Regarding War
Feb. 6th, 2005 01:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caraigDon't really want to talk about the hospital right now, it would degenerate into an angstful rant. Let it be enough to say that I hate life right now. (See? It's starting already.) I'll spare you any more than that.
Anyway, earlier I was contemplating why the situation in Iraq does not seem to be improving despite "Mission Accomplished" and the election last week. This led to considering the "victories" won in other wars, not only modern but ancient and not-so-ancient. After some consideration, I came to this, rather Taoist, maxim: The aftermath of a war seems to result in a situation that could by any compassionate, just person's view be 'worse,' in direct proportion to the severity with which said war is pursued, compared to the situation that existed prior to the war. In other words: Conflict, either won or lost, leads to misery based on how strongly it is pursued by either the victor or the defeated.
Consider: World War II. By most definitions a "just war." (An appellation I agree with.) The near-term results were not only an end to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but also a relieving of the Great Depression. However, it also opened up the way to further problems. The War became a rallying point of patriotic fervor for both the Soviet Union and the United States, and both nations became 'superpowers.' The split of Germany into East and West ensured that central Europe would become rife with aggressions between the two new superpowers. I believe Britain was so depleted by the war that they began to relinquish control over most of their overseas holdings; because of this, they turned control of Palestine over to the United Nations. The UN proceeded to establish the state of Israel, beginning well over fifty years of unremitting tension. And, of course, the atomic bomb was developed. The need for Fat Man and Little Boy is not being debated here; what is being noted is that because the war was pursued so strongly, the US developed atomic weapons, beginning almost fifty years of nuclear brinkmanship between them and the rest of the world.
Consider: The Vietnam War. The scars this war left on the US psyche would not be lessened for a long time. For years afterwards the military had a slightly unsavory reputation. The US public had a fairly dim view of military ventures. Indeed, most of the military operations undertaken in the years following Vietnam were relatively minor. It was not until remarkable (as portrayed) successes of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm and the Persian Gulf War that the military regained much of the reputation they had lost from both Vietnam and the "cold war." Even so, for twenty years after the US pulled out of Vietnam, the stereotype of the "Vietnam vet" being mentally unstable, vagrant or homeless, and involved in substance abuse was used so often it became almost cliche, and accurate or not -- I would say most soldiers who returned home did not fall into this stereotype -- it left an imprint.
These two stand as the most notable modern examples. In any war where one side used 'slash and burn' or 'scorched earth' tactics, there will of course be strong effects felt even after the war by the side whose earth was so scorched. However, I am postulating that it is the side that uses such tactics, that pursues a policy of "victory or death," that undertakes extraordinary, possibly extreme measures to ensure victory, that suffers the most significant, long-term effects of the war, and that these effects are, more often than not, negative.
I hasten to point out that I do not feel Europe would have been better off surrendering to Nazi Germany, nor am I denigrating the efforts of the individual soldier, sailor, or airman in the pursuit of their duties. Some wars, as I note below, are inevitable. However, likewise inevitable are the effects of that war, and this must be acknowledge. You cannot fight a war and expect things to "go back to normal" afterwards. The entire dynamic has changed simply because the war was fought. "Normal" must take on a new definition. Just like in medicine, however, where the diagnosis of a condition can lead to a treatment and possible cure; so to can a nation recover more fully from the effects of war if it recognizes that such effects will take place, and will be more prominent the more forcefully the war was pursued.
The thesis I presented might seem like a tautology -- "blazingly obvious" in some parlance -- but there are subtler aspects which I wanted to emphasize. It could, if inaccurately, be used to say that a war, strongly pursued, will have severe economic repercussions on a nation wether the war is won or not. That is not entirely what I am saying. Certainly, raising and using -- and loosing a large portion of -- a vast army can and will cripple a nation economically, but there are other results as well. There are many facets to this, of which economics is only one. Throwing a significant percentage of the childbearing males of a society into a war will have dramatic effects on a society: from how society will view males of that age in the future, to attitudes towards the military, to the effect upon the population. Even winning such a war will have an effect on the society in terms of population. Consider that the "Baby Boomer" generation resulted from a large number of people trying to put the horrors of the Second World War behind them and embracing a new era of prosperity and (at least until the Cold War began) peace.
Consider also what using 'extremist' tactics could have on the consideration of future warfighting. It would be foolish for example, to assume that everyone in Saddam Hussein's military and political structure was perfectly "okay" with the use of poison gas on the Kurdish rebels. Likewise, the "slash and burn" retreat of Russian forces in the Second World War had grave psychological impact on them above and beyond the economic. (It could be said that this established, in Soviet thinking at least, the primacy of the State over the individual and even the land itself, promoting the State as a concept rather than as a geopolitical territory, but that's a topic for someone else to pick up and run with.) After the staggering casualty lists of Vietnam, the US government has been reluctant to dedicate itself to any military operation where there might be large numbers of casualties. (Iraq is the ironic breaker of this trend, though the government has not exactly been forthcoming in acknowledging the casualty numbers.) Much the same thing was seen in Europe, with the adoption of the policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany prior to the Second World War; the First World War had resulted in such numbers of casualties that it was little wonder that Europe was reluctant to experience such a general war again. The viciousness of the First World War led Europe to avoid a Second so emphatically that, in great part because of the expansionist policies of Hitler, a Second became inevitable. And, because of the "extremism" inherent in the use of atomic weapons at the end of that war, the results were felt for many, many years to come in the form of the Cold War, nuclear brinkmanship, the generations of "cold war kids" trained to "duck and cover," and the constant "war by proxy" between the Soviet Union and the US.
None of the "police actions" undertaken in the 70's and 80's by the US left too great a mark on anyone; they were limited actions undertaken with limited objectives. Yet the stronger the pursuit of victory, the greater chances will be taken, the greater the number and magnitude of mistakes will be made, and the greater the effect will be felt by the society. We can really only guess at what effect the pursuit of the Afghanistan campaign by the Soviet Union had upon the peoples of Russia et al. Or what if any effect the Korean War had upon China's society. We can, however, observe what these and similar actions had upon our own societies.
Now, of course, one must ask: what does this mean? Should it affect how we fight a war? Should we not achieve victory by any means possible and necessary? This, I think, is what the Confucian strategists were warning about: War, as Sun Tzu said, is of grave importance to the state. This means not only the occurrence of war but it's very pursuit. Throughout the The Art of War and most of the derivative works and commentaries of it, the emphasis is on winning the war with as little actual fighting as possible: defeat the enemy with maneuver and deception, rather than combat. This may be a "Holy Grail" of warfighting -- I don't think any general would actively prefer to throw their troops into a fight if given the option of victory with relatively no shots fired, it's just nearly impossible to achieve fully in every situation -- but it's goal is not merely the efficient use of troops. I believe that what Sun Tzu, Sun Pin, the students of the Master of Demon Valley, and other Taoist strategists had as an ancillary goal was the minimizing of long-term effects of the fighting of the war itself on the state itself.
Von Clauzwitz said much the same thing as Sun Tzu, in that war is the life or death of the state. He further noted that since war is an extension of politics by violent means, victory will of course be pursued with all due -- and more-than-due -- force. However, Clauzwitz was not issuing an exhortation, but rather a warning against this, a fact sadly and tragically missed by modern strategists. We have seen time and time again that the nation which throws all possible resources into a war will likely win said war, all else being equal; but it can be said that such a nation will far too often lose in the long run, if not "lose the peace" then losing by way of a collapsed economy, damaged and wasted land, or sundered moral values.
Every war is different. Some are inevitable, others are avoidable. Some are just, some are unjust. In some a nation fighting for sovereignty has no choice but to do everything -- absolutely everything -- in it's power to ensure victory, because defeat means ceasing to exist as a geopolitical entity. However, it is likewise inevitable that a war pursued with the utmost vigor and force by a given nation will result in severe repercussions for that nation. These repercussions take not only economic form but also social, political, and psychological, this last far-too-often the least-considered effect.
Anyway. More later if I feel up to it. Glad I got my mind off of things with this for at least a little bit. Feel free to comment, critique, thrash and trash as you desire. Pax.
Anyway, earlier I was contemplating why the situation in Iraq does not seem to be improving despite "Mission Accomplished" and the election last week. This led to considering the "victories" won in other wars, not only modern but ancient and not-so-ancient. After some consideration, I came to this, rather Taoist, maxim: The aftermath of a war seems to result in a situation that could by any compassionate, just person's view be 'worse,' in direct proportion to the severity with which said war is pursued, compared to the situation that existed prior to the war. In other words: Conflict, either won or lost, leads to misery based on how strongly it is pursued by either the victor or the defeated.
Consider: World War II. By most definitions a "just war." (An appellation I agree with.) The near-term results were not only an end to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but also a relieving of the Great Depression. However, it also opened up the way to further problems. The War became a rallying point of patriotic fervor for both the Soviet Union and the United States, and both nations became 'superpowers.' The split of Germany into East and West ensured that central Europe would become rife with aggressions between the two new superpowers. I believe Britain was so depleted by the war that they began to relinquish control over most of their overseas holdings; because of this, they turned control of Palestine over to the United Nations. The UN proceeded to establish the state of Israel, beginning well over fifty years of unremitting tension. And, of course, the atomic bomb was developed. The need for Fat Man and Little Boy is not being debated here; what is being noted is that because the war was pursued so strongly, the US developed atomic weapons, beginning almost fifty years of nuclear brinkmanship between them and the rest of the world.
Consider: The Vietnam War. The scars this war left on the US psyche would not be lessened for a long time. For years afterwards the military had a slightly unsavory reputation. The US public had a fairly dim view of military ventures. Indeed, most of the military operations undertaken in the years following Vietnam were relatively minor. It was not until remarkable (as portrayed) successes of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm and the Persian Gulf War that the military regained much of the reputation they had lost from both Vietnam and the "cold war." Even so, for twenty years after the US pulled out of Vietnam, the stereotype of the "Vietnam vet" being mentally unstable, vagrant or homeless, and involved in substance abuse was used so often it became almost cliche, and accurate or not -- I would say most soldiers who returned home did not fall into this stereotype -- it left an imprint.
These two stand as the most notable modern examples. In any war where one side used 'slash and burn' or 'scorched earth' tactics, there will of course be strong effects felt even after the war by the side whose earth was so scorched. However, I am postulating that it is the side that uses such tactics, that pursues a policy of "victory or death," that undertakes extraordinary, possibly extreme measures to ensure victory, that suffers the most significant, long-term effects of the war, and that these effects are, more often than not, negative.
I hasten to point out that I do not feel Europe would have been better off surrendering to Nazi Germany, nor am I denigrating the efforts of the individual soldier, sailor, or airman in the pursuit of their duties. Some wars, as I note below, are inevitable. However, likewise inevitable are the effects of that war, and this must be acknowledge. You cannot fight a war and expect things to "go back to normal" afterwards. The entire dynamic has changed simply because the war was fought. "Normal" must take on a new definition. Just like in medicine, however, where the diagnosis of a condition can lead to a treatment and possible cure; so to can a nation recover more fully from the effects of war if it recognizes that such effects will take place, and will be more prominent the more forcefully the war was pursued.
The thesis I presented might seem like a tautology -- "blazingly obvious" in some parlance -- but there are subtler aspects which I wanted to emphasize. It could, if inaccurately, be used to say that a war, strongly pursued, will have severe economic repercussions on a nation wether the war is won or not. That is not entirely what I am saying. Certainly, raising and using -- and loosing a large portion of -- a vast army can and will cripple a nation economically, but there are other results as well. There are many facets to this, of which economics is only one. Throwing a significant percentage of the childbearing males of a society into a war will have dramatic effects on a society: from how society will view males of that age in the future, to attitudes towards the military, to the effect upon the population. Even winning such a war will have an effect on the society in terms of population. Consider that the "Baby Boomer" generation resulted from a large number of people trying to put the horrors of the Second World War behind them and embracing a new era of prosperity and (at least until the Cold War began) peace.
Consider also what using 'extremist' tactics could have on the consideration of future warfighting. It would be foolish for example, to assume that everyone in Saddam Hussein's military and political structure was perfectly "okay" with the use of poison gas on the Kurdish rebels. Likewise, the "slash and burn" retreat of Russian forces in the Second World War had grave psychological impact on them above and beyond the economic. (It could be said that this established, in Soviet thinking at least, the primacy of the State over the individual and even the land itself, promoting the State as a concept rather than as a geopolitical territory, but that's a topic for someone else to pick up and run with.) After the staggering casualty lists of Vietnam, the US government has been reluctant to dedicate itself to any military operation where there might be large numbers of casualties. (Iraq is the ironic breaker of this trend, though the government has not exactly been forthcoming in acknowledging the casualty numbers.) Much the same thing was seen in Europe, with the adoption of the policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany prior to the Second World War; the First World War had resulted in such numbers of casualties that it was little wonder that Europe was reluctant to experience such a general war again. The viciousness of the First World War led Europe to avoid a Second so emphatically that, in great part because of the expansionist policies of Hitler, a Second became inevitable. And, because of the "extremism" inherent in the use of atomic weapons at the end of that war, the results were felt for many, many years to come in the form of the Cold War, nuclear brinkmanship, the generations of "cold war kids" trained to "duck and cover," and the constant "war by proxy" between the Soviet Union and the US.
None of the "police actions" undertaken in the 70's and 80's by the US left too great a mark on anyone; they were limited actions undertaken with limited objectives. Yet the stronger the pursuit of victory, the greater chances will be taken, the greater the number and magnitude of mistakes will be made, and the greater the effect will be felt by the society. We can really only guess at what effect the pursuit of the Afghanistan campaign by the Soviet Union had upon the peoples of Russia et al. Or what if any effect the Korean War had upon China's society. We can, however, observe what these and similar actions had upon our own societies.
Now, of course, one must ask: what does this mean? Should it affect how we fight a war? Should we not achieve victory by any means possible and necessary? This, I think, is what the Confucian strategists were warning about: War, as Sun Tzu said, is of grave importance to the state. This means not only the occurrence of war but it's very pursuit. Throughout the The Art of War and most of the derivative works and commentaries of it, the emphasis is on winning the war with as little actual fighting as possible: defeat the enemy with maneuver and deception, rather than combat. This may be a "Holy Grail" of warfighting -- I don't think any general would actively prefer to throw their troops into a fight if given the option of victory with relatively no shots fired, it's just nearly impossible to achieve fully in every situation -- but it's goal is not merely the efficient use of troops. I believe that what Sun Tzu, Sun Pin, the students of the Master of Demon Valley, and other Taoist strategists had as an ancillary goal was the minimizing of long-term effects of the fighting of the war itself on the state itself.
Von Clauzwitz said much the same thing as Sun Tzu, in that war is the life or death of the state. He further noted that since war is an extension of politics by violent means, victory will of course be pursued with all due -- and more-than-due -- force. However, Clauzwitz was not issuing an exhortation, but rather a warning against this, a fact sadly and tragically missed by modern strategists. We have seen time and time again that the nation which throws all possible resources into a war will likely win said war, all else being equal; but it can be said that such a nation will far too often lose in the long run, if not "lose the peace" then losing by way of a collapsed economy, damaged and wasted land, or sundered moral values.
Every war is different. Some are inevitable, others are avoidable. Some are just, some are unjust. In some a nation fighting for sovereignty has no choice but to do everything -- absolutely everything -- in it's power to ensure victory, because defeat means ceasing to exist as a geopolitical entity. However, it is likewise inevitable that a war pursued with the utmost vigor and force by a given nation will result in severe repercussions for that nation. These repercussions take not only economic form but also social, political, and psychological, this last far-too-often the least-considered effect.
Anyway. More later if I feel up to it. Glad I got my mind off of things with this for at least a little bit. Feel free to comment, critique, thrash and trash as you desire. Pax.
