Thursday, March 17, 2022

War is Hard, Part II

British 55th (West Lancashire) Division troops blinded by tear gas await treatment at an Advanced Dressing
Station near Bethune during the Battle of Estaires, 10 April 1918, part of the German offensive in Flanders.

(Source)
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling.William T. Sherman (Source)
 
War is a mere continuation of politics by other means.

So war is an act of violence to force the enemy to do our will. 

Carl von Clausewitz 
On War, Book One

I have often wondered why war seems to be so prevalent in our history.

We aren't the only species to make war upon each other, chimpanzees will also go to war over resources and territory. (See the Gombe Chimpanzee War here.) So is making war an early trait developed by our species as a means to survive?

Say the game in a particular area has been overhunted, what's a primitive band of humans to do? Two choices I suppose, stay where you are and starve, or move to another area where game is more plentiful. What if that area already has a band of humans who rely on that game? Is the game plentiful enough to support both groups? If not, what happens?

In our early history survival was job one, it's what humans did every single day. There were no vacations, very little leisure time (though I'm sure that the very young had time for play), and just finding enough to eat could be a struggle. Life and death was right there, close enough to touch, so to speak.

Early conflict resolution was probably along the lines of "Keep moving you foreigners, this is our territory," and the intruders would move along. Or they wouldn't and now it was "They're not leaving, we have to kill them." Or be killed by them.

So early warfare was a matter of necessity, a matter of survival. All species will do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of themselves and their progeny. Often at the expense of others.

As our numbers grew and we learned new things, like animal husbandry and farming, we settled in larger groups and developed civilization. But there were still groups who subsisted by hunting and foraging and tended to move with the seasons. Think of the peoples of the vast steppes of Eurasia, they were nomads and far "tougher" than city dwellers. So upon coming across a city, loaded with food and other marvels, why not just pillage the city, take what you want?


As civilization progressed (and available, useful land became scarce) the idea of expansion to accommodate a growing population was now a driver of what we call politics. Can't negotiate with another group to get what you need/want? Then take it.

I'm sure there are many instances in history where the common people were content with their lot in life, but those who led them were not. There are those who are attracted to power for its own sake, convince the commoners that they've been wronged, get them riled up and presto, you have the opportunity to expand your power.


People who have seen war never forget its cost, its horrors, but as they age a younger generation takes over who have never seen war. In violence they may see a quick and dirty solution to some perceived need.

And a whole new generation learns the cost of war.

Only to grow old and have the cycle repeat.

Is it possible to end war?

I certainly don't know, but honestly, I agree with George Santayana¹ -

Only the dead have seen the end of war.



¹ Also attributed to Plato, but evidence suggests it was actually Santayana.

36 comments:

  1. Too cynical to believe that war will become outdated, look at the warfare (gangs) going on in the urban centers of this country for how many decades. He also said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agree. Humans will never see the end of conflict; whether "war" or not. War is larger, sometimes organized and disciplined "gangs" - for organization and discipline are crucial to victory. Also crucial is purpose; survival of the tribe (gang, nation; whatever). WWII was a fight for survival; since then we have fought for rescuing college students, deposing strong men, hunting attackers while getting distracted by "nation building" as a potential solution to strong men.
    Now the real fight will be closer. A fight for resources. Food. Medicine. Water. Arable land. Above all a fight for self determination.
    Boat Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, with the feckless "leadership" we have saddled ourselves with, I can see that as a definite possibility.

      Delete
  3. I've always been fascinated by the history of war. In grade school, my constant checking out of books about war led to the school librarian placing a restriction on my selections. She felt I needed a broader range of reading, and my parents didn't object. Why I had, and still have, the fascination is a mystery, but learning more didn't do anything but lead to a stronger disdain for the horrors war brings. As a species, we're better than that, but greed, the goal of power, and sheer stupidity lead to a continuance of man's brutality to man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here Jess.

      Excellent observation - "greed, the goal of power, and sheer stupidity" sums it up perfectly.

      Delete
  4. It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it. This quote attributed to the vastly over rated R E Lee
    pretty much says it all. Humans have an innate competitive drive that expresses itself in all aspects of their lives. Who won the big game, who got the promotion, how dare you cut me off on the highway, etc? We need constant reminders that the struggle isn't always worth the prize.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Warfare is, I think, a survival mechanism which we, as a species have yet to outgrow.

      Delete
  5. Why? I could simplify it to a constant violation of the `10th Commandment. Been scarce for over a week since I've been on a Caribbean vacation. Next week is quite busy with a bi-annual conference I run, but I may find time to comment. Hope you've all been well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and this is Tuna, using my wife's computer without my auto-login help.

      Delete
    2. That coveting thing, there's a good reason why it's one of the Ten.

      Delete
    3. On the plane now, fully charged phone!

      Delete
    4. So vacation is over? Bummer, but glad to see the "real" Tuna re-enter the lists!

      Delete
  6. It's possible, I suppose, but it's exceedingly unlikely to happen in any meaningful or useful way. Hope for peace, prepare for war. Wellington (?) supposedy remarked that "peace is the happy delusion that you are not at war."

    ReplyDelete
  7. James 4:2, KJV: "Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not."

    Sarge, it comes down to the human condition, does it not? There is something "off" with us (Christianity would call it sin). We can say that we find it to be a poor choice and distasteful, yet we always seem to choose it. Why? It is easier to take than to build, to destroy than create, to live off the output of others than make outputs for one's self.

    Greed? The Albigensian Crusade was in theory about heretical beliefs, but just as much about the resources and land that could be taken (in this case, with the blessing of the religious authorities. Power? The Mongol Empire imposed a strict peace and made vicious war, yet ultimately derived nothing more than control of territory and tribute; Rome marched far beyond the borders of Italia to protect the homeland, and in the process suffered no rival in her sphere of anything which was threat to Roman supremacy - Pax Romana existed only because of a very harsh iron fist.

    Even, as with King Archimedes at the opening of Peloponnesian War, when warned of the likely cost and the fact that it will not end nearly like we think it will, we still go. Perhaps once upon a time we argued "it is us or them". We have at least 4000 years of "us or them" to show us what war is actually like - yet we still go.

    Perhaps it simply is that as a species, we are foolish and secretly crave that which we can get in no other way except by exercising power or force.

    ReplyDelete
  8. War isn't "natural" to "man". Man is instinctively cooperative. Satanic "Elites" naturally want war for power, feeding off of others pain and misery, profit and fun, in that order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Humans are instinctively cooperative within their own family/tribal groups (think way back in time). Not so much with outsiders. Modern war is proliferated by greed and the hunger for power. We don't need some outside influence to be evil.

      Delete
    2. It is rare for people to associate themselves as part of a nation over part of a family/clan/tribe/exclusive group.

      And conflict, vicious conflict, is part of the human condition. Some of the worst and nastiest fighting I have seen has been amongst academics and such.

      It is what it is.

      I know idiots who believe a hunter/gatherer culture is the best. They say this from their air-conditioned mcmansions and their lives far divorced from reality. And those idiots are the most dangerous and deadly, willing to sacrifice whole sections of populations to feed their particular need for power and status.

      War is. It just is. Peace is an abnormality, especially widespread peace. We've all been living in very abnormal times.

      Delete
    3. Ah yes, the idiots who think the hunter/gatherer culture is best. I say put them on the freaking Serengeti for six months then let us all know how that went.

      Delete
    4. (Don McCollor)...Ah yes, back to Nature. (from a book on the early missionaries in MN). "The choice between starvation and eating putrifying muskrat that threatened to crawl away at any moment"...

      Delete
  9. With all eyes focused on the Ukraine, what's the other side doing? Where are they doing their movement. Usually if one starts a fight, they have to bring the big guns out, we don't see that, so it's a fake, a jab, where is the hay maker? What else is going on? Last dec, about the end of the month, valad was in china, I believe to let his bud's know his plan. But he attacked in the muddy season, big mistake, he should have waited till the farmers were in the fields. So poor harvest this year and next. Putting a strain on our markets till the following season....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. China worries me as well, what are those bastards up to?

      Delete
    2. Selling Russia all the rope to hang itself. The Han have always been 'superior' to the rest of the world. And the Han have only won against Tibet and... Russia.

      So those bastards are setting Russia up for a fall, and will willingly move into Siberia for the resources that the ChiComs want. Almost something right out of a Tom Clancy novel.

      Never trust China. China is anal-sphincter.

      Delete
  10. We could have given more credence to General Patton's leadership and attitude towards the Soviets / Russians?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To understand what an inherently bad idea that would have been, one need look no further than the Pacific, a war that the American public was growing increasingly tired of. Many felt that with Germany defeated, it was time to bring ALL of the boys home. Officials in Washington knew about this and continually advised the President that we needed to end the war as soon as possible. Which was another factor in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, twice.

      It's fun to think Patton would have gone through the Russians like "crap through a goose," but the odds are pretty good that Patton would have gotten his ass kicked in Russia.

      Delete
    2. Just about everybody else seems to; possibly including us, if hack politicians keep beating the war drums. I actually heard a pol say that a no-fly zone wouldn't be provocative. I wonder if he has any idea how one maintains a no-fly zone.
      --Tennessee Budd

      Delete
    3. No clue, not a single one, they don't get it.

      Delete
    4. Well- Considering Russia required 11.3 Billion or 180 Billion in today's Dollars American Lend Lease Act " LOGISTICS" I would suggest the Soviets would have been on their backs without the 11,000 aircraft - 6000 Tanks/tank destroyers - 300,000 trucks / military vehicles AND ONE THIRD of the total munitions/bombs/bullets used by Russia in WW II.
      So its not beyond the realm of possibility that without the combined American & Allied logistical support we could/would have "rolled thru these bastages like Shite thru a goose"

      Delete
  11. For as long as man has been around the rule "if you can take it and keep it, it's yours" as been an accurate one.
    Our society had gone to great lengths to protect life & property from that rule, but the job was not perfect and lately it sure looks like there are times when the whole pretense is being over looked.

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.