War: How May the Idea, its Causes, and Underlying Philosophies be Understood?
I am writing this thread after discussion with a friend about outer and inner war. My friend maintains that he has had a 'ceasefire' from social situations as he was 'at war with the world'. I said that I am often having too much war with myself and inner opposites. However, I do find so much conflict with others in social situations. Mostly, social situations are about wars of feelings and ideas, which don't result in literal physical aggression. The physical attack on others is extreme, but some other forms of attack may be harmful.
This leads me to think about a discussion of war in Allan Massie', 'Arthur the King: A Romance' (2003). He draws upon Aristotle's idea of 'man' as a 'political animal'. He says, 'As a political animal, civilised man seeks to avoid war. We call the process by which he attempts this diplomacy. It is, by the way, a common error to suppose that diplomacy can only be practiced by two civilised states or kingdoms.
He goes on to say,
'...diplomacy often fails. This is first because many people are stupid and unable to recognise where their own best interests lie. In almost all cases war is avoidable if both parties are intelligent and capable of rational thought. But of course this is a rare conjunction. Furthermore, there are other occasions on occasions because two parties in a quarrel have opinions and interests which cannot be reconciled with the other. In such cases there is no remedy save war. And this is why one may state that every society is founded on the death of men.'
Massie argues,
'War is then natural, man being by nature a warmaker. But herein lies a paradox, for it is not natural to fight war as men must; that is, to the death.'
I find this to be useful for thinking about the nature of the philosophy of war (and peace). Understanding and reflecting on the nature of war may helpful as a stepping stone towards thinking beyond it. I wonder if this applies to current situations of wars in the world in the 21st century. Any thoughts?
This leads me to think about a discussion of war in Allan Massie', 'Arthur the King: A Romance' (2003). He draws upon Aristotle's idea of 'man' as a 'political animal'. He says, 'As a political animal, civilised man seeks to avoid war. We call the process by which he attempts this diplomacy. It is, by the way, a common error to suppose that diplomacy can only be practiced by two civilised states or kingdoms.
He goes on to say,
'...diplomacy often fails. This is first because many people are stupid and unable to recognise where their own best interests lie. In almost all cases war is avoidable if both parties are intelligent and capable of rational thought. But of course this is a rare conjunction. Furthermore, there are other occasions on occasions because two parties in a quarrel have opinions and interests which cannot be reconciled with the other. In such cases there is no remedy save war. And this is why one may state that every society is founded on the death of men.'
Massie argues,
'War is then natural, man being by nature a warmaker. But herein lies a paradox, for it is not natural to fight war as men must; that is, to the death.'
I find this to be useful for thinking about the nature of the philosophy of war (and peace). Understanding and reflecting on the nature of war may helpful as a stepping stone towards thinking beyond it. I wonder if this applies to current situations of wars in the world in the 21st century. Any thoughts?
Comments (61)
In my view this wouldn't be the first definition of use for the term "war". Inner struggle or something?
I wonder about the relationship between inner and outer conflict. It may relate to the psychology of projection, with people not recognising wars of opposites within and seeing faults in others, the enemy. The enemies may be another religious perspective, Sadam Hussein or a terrorist. It does connect the opposites of good and evil as constructed in the human psyche. It probably begins in the playground and ideas of 'otherness'.
So, do you think that there is not a relationship between inner conflicts and outer ones? Is it simply a matter of the battlefield? How do you see the concept or definition of war? The idea of a 'political animal' is also worth thinking about because it involves sentient needs and desires, but also issues of power which are constructed externally and internally.
At the core of war is the belief, "We are more entitled to certain resources than other people, and we have the (divine) right to obtain those resources by whatever means necessary."
There is an element of human xenophobia that plays a part in war but which doesn't seem particularly relevant to inner conflict.
The hatred and fear of difference is a factor in war and violence, whether it is another racial group, the 'other sex' or a minority group can be an example of inner conflict. That is because it is based on fear of that which is different. It goes back to Melanie Klein's ideas of splitting. This involves the separation of mother and child, as well as the splitting of the good vs bad mother. Fear itself is about opposites, especially bound up with ideas of otherness and ego identity.
And armed struggle between either nations or groups of people. Then you have the legal definitions of just what is conisidered to be a war. And all related definitions like "civilians", "enemy combatants" and "prisoners of war" etc.
An inner struggle of a person or his or her relationship with the society I wouldn't call war. Viewing this as "war" sounds quite dramatic or melodramatic, but I guess on a personal level it is quite different from the social-political (anti-social?) phenomenon of war.
I found the following legal definition of war:
'War is a phenomenon of organised collective violence that affects either the relations between two or more societies or more societies or the power relations within a society governed by the law of armed conflict, also called international humanitarian law', in 'War. The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law' (hhtps// guide- humanitarian law org).
The legal definition may be a means of defining what is acceptable, including ethical assumptions. However, it does not look at the nature of war in any deeper analytical way. It could be seen as having an implicit assumption of war being 'natural'. However, it does not query the status quo at all, the history of war as a solution and the question of why do people fight wars?
I will join this discussion at this point, if you don't mind. Let's attempt to leave aside the formalities as much as possible, otherwise this specific topic tends to degenerate into an abstract discussion about the rules of War. In other words, let's keep things sharp and on point, shall we?
The OP asks: "war: How May the Idea, its Causes, and Underlying Philosophies be Understood?"
I'll say a word about the philosophical part. Technically speaking (yes, I'm playing the "war lawyer" part here, please tolerate me for a moment in that sense), the Underlying Philosophies of war, are to be best understood (this is my thesis, anyway) in a literal sense. What does that mean? That there are (at the very least) two good "candidate words" for that literal sense, and those are the following ones:
Warriorism, from Warrior-ism, from Warrior, from War. That is the literal etymology of that word.
Martialism, from Martial Law, from Martial, from the Greek God of War: Mars.
Which one of those is the "correct one", so to speak? Evidently, it is "Warriorism", for that is a far more "ancient" way of thinking. If we compare the very word "Warriorism" to the very word "Martialism", we can just sort of detect that the former, and not the latter, has "more dignity", so to speak. And how do we "detect" it, exactly? Well, I'm afraid to disappoint you, as there is no scientific explanation of it yet, and there is hardly any scientific evidence for some of the hypothesis that cognitive neuroscientists are attempting to systematize at the moment. However, there is some "hope", since that detection that I was speaking about is sort of like an Aesthetic phenomenon, if you will. The very word "Warriorism" just sounds preferable to the very word "Martialism", at least to my mind, it does. Of course, that does not by itself prove that anyone else is having a similar experience to mine, or that they could even have it to begin with (though I think it's at least possible that they might have a similar experience under similar conditions).
What are your thoughts on all those things that I just said? Do you agree? Do you disagree? To what degree do you agree or disagree, or just simply don't even agree or disagree to begin with?
Your remarks on ideas of warriors and martialism are useful in thinking of how war evolved. In many ways, war may have been a means of defense and territorial boundary negotiations. This is similar to in the animal kingdom but a culture around war developed. This involved ritualism, ideas of what was legitimate or 'just, or even 'good' war.
It is likely that people became more questioning of war after the first and second world wars. The philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was a leading in figure in the CND movement. War has changed so much since the time of warriors. Of course, people died fighting but it cannot be compared with the wars of the twentieth first century in the extent of consequences.
The idea of warriorship had entertainment value and even in a time of sensationalism in entertainment, it would raise a lot of questions if the large scale wars were a source of pleasure or enjoyment. It is more than martial arts or the injuries of wrestling matches. The wars of the present time could wipe out nations and the planet, with the potential of future generations.
Russia's invasion of the Ukraine was the result of policy / politics. The same goes for the war in Sudan or Gaza, or any other war you care to name. The facts of policy lead to the facts of war -- how bad a war is going to be; how long, how short, how ghastly, etc.
Given our mixed primate heritage (big bright brain, willingness to kill, etc.) humans are and always have been capable of waging war using whatever means are at hand -- sticks, rocks, bullets, bombs, nuclear devices...
Getting back to policy, though. Sometimes policy can sound quite lunatic: buying Greenland; bringing Canada (kicking and screaming) into the American union of states; Germany acquiring the grain fields of Ukraine and Russia as well as its oil fields. The European powers liked the policy of owning everything as soon as Columbus got back from his first trip. We Americans established the policy of Manifest Destiny early on, which led to a long stretch of wars on various groups.
The goods of the planet are not evenly distributed, and we, greedy bastards that we are, generally take it easy, but we take it (if at all possible) from others who just happen to be sitting on it. Like the residents of Congo who find themselves witting on suddenly desirable cobalt. A world power hasn't stepped in yet to seize it, but local entrepreneurial entities are busy taking it and leaving a mess behind. (Belgium seized a good deal of the riches of the Congo while they had it in their grasp. Cobalt and uranium were of less interest than rubber, at the time.)
Gun Boat diplomacy is not a contradiction in terms. Powerless nations -- Nepal, say -- can try to be a diplomatic intermediary, but the diplomacy of nations with gun boats will be more 'effective'. The US or China can be much more persuasive.
I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I admire the peace policy of Quakers, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, or the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, but they don't sway national policy much.
Clausewitz (1780–1831) We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.
And then it became even more complicated during the Cold War, in which there were several "subset wars", if you will, such as the Vietnam War, for example. And it is even more complicated in more recent times, especially in recent times, for example in places like Ukraine.
So, I have to ask: was there a point in Modern history in which there weren't any active wars going on, anywhere on the planet? If one finds such moments, then one has discovered something edifying, since those moments are objectively peaceful, in the literal sense of Peace understood as the concept that is diametrically opposed to the concept of War in that same literal sense.
Even if that's true, it does not follow from there that the diplomacy of nations with "gun boats", as you call them, would be more dignified. And yeah, I mean that as an opinion, not necessarily as a fact.
Quoting BC
I don't think that persuasiveness has anything to do with their success. Their international policies seem barbaric, speaking frankly. Barbarians may be good at war, but they tend to leave a bit of a mess once they're done extracting whatever they were here to extract in the first place. Then they leave, and that mess that they made is now someone else's problem. And that "someone else" is usually some common folk. Some of them might move to another country. Others will move to somewhere else within the country. Others will stay where they are, right next to whatever problem the International "Powers that Be" have created in that area. And some others, out of pure resentment, ideology, or perhaps simple need, or even any combination of those three, become completely radicalized.
So who should take the blame, in such an "abstract" scenario?
And what's 'dignity' got to do with it?
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
I'm not talking here about the persuasiveness of argument or logic. The "persuasiveness" of which I speak is the persuasiveness of bombs blowing up one's city, having one's harbors mined--that sort of thing. You are right, though: nations do often resist "gunboats". Their cities can be bombed without leading to capitulation. The Soviet Union lost a lot to the Nazi war machine, but they did not consider giving up the fight.
Not to overlook Japan in WWII: They had accumulated quite a bit of conquered territory before "WWII" proper got under way. Pearl Harbor was one piece of a coordinated attack that day. Thanks to our own conquest of North America, the US was able to mount a war in both the Pacific and in Europe.
Both Japan and Germany recognized their need to acquire the kind of resources that the USSR, United States, and the British Empire controlled--minerals, productive land, productive people, oil... That was the policy behind the war--take it away from those who possessed it and use it for their own purposes. After all, that's what the USSR, British Empire, and the Americans (and others) had done successfully.
On the other hand, most of Europe ended up under German control in WWII, and had Hitler finished off Great Britain and not attacked the USSR, things might have turned out differently.
You are also right about who gets left with the destruction. It took Europe a long time to clean up the 'mess' of WWII; WWI and WWII bombs are still being dug up and disarmed. Bones of dead soldiers still surface in fields. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia still bear the scars of bombing and defoliation chemicals (Agent Orange). There is not much left to Gaza, save rubble.
War, especially as it developed in the late 19th and 20th centuries, is indeed barbaric. But that's people for you: we are never very far from barbarism.
And yet we try to be. To be very far from barbarism in that sense, because that is the Ethical thing to do. We can Romanticize barbarism itself, but that's a mere fantasy that we are indulging in when we do that. In the world of responsible citizens, no one has the right to kill another human being without a valid and sound Ethical justification for it. Wars are not Ethical by definition.
Conflict, due to opposing interests, is inevitable. Whether this conflict is resolved through war, espionage or diplomacy is merely a difference of style.
I'm a pacifist and I agree that wars are unethical. Pacifism is an individual position. Nations can not take that view. Nations don't worry about ethics. Nations have interests, and that's what guides them. The leaders of a given nation may be very mistaken about their bests interests, but that's all part of the limits of intelligence.
Ethics are a matter of individual behavior. A politician can be ethical or unethical. National policy is apart from, not ruled by, individual ethics.
This difference creates a conflict between a state and its citizens. The good of the country may involve actions that, from an individual perspective, may range from merely wrong all the way to abomination. Our nuclear policy falls into that category. To maintain weapons in sufficient quantity to kill off our species and many others in one short day of nuclear warfare is an abomination. It's worse than wrong.
Generals and politicians, even some citizens, may decide that mutually assured destruction is OK as long as the other side doesn't win. Most citizens, some politicians, and even some generals will consider reject the idea.
The ethics of pacifism will lead some to reject their membership in and obligations to a state. This can lead to a difficult life as an outsider. Some men moved to other countries in the Vietnam war era to effectively reject their native land.
In the case of the October attack by Hamas on Israel, it's difficult to take a pacifist position. The attack was bad and the reprisals (the apparently goal of which is to destroy Gaza) leave nothing to approve. What we have is Iran (Hamas) and the State of Israel pursuing their interests, and damn anybody who gets in the way.
Isn't war (armed conflict) in general about gaining territory and control of values? What could be more natural to humans? I don't think people's inner turmoil tells us much about war. I also think we throw the word 'war' around with cavalier imprecision because it has (or use to have) a journalistic gravitas: as in the war of terror, the culture wars, the war on poverty, etc.
Then in that case, the ethical thing to do (or at least, aim to do) is to be merely wrong. It is possible for a citizen to be wrong, since they have the basic right to think. It does not follow from there, however, that they (the citizens) have a right to perform an act of abomination.
Quoting BC
It is, that is why neither citizens nor folk can afford to commit such crimes. Because that is what they are: a crime is a crime because it is an Ethical abomination to begin with.
Quoting BC
Exactly. So it's about power and influence, essentially. Fame, prestige, and all that. It is, quite literally, a Power Game. That, however, does not necessarily mean that "powergamers" the best players or agents to rely on such intellectual fronts.
Quoting BC
Because it is a very complicated conflict to begin with, it is not exactly easy to look at this conflict from a militaristic standpoint.
Quoting BC
Well, all I can say on the topic of the War in the Middle East, I can only share with you a music video that I like and that I agree with, more or less:
Within civilized societies, we reject the concept of "self help," which means we don't allow people just to figure out the best way to resolve their problems on their own without regard to standards, but we set up processes. If you violate the rules in football, the referee calls the penalty, and failure to follow his rule will result in greater and greater penalty.
The problem arises when there is no accepted authority and no rule for adjudication. We can't sue Putin for the damages exacted in Ukraine and we can't imprison him.
It's a thought I had about the international court issuing the warrant for Netanyahu's arrest, where they went through what they felt to be a legally binding process such that they are now authorized to arrest him. I would suggest that the capture of foriegn leader who does not accept your way of conflict resolution would be an act of war and and an expected warlike response should be anticipated. It's not a matter of whether the arrest warrant is justified under some moral theory or another, it's whether the enforcement is an accepted one by the entity being affected and whether that entity is ultimately powerless to resist it.
War in a way is legalized violence as the nations or groups that usually consider each other belligerents or enemies. It is also normalized: in a war, you can be a soldier and you kill enemy soldiers, that are also trying to kill you. This is deeply ingrained in every human society and we don't see how absurd it is. But it's very logical, even if absurd.
And what do people mean by the "nature" of war? What is the "nature" of let's say commerce or of scientific research, or education? There are the objectives of war, the technology and military thinking that has let it to be as it is now. What do you ask when you ask for the "nature" of war?
There is no such "nature" of war, scientifically speaking. The best that such an idea has "going for it" is perhaps the Warrior Gene stuff, as in, the genetics of aggression, but not much more than that.
In fact, I view this as a misconception or that we simply do not think of the whole notion of war much. It isn't psychopatic violence, it is something that our species has simply perfected up to whole new level. It's not about the individual, it's about a group, society and nation. If for an animal hostility toward other animals is crucial in defending it's territory, it's flock or pack, our reasons for war are also totally on different level. Noah Hariri said it well when he said that we fight wars for the narratives we tell us. That is a long way from the agenda just being food security.
What reading your post leads me to think is how war is a central factor in politics. It is about wielding power by force. Policy has become central, as a means of social contracts. Sometimes, policies are followed in an extremely concrete way, as the law, often taking advantage of loopholes. War may be the shadow of ethics in enforcing what is sanctioned or not by leaders and people in power.
I don't know if I would describe myself as Pacifist, since I practice a sport that is technically considered a martial art (I do brazilian jiu jitsu, I'm a blue belt, not that such things have any sort of opinion-swaying authority). My point is that I practice a martial art (i.e., something that has to do with physical "conflict resolution", if that makes any sense). The very expression "martial art" is connected, etymologically, to the word "martial", which is itself etymologically connected to Mars, the Roman God of War, which is basically a watered-down copy of Ares, the Greek God of War.
And so, in my humble opinion, there is a spectrum, a "line", if you will, that runs from War to Peace, and consequently from Martialism to Pacifism. It's not an "all or nothing deal". Metaphorically speaking, there is always some peace inside of War, and there is always some war inside of Peace.
Yes, diplomacy may be seen as a non-violent approach to war and even a war of words and arguments. It can still be an intense battle, fuelled by anger. It is probably on that level that outer war can be compared with the battles of internal conflicts in one's inner world.
Even non-violent action, can be a form of war of a different kind, especially as protest. Non-violence has power, as shown by Gandhi. Of course there is martyrdom which is different from violence but involves the choice to give up one's life for a cause. Socrates may be the role model of martyrdom.
The nature of resolution of conflicts has become more complex in the power dynamics of the world. There are so many different codes and sets of rules which can be used or violated making it so strategic. With the authority element those in positions of power have a lead but there are likely to be so many oppositions. It may come down to cultural relativism in politics, which may give rise to a swing between totalitarian control and anarchist solutions.
Perhaps, though a lot of people would say that Jesus would be a better example, or perhaps the samurai that dies by his own hand due to his dishonor, would be an even greater example.
Quoting Jack Cummins
That is exactly what it is. It is more complicated than that, in "how it works", but that is essentially it, what you just said there.
It is true that war is a form of 'legalised violence', with it's own set of rules, almost like the rules in a game. When I speak of the nature of war, I am coming from the angle of thinking how so many deaths may be unnecessary. Also, I wonder to what extent people wish to avoid war if they do not believe in life after death. The idea of glorification in a heavenly reward may lead people to be prepared to fight and die. Without belief in life after death the other form of 'immortality' is to remembered as a hero.
Yes, Jesus is probably the ultimate role model of martyrdom and I probably gave Socrates as an example because it is simpler. With the story of Jesus there is so much more, with ideas of Jesus atoning for people's sins and being the 'Son of God'. But, Jesus did lead the way of martyrdom in Christendom.
Regarding the anarchism and totalitarianism spectrum, it is worth saying that there can be differing forms. In particular, there is a difference between anarchism which includes violence and that which is based on peaceful community living without need for government control. At the present time, of global powers and technological advances, there may be such a tendency towards totalitarianism. What I find surprising is that what is happening is not questioned more, as being a militant form of control.
Well, look at it like this: there are people that believe that the Earth is flat. I find that far more surprising, if we're comparing what surprises us about other people's beliefs.
There is also a war of competing ideas. This is metaphorical in a way, but it is being fought out as ideologies. Often these are subtle but they have an impact. For example, there is a lot of emphasis on the unemployed as lazy and (people with disabilities being included). It serves to ignore difficulties of those who experience inequalities. In other words, politics itself is a form of war, with ideologies as weapons. In this context, totalitarianism is presented as being protective.
You are right to say that we use the word 'war' for so many things, including the war against terror, the war against Covid-19 and psychological conflict. It is probably about metaphorical possibilities.
In its literal sense it is about taking up arms in defending territories; it is the Hobbesian way of establishing order against disorder. It is natural in that way, but could be seen as a rather outdated approach to life if it is about literal violence. Of course, aggression is part of human nature and in the 21st century such aggression may be in a different form, such as in cyberwar, which could have as destructive effect as physical violence. There is also the evolutionary possibility of people thinking of avoiding destruction.
I'm sorry, I don't want to be mean or rude to you in any way, but, does this somehow surprise you? At what point in the history of warfare was that not the case?
You are not being mean. Ideologies have always existed; it is likely that they have been identified and analysed so much more in this century and the last.
Quoting Jack Cummins
What would make 'literal violence' out of date: do you mean by this physical violence? Do you have a model of progress which can demonstrate that violence is less intrinsic to human behaviour over time? I know this is a popular view among progressives.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I'm not a big fan of projecting untheorised interpretations of evolutionary theory upon behaviours. But if you must say this, then we can also sat that there is also the possibility of people thinking of more destruction in order to gain control over land and values.
If there were weapons that could vaporise people but leave all buildings and infrastructure in place, that could be viewed as less destructive and yet be more deadly.
When I say that violence of war is out of date I am thinking of how many people see the use of war and violence in religion as being something to be avoided. War exists in a primitive society and can evolve in sophisticated ways, in which the extremes are about nuclear weapons and cyberwar, or, alternatively, thinking beyond war.
It may be 'natural' but how human nature is expressed is another matter. It is true that human beings have an aggressive side but how it is channelled is about human mastery. Awareness of human warlike tendencies may enable humans to become more than slaves to nature.
I understand that, but I don't think this matters. Many soldiers I've known feel this way too and yet were committed to conflicts when they were called to them. How do you think we would ever arrive at a time when humans won't fight over territory and values? I am not a utopian or a pacifist nor do I make any comment as to whether war is natural or whether nature can be overcome. Not sure if notions of essentialism or 'human nature' give us anything.
I grew up with the ideal value of pacifism, mainly upheld by my mother and partly by my father. I was not encouraged to play with guns or war toys. One of my mother's relatives had killed in the second world war and had experienced so much guilt. I did avoid fights as far possible, but as I was smaller than most of my classmates, I wouldn't have done very well if I got into fights.
However, I am not a moral absolutist and believe in the importance of defending rights and causes. As an adult I have experienced bullying, mostly not of a physical nature. I have had to 'fight' for myself. Bullying and war may be different, although there is probably a crossover. Defending oneself is important, as well as protecting the rights of others.
I am sure many soldiers do feel they have a valuable role, although some take intoxicants to help them fight and some develop PTSD. It is probably variable how they feel. We live in remembrance ceremonies of red and white poppies. My concern over war is mainly in the context of the wars of the present time. There were so many headlines in papers about being on the brink of third world war 3 about a month ago. It is hard to know how much is sensationalism. But, it was in relation to this, that I first started thinking about war in the world and metaphorical war in the individual psyche.
Armed forces will remain an essential part of the society, even if societies can are at peace with other simply for the reason of deterrence. And international efforts to counter the necessity for this deterrence is simply dwindling at the present when even war of annexation has become a reality again. We are simply backtracking now.
When we go from the individual to how groups and societies behave between each other, there comes much complexity to the situation.
Then think just what we call the most successful military operations? They aren't called wars. They're just military operations.
Just like Operation Danube, the most successful military operation that the Soviet Union made, with perhaps in the Russian history comes the annexation of Crimea in second place. That military operation was done with thousands of tanks, a quarter a million men that later came to be half a million strong occupying force from various countries. The outcome of the operation? 96 Soviet soldiers were killed with 84 of them in accidents. Civilian losses? Negligble, only 137 civilians (and opposing soldiers) were killed with 500 seriously wounded.
It worked so well, that in the First war of Chechnya and in Ukraine 2022 that "Operation Danube" was tried to be mimicked by the Russian leadership. But it's not a war, because we know it as The 1968 Occupation of Czechoslovakia.
In fact, it was Sun Tzu himself that said: "The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” This tells a lot about the nature of war and it's relationship with politics as a continuation of policy, as Clausewitz argued.
Photos from a military operation that was a brilliant military success:
Even the Czechs got the message in the end: Before 1968 the Russians were their friends, aftewards they were their brothers, as the saying goes.
Hence in fact, Jack Cummins, I would argue that you are describing the nature of pacifism, not war. It is pacifism that sees peace and non-violence as the opposite of war and war as this great evil demanding human sacrifices to itself. It is the pacifist ideology itself that see war as an entity that has to be opposed, not a method that humans has evolved and put so much emphasis and hard work at. Above all, it is pacifism that doesn't want to go down the rabbit hole and ask just what war is if it's a continuation of our policies. Or that nation states even in peace do have armed forces. Pacifism see war and peace as opposite, while the vast majority of military leadership don't see it this way. For them, the best use of a military is like the use of nuclear weapons; that they aren't used in anger, but create that deterrence. After all, as the old Roman saying goes, Ci vis pacem, para bellum.
I chose this sentence because of the last two terrorist attacks in the US. Both men served in the armed forces when the US was taking military action in Afghanistan. It is believed post trauma syndrome played a part in these men taking such violent action. In the past it seems we ignored what war was doing to those who fought in them, but today we are aware of how war can affect a person and especially our long wars are not human nature. Human nature demands a break from war and possibly years of counseling.
We talk less about war does to civilians and children. We don't want to think about the children and raped women so we don't. The media covered the Vietnam War on the front lines and in no time war protest were everywhere and the US participation in the war came to an end. It is our nature to be horrified by acts of war and I know I am not the only one who has stopped watching the news because of the repeated scenes of war.
I believe honest awareness of war can end war.
Most people don't even recognize it, is what I'm saying. Or they have conspiratorial, deluded thoughts about what the military as an institution actually is. In simpler terms: ordinary people (myself included) simply don't understand some of the most important aspects of the military, and that is by definition, why? Because we're talking about classified documents, whatever those may be in each specific case. A classified document is, by definition, a document that cannot be seen by the general public. That's why many case files have a now infamous caption that says "For your eyes, only".
I come from a country were military service is compulsory for men and voluntary for women, hence military service is very normal. There's no division in the civilian male population between those who do their service and those who do not, as only a minority opt not to do military service. Hence there isn't this kind of support of "thank you for your service" as it's simply still viewed as an ordinary thing you ought to do. When you don't have compulsory service, any armed forces looks really different. Hollywood films hide how in the end normal the military is as in the end, it's made up of quite normal people. Societies where you have all volunteer forces create themselves this idea of a 'separate people'. Above all, if the country or nation state doesn't have an imminent outside threat, there's not going to be compulsory service and military service will look like an oddity.
Now if I would have been born let's say an American, I've never would have enlisted. Not that I'm against the military, but I wouldn't have thought I would have it in me as I suffered from very low self esteem as a young adult. I would sure be one of those supporting our guys and gals, but as I was lousy at sports in my class, I would have decided that military stuff really was not for me.
And actually armed forces usually make everything to be as normal. Above all, it's all very rational in a sense. You are put into stressing situations, because war is a stressing situation. You are taught handling your rifle by repetition that it comes robotic or nearly unconscious, because when artillery rounds start exploding, that are the things you member to do. It all has to be extremely well coordinated (as otherwise you will at worst accidentally kill each other, blue on blue), hence orders and time tables have to be kept. And then there's a paradox of while obeying orders, you also have to show initiative when it's needed. This all has logical reasoning because of warfare itself and this is not so much understood or simply thought about. For example Foucault views the rigid command system and military discipline as way to crush the individual to become a servant to the government.
But let's take another example: a symphony orchestra. There too is a rigid command system lead by the orchestra conductor and the various musicians play exactly when the conductor wants them to play. Not like you have a full orchestra of 80 to 100 musicians all playing their own tunes when they themselves feel like it. The coordination is essential for the sound to be great and that's the main reason for the conducter to be in such prominent position. But of course, you can view the role of the conductor and the musicians as merely a power play in classical music circles for something else than for the music...
Quoting ssu
I don't understand, you lost me here. Is there an inminent outside threat to Suomi (Finland)?
War requires a broad consensus on both sides to the identity of the parties. Everyone, or at least most people involved, have to know which side they are on and who is the enemy. Without such agreement the best that can be managed is a free-for-all brawl.
In order for the separation of identities to occur, or another way of describing such a separation, the term 'polarisation' can be employed. The 'normal', ie 'stable' situation for any society is that folk's identities are not aligned, and as long as there is no great alignment conflict will tend to be internalised within the individuals, and social relations will be largely peaceful.
A classic case of polarisation leading to open conflict was the troubles in N. Ireland. The society became polarised such that religion, class, political party, political party, exact location of home, all became aligned, such that to know one vector was to be able to predict all the others with almost complete certainty. It is this alignment that allows the externalisation of the conflict and the absolute identification that leads to violence.
Your argument, 'honest awareness of war can end war' is important to consider. That is because it is the devastating consequences of war which lead to it being stopped. If those engaged in it do not reflect it can be continued mindlessly. Ideas of patriotism and fighting for entitlement may blind people to be the suffering involved physically and psychologically.
The term 'military action' is just glossing over the term of war. It is true that I have a leaning towards pacifism but not an absolute one. If someone is about to kill defense is needed. The trouble is that war is often not just about defense but an attempt to destroy a perceived 'enemy' and to conquer triumphantly.
And that's the way you get down the rabbit hole: So defense from aggression is justifiable and understandable. If so, is then a pre-emptive attack justifiable, if there really exists that evident threat (and the threat isn't just proganda lies)? And when is an military intervention justifiable to another nation state? Was it justifiable for Vietnam to intervene in Kampuchea and overthrow the Khmer Rouge or the Allies to occupy and overthrow the Nazi regime in Germany and Japan?
Why are these questions important when talking about war and the underlying philosophies of it? The reason is that when talking about war, we easily fall into a normative view rather than an objective view, because people getting killed, even if they would be only soldiers, is a bad thing. Thus the viewpoint comes to be a normative one.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yet the vast majority of armed forces in the World during any time aren't engaged in actual warfare. In fact, the majority of sovereign states have not started wars and military actions and have been faithful to the UN charter, which actually starts with the words:
The majority of armed forces are basically training organizations that upkeep deterrence. Many simply exist for domestic security issues and would be very weak to engage in war with foreign armed forces. Only a few countries have the ability to fight a land war beyond their borders or neighboring states.
Attempt to destroy the enemy is an action. In events that we call wars enemies aren't just 'perceived'. The loose use of the word like with "War against Drugs" or "War against Poverty" do obviously have a vague or an undefined "enemy", yet in war that enemy is quite real. And when the enemy doesn't give up, when no other understanding can be found, then it's the turn of for the well rehearsed and well thought systemic violence perpetrated by armed forces. There simply has to be literally the conflict of interests that no political outcome can be achieved. Only then war ensues.
Hence if we ask "why war?", the reasons are political, not that "people are bellicose and want war".
The issue of defense versus the human gravitation for war is what makes it tricky. It is likely biologically based because animals have territorial imperatives, which are instinctive. Human beings have instincts and biological drives. Some of it is about wiring and chemicals, especially testosterone, as triggering aggression. However, there may be war between biology and thought, especially as a result of critical reflection. This may be an aspect of evolution of consciousness, which is still developing amongst humanity.
The same way has warfare as an institution evolved. The real question is just how much can we learn about our current institution from let's say observing two packs of monkeys fighting over territory? Does that really give us valuable insight? Do we use similar examples from the animal kingdom when we look at other human endeavours, commerce, science, leisure, whatever?
Quoting Jack Cummins
We, just as many other animals, are quite inquisitive and curious about our surroundings. What does that tell of modern science? How much and what can you explain about 21st Century science, the scientific method and the scientific World view with humans being curious?
I would view that just as explanatory as curiosity is to modern science, so is "testosterone triggering aggression" is to war, perhaps with curiosity being far more explanatory to modern science. Especially when more an more armed forces do have women soldiers. Above all, being an soldier, a NCO or an officer is a role, just like being a teacher, a fireman or a nurse. The idea that women soldiers would be less aggressive because they are female, simply misses the mark of how modern armies operate. Again, I would argue that to emphasize "testosterone triggering aggression" as a reason for war is more of the view of pacifism, as the normative ideology puts great importance to this kind of reasoning.
Just as there's a lot more to the philosophy of science than "humans are curious", there should be a lot more to the philosophy of war than "men are aggressive". The logical start would be to look at the issues what Sun Tzu and Clausewitz among others have written, but also what generals from Ceasar and Napoleon to the present have done and said. They contribute a lot more to the understanding of war and the philosophy of war, just as a historian like Thomas Kuhn tells about the philosophy of science or contributing philosophers like David Hume or Rene Descartes argue about science.
I am horrified by Trump's announcement that he intends to take Greenland and Panama Canale and will use military force if need be. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/07/trump-panama-canal-greenland
It is paramount right now that we mobilize an anti-war movement!
Americans are perhaps the stupidest people on earth because they ignore things like what the National Defense Education Act did to the culture of the US. They ignored the Neo-Cons who used our military to take military control of the Middle East.
To be honest, Americans live a Christian Myth of their special relationship with God and their wonderful Christian nation and they do see the warmongering until they are embedded in war, and even then, they can be in war and because it does not disturb their morning coffee, they can ignore the warmongering of their nation and see themselves as the savior of the world.
Even if the main object is distraction and to dominate the narrative, this still would be closer to imperialism than actual war. But indeed this is the mentality that an aggressor needs to start wars. More likely is to use force in the case of Panama than in the case of Greenland/Denmark. Even as I'll repeat, the main purpose for this rhetoric is to distract and to get people to respond to your narrative and discourse.
If you are interested, this book explains it..
Western Places, American Myths: How We Think About The West (Wilbur S. Shepperson Series in History And Humanities)
Did you notice when Trump took the oath he did not touch the Bible? He is not a man of God but maybe the Anti-Christ. Christians want to believe he is God's chosen leader, and that the whole earth will come under the more direct control of Jesus and his chosen people.
During the Iraq invasion, Billy Graham did a Christmas show telling parents God wanted them to send their sons and daughters into that war. Reading "Western Places, American Myths; How We Think About The West" makes that more understandable. At this time in history, the Christian Mythology and economic interests of the US share the same goals. This is as good for the world, as the westward movement was good for Native Americans and then the Chinese and the rest of the East.
Interesting that Satan is tied to a lie and the snake and humans wanting more than God wants them to have, and today our leader may be the Anti-Christ promising more than our fair share. Can you see Jesus on the mount telling his people how much more they can have if they follow him?
https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ideologies/
[quote]...the age of nationalism powerfully promoted the conviction that the war experience fulfilled the task of “rejuvenating and regenerating a civilization now in steep decline.” The bellicose “mood” that resulted had by 1914 become an essential factor in the origins of the First World War. In Berlin, Vienna, Paris, and London, a “storm of war feeling broke.”
The assumption took hold on segments of the collective mythopoeia that destroying a contemptible society would “open the way to a better one.” Within this mindset, the brief bout of ruthless slaughter of the enemy this demanded was perceived as a ritual act of purification; a “cleansing fire.”
The West marched joyfully into mental catacombs of its own making. It would only emerge from them in 1945—after over 70 million combatants and civilians had died as a direct result of war, persecution, or genocide—a mere fraction of the survivors whose lives were devastated.
As prospects of a short war evaporated and the death toll grew ever higher, powerful psychological processes ensured that the war would remain for millions a catalyst to experiencing transcendence. It was as if the fantasy of redemption through sacrifice—stubbornly entertained by both the fighters and onlookers—was fuelled rather than quenched by the blood of the fallen, like pouring oil on flames.
https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/newsletter/posts/2014/2014-11-11-Griffin.htm
If you think about it, this idea of "Deus Vult" is all very same for all Abrahamic religions. I would argue that in Islam this is even more obvious as the link between state and the religion is far more larger as the Rashidun Caliphate basically was established by Muhammad himself. This isn't also something confined to the West. Just think about the former deity of the Japanese emperor.
I would argue that the West even with all it's formal separation of Church and State and it's secularity still have traces to religion and policies, especially when some somber issue like war, is viewed as the "Will of God". In a way you putting emphasis on Trump not putting his hand on the Bible (as he did the first time) tells that the link to our quite religious past hasn't been cut off. I would view it that he's just very old, like Biden was and thus gaffes happen.
I can see how one might be at war with the world, engaged in a series of ongoing and linked conflicts time and time again. However there's a danger that entrenching oneself in such a combative mindset is only going to result ultimately in deep personal harm, after all to reach this position they have had to declare the war themselves, the world can't be the aggressor in this case.
In terms of your point regarding diplomacy Clausewitz's perspective, that war is an extension of diplomacy, reminds us that war and conflict are often about advancing interests when negotiation fails. However, IÂ’d question the idea that failed diplomacy is always due to stupidity or irrationality. PeopleÂ’s interests are shaped by emotions, power dynamics, and values not just logic. Even when opinions and interests seem irreconcilable, there are often ways to avoid war if both sides are willing to make concessions. The challenge is that compromise often feels like a loss, which is why diplomacy sometimes falters.
Clausewitz looks at war from the perspectives of nations states, but there's the notion of war as a civil war, which is a rather different kind of monster.
Civil wars can happen when the society simply breaks up and cannot take care of it's members as before. If someone can come up with a civil war erupting in a state where the economy was great and people prosperous, please tell me, because I don't know of such a civil war except for perhaps on exception (and likely here I'm showing my ignorance). The exception that comes to my mind is the American Civil War, where at least to history economical hardship wasn't the reason for the war. But here I can be wrong.