthropologist who has looked at wars prehistoric and modern to see what they have in common and where they differ. My second was to draw attention to what all wars, throughout history (including now) have in common.

But I think this is not entirely correct, and also a somewhat fatalistic view which ought to be countered in a world where nuclear weapons proliferate and the consequences of waging war are very different from those in prehistoric times. Take the example of the first world war. You could make the case that there was a clash for resources in the Balkans between the declining empires of Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey on the one hand and nationalist movements particularly in Serbia on the other. But that was not a reason why the Great Powers should have gone to war with each other and nor was a clash for resources; national borders and spheres of influence had pretty much been settled here and ratified by international treaty. It was a war in which every participant country, except perhaps the USA, came out much worse off than it had gone in. I don't think any of the Great Powers went into the war for the reason that they wanted to increase their resources (either by expressed intention or objectively). Did the USA go into Vietnam for resources?

I would only add, what I clearly didn't make sufficiently clear, was my view that that China is currently achieving the same ends [as would be achieved by war] by other means, namely by asset-stripping the environment on three continents.

But obtaining resources by trade or exchange (even if you think the exchange has been unequal in the case of China's relationship with third-world countries) is still utterly different from obtaining them by war. War ravages, kills, destroys. There is a chance with the Chinese asset-stripping of some benefit to the resource-rich country (which might not be able to develop the resources itself due to lack of expertise), e.g. help with electrification in Ghana and transport infrastructure in other parts of Africa. Is that really comparable with war in which large numbers of the population are killed or displaced and assets are simply seized?

[Richard Tarleton]

Fair points all, aeolium. Vietnam a rather messy example - the USA took over an old French colonial war, giving it some new ideological clothes as a result of which it became a Cold War proxy war. The French had taken it back from the Japanese, who'd taken it from them when it was a good old-fashioned colony. As far as the Vietnamese were concerned the war at least against the French was primarily a war of liberation, and they had little choice but to continue against the USA, no? Why was there a Cold War.....

I think all wars acquire a momentum/logic of their own, and are hard to stop once started. I read a fascinating book - can't rmember title or author offhand - recently, discussing the break-up of the Roman Empire. It calculated how many hectares of grain were required not only to feed each and every Roman legion on the frontier (from Britain to the East), but also how much to feed the ox trains and their guards....Hitler needed oil, bauxite and coal.....Alexander the Great began in the least well-endowed part of Greece, so his expansion made some sense at first....Napoleon couldn't afford to stop.....