About War

America

Most importantly, I have been a critic of American economics, politics and society for most of my life. I bring this up because Conservatives beat jingoist drums, and accuse anyone who is not a super-patriot of hating the country. Does this mean I hate America, or that I am profoundly, prejudicially anti-American? I don't think so. I think there are a large number of Americans who feel as I do, most of whom are not Conservatives.

I plead guilty to not liking what the United States has become. I strongly dislike, but don't hate, ugly Americans and rednecks. I do have a reason for this feeling: I believe those people do not represent the spirit and meaning of America. Somehow, Lady Liberty, exemplified by that statue in New York Harbor, is what I think America should be. That is a place free of racial, religious and sexual bigotry. That is an attitude like that of San Franciscans which accepts people because they are here, and asks where you are going not where you've been. Perhaps all of this is a naive mindset acquired by believing what was taught in Ninth Grade Civics. Perhaps it is a simpleton's taking too literally what the Founding Fathers said. Perhaps it is being impressed by the important things the great presidents - Washington, Lincoln, FDR - did, and the reasons they gave for it.

The America of my allegiance is not an Imperialist Empire. I agree with only the first half of TR's famous saying, "Walk softly, and carry a Big Stick." I don't think Big Sticks, Manifest Destiny, White Man's Burden and all the other aggressive claptrap work. Empires never work. I think we should defend ourselves from abuse, and even join with others to stop global threats such as Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism. But we are not Big Brother, and definitely not the arbiter of Truth and Justice for everyone. Sooner or later, every Great Power has had to learn - usually the hard way - that each country is one among many.

America is one country among many; no less, no more.

Opposition to War

I am not a pacifist. I am, however, very disinclined to use force to solve problems. I oppose bullying, terrorism or international aggression.

I think the United States was justified in fighting World War II, maybe the Korean War, but not the wars in Vietnam or Iraq. I probably would have opposed U.S. entry into World War I, because that war had become a stalemate by the time troops were sent. The United States could have forced the European powers into a settlement in 1917 which would have changed all subsequent History; i.e., World War II was avoidable.

I believe war is almost always avoidable. I think it happens most of the time because people allow the warriors to run away with their emotions. There are always warriors in every society, usually young men, but sometimes women as well, who just want to pick a fight. The desire to fight is probably due to hormonal imbalances and socialization processes following puberty. Young people want - indeed, have a need - to prove themselves, and initially do so by jousting with others. My recollection is that the struggle to establish a pecking order is most severe around 8th or 9th grade; i.e., when people are 13-16 years old. During that period of life, girls and boys become involved in different cliques for reasons that are still mysterious to me. (I was almost always an outsider to High School social groups, and have generally lived an unclubbed life.) The cliques form around dominant individuals, and tend to be slavishly conformist. I think that period of life is the root of tribalism which, in turn, is the root of war. It is the period in which young people learn to cling to their group, and reject all the others. This bonding is emotional, not logical.

I think war is almost always something that happens when a group is motivated by one the Seven Deadly Sins, or something like them. To wage war requires an arrogant conviction that 'the gods are on our side,' as has been evident throughout History. The Greeks and Trojans of Homer's Illiad both believed themselves justified in their causes and backed, as it happened, by different gods. Further, since war is always a very risky gamble, it requires a conviction that we are superior to them, at least in the ability to wage and win a war. I cannot think of any examples of countries or leaders that attacked others knowing they could not win. 'Suicide by cop' is very rare or non-existent among human societies, even if practiced by a few insane individuals. (Vicious or incomprehensible circle: suicidal individuals immediately qualify as insane, and insanity is a form of suicide, but the two things are nonetheless different.) Besides a belief in invincibility, individuals have to be sufficiently convinced of their survivability to put their lives on the line. Being a warrior requires overcoming fear and terror in order to perform the required acts. Those unable to perform lose, and even those who perform accurately and well may be killed regardless of which side wins. How many people would volunteer for military duty if they knew they would thereby die at 8:17 AM on Day X?

The conviction that a war is winnable is almost always emotional, not logical. The United States' Conquest of Iraq was supposed to be quick and final, but was not. Examination of the causes shows that the neo-conservatives in charge of the military and the government, exemplified by Vice-President Cheney, were strongly motivated by ideology and feelings that the United States should demonstrate its moral superiority, consequently its rightful hegemony, in the Middle East and, possibly, elsewhere. Those prejudices outweighed or prevented a careful review of the "facts on the ground," the very same facts which led many Libertarians and other Conservatives to oppose the Conquest. Those, including myself, who were convinced by the lay of the land that an invasion of Iraq would destabilize the region were proven right by the events. Retrospectively, the Conquest could only have been set in motion by people unwilling or unable to grasp the facts.

Would-be warriors don't have much chance of success unless they can recruit enough of their society to stand with them. Individuals and small groups that engage in war without public support are just terrorists, and are almost always marginalized and eventually exterminated. Historically, unsupported guerilla fighters and terrorist groups devolve into criminality; e.g., the Mafia. Guerillas that have popular support, such as the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, don't have to resort to terrorism: they fight their well known enemies directly, not anyone in sight. The reason Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other Jihadist groups get away with terrorism is the wide-spread support they receive from their underlying Arab populations, together with a popular perception of all outsiders ("the West") as agents of Satan ("infidels"). Whatever they do, successful guerillas must be "as fish in water" according to Maoist doctrine. Guerrilla wars illustrate the principle that popular support is required to fight a war. This is even more true among the industrialized powers, which are helpless without the enforced or voluntary compliance of workers who constitute the military-industrial complex. Modern warfare is impossible without the millions of people who toil everyday to produce the most advanced weapons. Even Al Qaeda relies on modern weapons being made in foreign factories. (That, though seldom noticed,  is one of its major weaknesses.)

Because popular support is required to conduct a war, and because war is the ultimate gamble, the warriors always use every possible tactic to recruit the people. After all, for those who believe their lives are at stake (it doesn't matter whether they are aggressors or defenders), any tactic that staves off death seems justified. This, I feel, is the true horror of war: that people are encouraged not only to fear, but to loathe, their enemies, to treat them as objects, and to do anything in terror of one's death. War always turns its participants into savage beasts, such as those populating Jurassic Park, which is why vicious and brutal atrocities are always committed.

Because a key element of war is popular support, war is prevented by opposing and undermining its popularity. How this is done is circumstantial, but the sooner it is done, the better. As war fever takes hold, it snowballs. "Man is a social animal," said Aristotle, which means, among other things, that people will huddle together when frightened or threatened. The war party always tries to induce people to huddle, because the group is more easily led than a bunch of individuals. Opponents of war have exactly the opposite tasks: to prevent the defensive huddle and to encourage individual thinking. Oddly enough, this purpose is often accomplished by massive public demonstrations, because evidence of large numbers opposed to war gives a feeling of safety to those who would otherwise knuckle under. But, anti-war groupies are only a temporary solution, because groupies most often fall under the influence of whichever faction comes out on top. In the end, those opposed to a war have to arrive at their own reasons and motivations in order to sustain their position, because, typically, there is always social pressure in the other direction.

Once a war gets going, it is much harder to stop than prevent. Most people are guided by their emotions, their sense of tribal belonging, so will not give up a fight. Once blood is shed, emotions run high and overcome all reason. Revenge becomes a major factor in persistent struggle. Those committed to war refuse to hear arguments against it: those not for it are considered enemies. There is no middle ground. In World War II, the Japanese and Germans remained loyal to their governments to the end, despite the obvious, daily devastation of their countries. On the other hand, people who saw themselves as bystanders or victims - not members of the ruling warring tribe - were quick enough to change sides when their rulers were deposed; e.g., Italians. Emotional binding to the ruling warrior class is very strong glue which often takes more than a war to dissolve. In the case of Germany, it took two world wars, and the devastation and occupation of their country, to change the culture. Nothing like that has happened in the United States since the Civil War.

The War Process

Once a war is started, it follows its own logic, just as does a struggle between beasts of the jungle. Each warrior has advantages and disadvantages which will be put to the test in combat. Does the warrior have enough strength, intelligence and experience? Who has the best (superior) weapons, given the situation at hand? Who has the best tactics? Who sticks to the task at hand? Who gets worn out or diverted? What are the rewards and punishments?

Wars are not always won by the strongest and meanest. The Viet Cong demonstrated that the combined might of the Western powers was insufficient in the tropical swamps and jungles of Vietnam. The United States was simply unable to apply enough power at the many points of local guerrilla control. The same situation has evolved in Iraq. War is plainly unpredictable, just because agressors and defenders can take advantage of unforeseen circumstances, or use their resources in new and unexpected ways. The United States could "win" in Iraq by using nuclear weapons, but might lose more than Iraq, even its own cities, by such a strategy. Using nuclear weapons would open the Pandora's Box of Nuclear Proliferation and justify Arab use of "dirty bombs" against Western civilian populations. Unless the combatants are totally mad, disregarding consequences beyond the needs of the moment, there are always constraints. Those constraints usually do not become evident until the battles are fought, which makes it impossible to predict outcomes. Worse yet, military historians disagree about the course of major battles, even when they agree on the known facts. Why was the Confederate Army defeated at Gettysburg? Or, was it?

The only thing certain about the course of a war is that it will be unpredictable, even if it seems explainable in retrospect. Thus, no reasonable person can claim to know the outcome. For that simple reason, only the unreasonable will start a war. I think History shows that is always the case, so starting a war is prima facie evidence of the discombobulation of the aggressors. In other words, there is always a strong case for the insanity of the warriors.