What Does the Future Hold?

Vokzalna Street of Bucha (Kyiv Oblast of Ukraine)
where a Russian military column was destroyed on 27 February 2022.
(Source)

Yesterday's re-run generated a number of interesting comments. You'll have to pardon my somewhat abrupt answers to some of those, I tend to bristle when information is presented and expected to be taken as a given. Have a controversial viewpoint? Go for it, but be prepared to cite your sources.

I spent a good part of the time I should have been writing original material looking into the current Russo-Ukrainian War and that is a lot of history. You have to go all the way back to Kievan Rus (and perhaps even further back) and then come forward to the Euromaidan protests to have even an inkling of what's going on over there these days.

All that being said (research is continuing), all I can say for certain is that Ukrainians and Russians will continue to die in horrible ways while politicians sit down to fancy dinners and seek money for whatever causes they're promoting.

The French have a saying, “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose“¹ – The more things change, the more they stay the same. War, greed, destruction, it won't end any time soon.

The following was Part IV (yesterday was Part III) of a four part series I did back in 2022. As the French say ...

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov
(Source)

And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

 

Revelation 6:1-8 (KJV)

So will war be the end of us as a species?

As the population of the world increases, as competition for resources increases, somewhere, someone, is going to pull the trigger which could set off Armageddon. I don't know if that's a maybe or a certainty. But it lies well within the realm of possibility.

The Scriptures foretell of the end of this existence ...

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

Matthew 24:35-37 (KJV)

What follows is beyond our ken.

It has been said that "violence never solved anything," of course that's nonsense. Violence certainly ended the threat from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Perhaps it's wise to understand that aggressive warfare is not an answer. That's why it's been outlawed. Regardless of what we think of the situation in Ukraine, they were attacked.

Were the Russians provoked? They seem to think so, well, at least Putin and his cronies think so. But one could make the argument that Japan was provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941. You would be correct, we were trying to get Japan to back off in China, where they were indeed waging a war of conquest. So yes, we provoked them, but that did not justify their attack on the United States.

Wars of conquest have caused more grief and horror than anything else in our history, it should be opposed, vigorously, perhaps even through the force of arms. But when?

That is indeed the question.

I weep for the fallen ...

Those in the past, and those to come.

No Man’s Land

written by Eric Bogle

 performed by the Dropkick Murphys

 

Oh how do you do, young Willie McBride

Do you mind if I sit here down by your graveside?

And rest for a while in the warm summer sun

I've been walking all day, and I'm nearly done

And I see by your gravestone you were only nineteen

When you joined the great fallen in 1916

Well I hope you died quick, and I hope you died clean

Or Willie McBride, was is it slow and obscene?

Did they beat the drums slowly?

Did they play the fife lowly?

Did they sound the death march as they lowered you down?

Did the band play the Last Post and chorus?

Did the pipes play the Flowers of the Forest?

And did you leave a wife or a sweetheart behind

In some loyal heart is your memory enshrined?

And though you died back in 1916

To that loyal heart you're forever nineteen

Or are you a stranger without even a name?

Forever enshrined behind some old glass pane

In an old photograph torn, tattered, and stained

And faded to yellow in a brown leather frame

Did they beat the drums slowly?

Did they play the fife lowly?

Did they sound the death march as they lowered you down?

Did the band play the Last Post and chorus?

Did the pipes play the Flowers of the Forest?

The sun shining down on these green fields of France

The warm wind blows gently and the red poppies dance

The trenches have vanished long under the plow

No gas, no barbed wire, no guns firing now

But here in this graveyard that's still no man's land

The countless white crosses in mute witness stand

To man's blind indifference to his fellow man

And a whole generation were butchered and damned

Did they beat the drums slowly?

Did they play the fife lowly?

Did they sound the death march as they lowered you down?

Did the band play the Last Post and chorus?

Did the pipes play the Flowers of the Forest?

And I can't help but wonder oh Willie McBride

Do all those who lie here know why they died

Did you really believe them when they told you the cause

Did you really believe that this war would end wars

Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame

The killing and dying it was all done in vain

Oh Willie McBride it all happened again

And again, and again, and again, and again

Did they beat the drums slowly?

Did they play the fife lowly?

Did they sound the death march as they lowered you down?

Did the band play the Last Post and chorus?

Did the pipes play the Flowers of the Forest?

(Source) 

Pray for Peace, Prepare for War.

The original post was here.

¹ French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, 1849.

War is Still Hard

The Battle of Towton
Richard Caton Woodville, Jr.
(Source)

The incumbent King of England, Henry VI, on the throne since 1422, was a weak, ineffectual and mentally unsound ruler, which encouraged the nobles to scheme for control over him. (Ibid)

Sounds kind of familiar, know what I mean?

Yes, having a weak leader encourages foreign leaders with an agenda to take advantage of that weakness. Nature abhors a vacuum, so does power.

Does anyone think Putin would have gone into Ukraine if say, Teddy Roosevelt was the President? Note well that I say "Putin" and not "Russia." Putin is a despot, a latter-day Tsar wanna-be. He is no better than Hitler salivating over the Sudetenland in 1938. "Hey, those are ethnic Russians in there, and they're being mistreated!" The Russian people are not behind this invasion. Most of them were just as surprised as the Ukrainians when the Russian Army went in. (As were many of the soldiers in that army!)

I'm not too spun up over the Crimea, it wasn't traditionally part of Ukraine, Khrushchev gave it to them in 1954. Nor the other "separatist" region of Donbas (which is broken into two areas: the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic). Those areas contain a majority of Russians (so my research shows), so them being a part of Ukraine is a bit of a stretch.

But the rest of the nation of Ukraine, Russia should stay out.

What gives me pause concerning this whole Russo-Ukrainian War (Part Deux) is the similarities between now and 1938. While history doesn't really repeat itself, it does, as they say, "rhyme." In other words, similar circumstances could lead to similar outcomes.

In 1938 Adolf Hitler was the Chancellor of Germany. He was actually popular from what I've read. He had reduced unemployment, he had remilitarized the Rhineland which the Treaty of Versailles stipulated could not have any German troops in it. This area borders the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. By keeping the German military out of a 50-mile strip in that region, it was thought to both deter German aggression and also provide an easy path to the Rhine from the West.

Hitler sent his troops into the Rhineland, suspecting that weak leadership in Britain (Neville Chamberlain) and France (Léon Blum) would do nothing to oppose him. He was correct.

To be fair, the people of the United Kingdom and France were in no mood to fight another war considering that WWI had ended only eighteen years before. This was territory they recognized as being German, people who were citizens of Germany in fact.

But it made Hitler overconfident. So he set his sights on Austria, after all didn't they also speak German? Shouldn't they be incorporated into Greater Germany (Großdeutschland)?

Truth be told, Austria had never been part of Germany, but no one was in any mood to contest that move either. Well sure, they are all German speakers, so why not?

In the former country of Czechoslovakia there was a region along the border with Germany called the Sudetenland. There were a great many German speakers in the area and that region had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the war. As had all of Czechoslovakia (and Hungary, and Yugoslavia, and a few other areas as well, that Empire had been pretty big). Hitler set his sights on that area next.

Once again the French and British leaders let him do it, they even persuaded the Czechs that they could do nothing about it if the Germans attacked them and simply took the region. They would not send French and British soldiers to die for Czechoslovakia.

The Sudetenland became part of the Greater German Reich shortly thereafter. (In truth the German generals were terrified that Hitler would attack the Czechs. The Sudetenland is rugged country and the Czechs had set up very rugged defensive works therein. They assumed that an invasion, even if successful, would be costly and set back Hitler's future plans for expansion.)

By the end of 1938, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, the Germans absorbing parts of the country into Germany proper and creating the Reich Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia (which contained Prague). The Slovaks declared their independence from Czechoslovakia and formed the Slovak Republic, which promptly allied itself with Germany. (Hungary also nicked a piece for themselves, the Ruthenian part – Subcarpathian Rus as it was known then.)

Are you seeing any similarities to today?

I am.

And it's unnerving to see this happening again.

But is modern day Russia the equivalent of 1930s Nazi Germany? I don't think so, but it certainly looks like Putin is using Hitler's playbook as regards Ukraine.

Consider this:

• The American people are tired of war, after our two decades long idiotic involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. What the Hell is "nation building" anyway but an attempt to impose an alien culture upon another culture?
• The Europeans have been living under the American nuclear umbrella since 1945. Most of their armies are of no use in opposing Russia over Ukraine. They're too small and their governments have not been spending the money to maintain their equipment and training.
• Where is the vital national interest in Ukraine? Should American men and women be sent to die there? Because they will if they are sent in by the idiots in DC.

I have no doubt that our government will do something stupid, that's pretty much their track record for the last eighty years (give or take). At the very least, it's going to cost the American taxpayer a lot of money. Qui bono?

Things could get pretty sporty here over the next few months, don't forget to keep an eye on China. I'm sure they're watching all this with a gleam in their eyes. Get the Americans and the West bogged down in Ukraine? Bye bye Taiwan.

Yup, war is hard.

And damned dangerous as well!

Editor's note: Yes, I'm still tired, no, I had no time to create a new post, but this needs revisiting. The original post was here. Also ... New episode of Shōgun hasn't been watched yet, ya know, I'm busy. Life sometimes intrudes into the Blogoverse.

The Poor Bloody Infantry

Soldiers of The 3rd (East Kent) Regiment of Foot (The Buffs) defending the Colours at Albuera, 1811
(Source)

When humans first took up arms against other humans, the infantry were there. They weren't known as infantry then, that term came later, but nevertheless, they were infantry. Equipped with rocks, sticks, clubs, whatever was to hand. The mission was simple: close with the enemy and drive them off, or kill them, whichever came first.

With the current war in Ukraine I've seen a number of references to the obsolescence of various combat arms. Is the tank obsolete? Are surface warships obsolete? One thing to always bear in mind is that a war isn't over until the infantry have seized the ground, and held it against all comers.

Tanks cannot seize and hold ground, in fact, as the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022 demonstrates, tanks are virtually helpless against steadfast infantry. Tanks need their own infantry to protect them. So why bother with tanks?

Well, they are far more mobile than a man on foot, they are heavily armed and armored. It takes a set of brass ones to go up against a tank if you're an infantryman. But they do and with the proper training tanks lose much of their mystery.

The tanker is blind inside his buttoned up machine, to expose yourself leaves you open to all the nasty things flying through the air in a combat environment. But with the right support, the tank can punch holes in an enemy line and roll it up from within. As long as the infantry supports are nearby, the tank is a formidable foe.

Combined arms - infantry, armor, and artillery working together are an absolute must in modern warfare. Artillery is the man-killer extraordinaire, it's how an army reaches out and touches someone.

Aircraft are important, both fixed wing and rotary wing, to control the air above your own forces. Let the enemy control the air and your soldiers are just so many targets burrowing into the soil. Rooted in place, they will soon starve as enemy air deprives them of food, fuel, and ammunition.

The only weapon of war which will never be obsolete is the infantryman. The infantryman is the guy you have to beat on the ground to win battles and eventually the war. Everything else is support for that person on the ground with his personal weapon. All are important, but the infantry is indeed, the queen of battle.

Follow me!
The Infantry School
Fort Benning, GA

War is Hard, Part IV (Finis)

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov
(Source)

And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

 

Revelation 6:1-8 (KJV)

So will war be the end of us as a species?

As the population of the world increases, as competition for resources increases, somewhere, someone, is going to pull the trigger which could set off Armageddon. I don't know if that's a maybe or a certainty. But it lies well within the realm of possibility.

The Scriptures foretell of the end of this existence ...

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

Matthew 24:35-37 (KJV)

What follows is beyond our ken.

It has been said that "violence never solved anything," of course that's nonsense. Violence certainly ended the threat from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Perhaps it's wise to understand that aggressive warfare is not an answer. That's why it's been outlawed. Regardless of what we think of the situation in Ukraine, they were attacked.

Were the Russians provoked? They seem to think so, well, at least Putin and his cronies think so. But one could make the argument that Japan was provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941. You would be correct, we were trying to get Japan to back off in China, where they were indeed waging a war of conquest. So yes, we provoked them, but that did not justify their attack on the United States.

Wars of conquest have caused more grief and horror than anything else in our history, it should be opposed, vigorously, perhaps even through the force of arms. But when?

That is indeed the question.

I weep for the fallen ...

Those in the past, and those to come.

No Man’s Land

written by Eric Bogle

 performed by the Dropkick Murphys

 

Oh how do you do, young Willie McBride

Do you mind if I sit here down by your graveside?

And rest for a while in the warm summer sun

I've been walking all day, and I'm nearly done

And I see by your gravestone you were only nineteen

When you joined the great fallen in 1916

Well I hope you died quick, and I hope you died clean

Or Willie McBride, was is it slow and obscene?

Did they beat the drums slowly?

Did they play the fife lowly?

Did they sound the death march as they lowered you down?

Did the band play the Last Post and chorus?

Did the pipes play the Flowers of the Forest?

And did you leave a wife or a sweetheart behind

In some loyal heart is your memory enshrined?

And though you died back in 1916

To that loyal heart you're forever nineteen

Or are you a stranger without even a name?

Forever enshrined behind some old glass pane

In an old photograph torn, tattered, and stained

And faded to yellow in a brown leather frame

Did they beat the drums slowly?

Did they play the fife lowly?

Did they sound the death march as they lowered you down?

Did the band play the Last Post and chorus?

Did the pipes play the Flowers of the Forest?

The sun shining down on these green fields of France

The warm wind blows gently and the red poppies dance

The trenches have vanished long under the plow

No gas, no barbed wire, no guns firing now

But here in this graveyard that's still no man's land

The countless white crosses in mute witness stand

To man's blind indifference to his fellow man

And a whole generation were butchered and damned

Did they beat the drums slowly?

Did they play the fife lowly?

Did they sound the death march as they lowered you down?

Did the band play the Last Post and chorus?

Did the pipes play the Flowers of the Forest?

And I can't help but wonder oh Willie McBride

Do all those who lie here know why they died

Did you really believe them when they told you the cause

Did you really believe that this war would end wars

Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame

The killing and dying it was all done in vain

Oh Willie McBride it all happened again

And again, and again, and again, and again

Did they beat the drums slowly?

Did they play the fife lowly?

Did they sound the death march as they lowered you down?

Did the band play the Last Post and chorus?

Did the pipes play the Flowers of the Forest?

(Source) 

Pray for Peace, Prepare for War.

War is Hard, Part III

The Battle of Towton
Richard Caton Woodville, Jr.
(Source)

The incumbent King of England, Henry VI, on the throne since 1422, was a weak, ineffectual and mentally unsound ruler, which encouraged the nobles to scheme for control over him. (Ibid)

Sounds kind of familiar, know what I mean?

Yes, having a weak leader encourages foreign leaders with an agenda to take advantage of that weakness. Nature abhors a vacuum, so does power.

Does anyone think Putin would have gone into Ukraine if say, Teddy Roosevelt was the President? Note well that I say "Putin" and not "Russia." Putin is a despot, a latter-day Tsar wanna-be. He is no better than Hitler salivating over the Sudetenland in 1938. "Hey, those are ethnic Russians in there, and they're being mistreated!" The Russian people are not behind this invasion. Most of them were just as surprised as the Ukrainians when the Russian Army went in. (As were many of the soldiers in that army!)

I'm not too spun up over the Crimea, it wasn't traditionally part of Ukraine, Khrushchev gave it to them in 1954. Nor the other "separatist" region of Donbas (which is broken into two areas: the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic). Those areas contain a majority of Russians (so my research shows), so them being a part of Ukraine is a bit of a stretch.

But the rest of the nation of Ukraine, Russia should stay out.

What gives me pause concerning this whole Russo-Ukrainian War (Part Deux) is the similarities between now and 1938. While history doesn't really repeat itself, it does, as they say, "rhyme." In other words, similar circumstances could lead to similar outcomes.

In 1938 Adolf Hitler was the Chancellor of Germany. He was actually popular from what I've read. He had reduced unemployment, he had remilitarized the Rhineland which the Treaty of Versailles stipulated could not have any German troops in it. This area borders the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. By keeping the German military out of a 50-mile strip in that region, it was thought to both deter German aggression and also provide an easy path to the Rhine from the West.

Hitler sent his troops into the Rhineland, suspecting that weak leadership in Britain (Neville Chamberlain) and France (Léon Blum) would do nothing to oppose him. He was correct.

To be fair, the people of the United Kingdom and France were in no mood to fight another war considering that WWI had ended only eighteen years before. This was territory they recognized as being German, people who were citizens of Germany in fact.

But it made Hitler overconfident. So he set his sets on Austria, after all didn't they also speak German? Shouldn't they be incorporated into Greater Germany (Großdeutschland)?

Truth be told, Austria had never been part of Germany, but no one was in any mood to contest that move either. Well sure, they are all German speakers, so why not?

In the former country of Czechoslovakia there was a region along the border with Germany called the Sudetenland. There were a great many German speakers in the area and that region had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the war. As had all of Czechoslovakia (and Hungary, and Yugoslavia, and a few other areas as well, that Empire had been pretty big). Hitler set his sights on that area next.

Once again the French and British leaders let him do it, they even persuaded the Czechs that they could do nothing about it if the Germans attacked them and simply took the region. They would not send French and British soldiers to die for Czechoslovakia.

The Sudetenland became part of the Greater German Reich shortly thereafter. (In truth the German generals were terrified that Hitler would attack the Czechs. The Sudetenland is rugged country and the Czechs had set up very rugged defensive works therein. They assumed that an invasion, even if successful, would be costly and set back Hitler's future plans for expansion.)

By the end of 1938, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, the Germans absorbing parts of the country into Germany proper and creating the Reich Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia (which contained Prague). The Slovaks declared their independence from Czechoslovakia and formed the Slovak Republic, which promptly allied itself with Germany. (Hungary also nicked a piece for themselves, the Ruthenian part – Subcarpathian Rus as it was known then.)

Are you seeing any similarities to today?

I am.

And it's unnerving to see this happening again.

But is modern day Russia the equivalent of 1930s Nazi Germany? I don't think so, but it certainly looks like Putin is using Hitler's playbook as regards Ukraine.

Consider this:

• The American people are tired of war, after our two decades long idiotic involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. What the Hell is "nation building" anyway but an attempt to impose an alien culture upon another culture?
• The Europeans have been living under the American nuclear umbrella since 1945. Most of their armies are of no use in opposing Russia over Ukraine. They're too small and their governments have not been spending the money to maintain their equipment and training.
• Where is the vital national interest in Ukraine? Should American men and women be sent to die there? Because they will if they are sent in by the idiots in DC.

I have no doubt that our government will do something stupid, that's pretty much their track record for the last eighty years (give or take). At the very least, it's going to cost the American taxpayer a lot of money. Qui bono?

Things could get pretty sporty here over the next few months, don't forget to keep an eye on China. I'm sure they're watching all this with a gleam in their eyes. Get the Americans and the West bogged down in Ukraine? Bye bye Taiwan.

Yup, war is hard.

And damned dangerous as well!

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.

War is Hard, Part I

Cromwell at the Battle of Naseby in 1645
Charles Landseer
(Source)

War is hard. 

Yes, I know, duh, no kidding. But wait, there's more.

It's not just a question of throwing on some cammies and taking your rifle to the battlefield, ask this guy. You need organization, not just having selected folks who are in charge, think NCOs and officers. You also need a way of keeping track of everybody, paying them (if that's going to be a thing, and really, it needs to be, most folks will fight for their home for free, but someone else's home?), you also need to feed them, make sure they clean up after themselves (do you really understand the amount of crap people generate in a day, there won't be Porta-Pottys at the front, nope, think hole in the ground), what happens if they get wounded or get sick (the latter being more likely than you'd think), yup, you're going to need medical personnel.

There's a reason for the old adage of "Amateurs study tactics, armchair generals study strategy, but professionals study logistics." Battles don't last that long, most of the time your troops will be waiting (eating and crapping everywhere), or moving from Point A to Point B (on foot, clogging up the roads and tiring themselves out, or by vehicle, really clogging up the roads and introducing the need for fuel of some sort, electric cars need not apply).

Someone needs to decide where the troops are needed most, for that to happen in a reasonable manner, you need intelligence sources. Spies, reconnaissance units, aircraft (manned and/or unmanned), and other means of finding the enemy then determining whether they should be attacked, or if you should start preparing defences.

A bunch of guys in cammies and armed with rifles are not infantry. Nope, infantry have been trained to work together as a team, they also have support weapons like crew-served machine guns and mortars. They are also trained to work with other infantry groups and folks manning tanks, and artillery, and friendly air, etc., etc.

War ain't simple.

War isn't just about fighting, in fact, that's really only a small part. Most people who have "been there, done that, got the DD Form 214" will tell you that the military is often hours of sheer boredom interspersed with minutes of sheer terror.

I plan to explore this topic further, but not tonight (which is Tuesday night as I write), for the day was long and the paying job was very busy. Though enjoyable, it left little time for writing. So I will leave you all to discuss this at your leisure in the comments.  

Auf Wiedersehen, au revoir, arrivederci, and see ya later.

I'll be back ...