James Carroll writes in today’s Boston Globe:
Was the first act of war followed by the first act of denial? The story of Cain (“a tiller of the ground”) and Abel (“a keeper of sheep”) is a parable of primordial conflict between settled farmers and nomadic herders, and the lessons are timeless. Each warring group claims to have justice on its side, and believes that the way to peace is through conquest. War is always fought in the name of justice-and-peace. But peace achieved through war inevitably leads not to justice, but to conditions that cause the next war. History is the record of that succession. Victory through violence is the way to further violence.
I don’t think it’s been true throughout human history that war is always fought in the name of justice-and-peace, but I’m not aware of any war of the past century or so in which the justice-and-peace rationale wasn’t waved about by somebody. That’s not to say that justice-and-peace was the aggressors’ motivation behind all modern wars. In fact, I doubt that justice-and-peace is ever the true motivation behind initiating a war, just the excuse. But most of the time the people making that excuse don’t see that it’s just an excuse. They’ve talked themselves into believing their own excuse.
We might call these people “fools.” We might also call them “neocons.”
I agree with Carroll when he writes, “But peace achieved through war inevitably leads not to justice, but to conditions that cause the next war. History is the record of that succession.” If you step back and look at all of human history, time and time again the seeds of war were sown by a previous war. This is not to say that there aren’t other factors, but nearly always those “other factors” were issues that might have been resolved by other means.
Many who read the sentence “Victory through violence is the way to further violence” will bring up World War II. The victory over Japan, for example, was achieved after terrible violence that included two nuclear bombs. Yet that violence did not result in eternal enmity between the U.S. and Japan. Doesn’t that prove Carroll is wrong? No; it proves that this is one of the greatest anomalies of world history. A great many factors had to come together very precisely to create this anomaly. These factors, IMO, the manner of the U.S. occupation and the Buddhist-Confucian foundations of Japanese ethics. Needless to say, this happy confluence is not present in Iraq.
The lesson to be taken from Japan is not that a violent victory can have a happy result. The lesson is that, after a war, with hard work and a lot of luck the factors that might lead to another war can be substantially reduced. This is a critical distinction.
Our own Civil War was another such anomaly. Long and dear friendships existed across warring lines; officers on both sides knew and actually liked each other even as they tried to kill each other. At Appomattox Ulysses S. Grant ordered his troops not to celebrate the surrender of Robert E. Lee so as not to hurt the Confederates’ feelings. The rebel leaders were not punished for treason but were released on parole. (The only exceptions I’m aware of were the executions of the Lincoln assassination conspirators and the commanding officer of Andersonville Prison.) Compared to the aftermath of any other civil war on this planet, this behavior was downright peculiar. Even so, even though we haven’t had another civil war, there was another kind of violence — the defeated white southerners took their rage out on African Americans, beginning a reign of racial terrorism that has still not completely dissipated.
The truth that countless generations of fools can’t get into their heads is that military victory doesn’t create peace. Sometimes what victors choose to do with the victory can help establish peace, but that’s rare.
Carroll concludes,
The Bush administration embraced the cult of war when it did not have to. Bush re-legitimized that cult, and sponsored it anew. In this, he was supported by the American people, its press and its political establishment. In the beginning, the nation itself re affirmed war as the way to justice-and-peace. We did this. The first fallacy lived. By now, even Washington’s one self-proclaimed “victory” has led to further defeat. The “good” war in Afghanistan put in place structures of oppression that promised an inevitable resumption of savagery, which has begun. …
… Because of the destructiveness of modern weapons, there will be no distant future unless humans, having seen through the congenital illusion of justice-and-peace through violence, come to the rejection of war. That must begin now. Democrats, take heed: Bush must not be allowed to further the chaos. Having led the world into this moral wilderness, America has a grave responsibility to lead the way out. We have to cease killing other people’s children, which is the way to stop them from killing ours. Stop the war by stopping.
As Japan debates the possibility of its acquiring nuclear weapons in light of NK seeming to go that route, for the first time since 1945, a senior Japanese politician called the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima a crime based on humanitarian reasons and said that Japan should ensure that “no weapon of mass destruction can be used again”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6189489.stm
More than likely, this statement is not intended to result in Japan charging the US with war crimes, but rather to bring to mind the utter devastation that nukes cause. Since the administration intends to spend tax dollars to test low-yield nukes, we need to ask ourselves whether that would make us any safer or just enrich investors?
The war against the American Indians had nothing to do with justice and peace. It was all about taking the land and resources because the Indians were savage and did not know how to do the best with their resources. We needed the white man to show us how to destroy the world.
I refuse to be included with those in the pharse “We did this.” I fought going to war in everyway I knew how. Wrote letters, fought with friends, and whatever else I came upon. When the war seemed inevitable, I pleaded with a close friend who was against the war, too, to meet me on the weekend before Bush started his illegal and immoral war to talk about what we could do. While she made me feel better to know I was not alone, we both left with a hopelessness that there seemed little any one or “little people” could do because W was determined to go to war. It was one of the most difficult times of my life. All deaths related to this war whether American or Iraqi are murders committed by Bush and his Republican cabal.
I forgot my bottom line. I agree with Carroll–Stop the War By Stopping. It is the way to save lives, treasure, and probably face.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Yes, wars come because issues aren’t resolved by peaceful means. But the roots of the next war are NOT laid at the foundation of the previous war. In fact, if the peace is not considered an improvement both sides tend to go to war yet again.
The peace agreements after world war I were profoundly dissatisfying to Germans. The feeling that they had been betrayed by their own leaders and the belief that they could have won (since they were not actually invaded) all contributed to the cultural environment that welcomed Hitler to power.
Its true that one side or another often justifies their violence with some pretty screwed up claims, and its true that a lot of times a war could have been prevented. But just because most wars are that way doesn’t mean its acceptable to ignore that other wars are different.
Some people truly will not stop until somebody pushes back, and forces them to stop. The question is, what do we consider sufficient cause to push back? I know too many people hark back to World War II as the justification for any aggressive response, but there is an element of truth to the belief that Hitler would never have stopped until he was forced to (or until he had conquered the world). And I, for one, am rather glad that we chose to fight him in Europe rather than waiting for him to grow stronger.
And while the black/white attitude towards terrorism has created a lot of mistakes in our fight against terror, there’s also some truth to the belief that the terrorists will NOT stop and will NOT be satisfied unless or until someone makes them stop. Just look at how they perceive us. They saw our withdrawal from Somalia as a sign of weakness. They saw our reaction to the USS Cole as a sign we were pushovers. And as one interview – http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53257 showed, they see a withdrawal from Iraq as encouragement for further action.
“WND read Pelosi’s remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad’s Saadi, laughing, stated, “There is no chance that the resistance will stop.”
Thanks, Bonnie. This article by Carroll [worth reading in full] and your comment touch my heart and soul. It is good to know of others who step clear of and speak clearly of the ‘business’ of war.
I would love to see a solution to ‘war’ that is like sports games where the very ones who promote war are each and every one invited/forced into an arena to engage in battle with their ‘enemy’ counterparts. If Bush and the neocons and the screechy righties were risking their own lives and limbs instead of being allowed to put substitute soldiers and innocent citizens at risk…….well, I think humankind would begin to seriously seek to evolve beyond war.
Chris, it is bass-ackward thinking and plain ignorance that underpins arguments like yours. One can combat simple terrorism through human intelligence and a responsive police organization. What we have in Iraq is a very complex situation that involves a multitude of different levels of terrorism, insurgency, and civil conflict, none of which can be solved through the use of military power. Each of these components of Iraqi conflict must be identified, isolated (i.e., resolved politically or economically), and rendered ineffective.
George Bush’s greatest error–on top of all that he has committed–has to be his complete and utter ignorance of the use of military power as a political instrument to pursue a grand strategy. Instead, he relies on his field commanders to tell him what the strategy is thereby confusing operational and tactical plans or schemes with strategy. Strategy is the realm of the state leader whether he be president or king. Our commanders cannot decide on what to do because they do not know why they are doing anything at all. They must be given a specific goal to achieve. To date–almost four years after initiating the war–neither they nor we have this information. Suffice it to say that there is no grand strategy at work here and the cost in blood and treasure amounts to throwing it all away. We must stop the hemorrhage and the only way to do that is to stop the prosecution of this war immediately. Continuing to support this war only appeases Bush and we all know where appeasement leads.
Oh, I agree that the entire handling of Iraq was screwed up. We need more of an international police force to handle terrorism. And we need to get beyond using the military to solve all problems.
But unfortunately the entire mid-east links everything together, so it’ll be that much harder to be effective if they think that their violent tactics are effective.
I wouldn’t mind a strategic withdrawal so as to better prepare to fight them in the RIGHT way. But make no mistake that we will be back in the ring with them. If not Iraq, then somewhere else.
Actually, here’s the link to the latest Army Counterinsurgency FM – http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf
Looks like they’re finally figuring it out. Especially given some of the reports I’ve heard about the special training for the embedded soldiers (they were randomly pulled out to teach Iraqis originally), plus the emphasis on pushing them down to lower levels.
Then there’s a report about the military hiring some social/political scientist type advisors down at the tactical levels to help them look beyond military solutions.
Plus you’ve got some changes in the way the Iraqis themselves are talking. Looks like they’re finally realizing that they need to work together. Hence the possibility of a moderate coalition.
Of course, all of that is in its infancy stage, and there still is an active group of people trying to drag Iraq down. But there’s alot of stuff going on over here, and it looks like they are finally focusing on the right things. The question for me becomes “is it too little, too late?”
But the roots of the next war are NOT laid at the foundation of the previous war. In fact, if the peace is not considered an improvement both sides tend to go to war yet again.
The peace agreements after world war I were profoundly dissatisfying to Germans.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. So you do agree with me, actually. In fact, a lot of the problems in the Middle East today were created by World War I, and not just the peace agreements. The way the Brits, the French, etc. dealt with the Middle East during the war as well as after all added up to a pile of crap we’re still shoveling today.
But if you go back through history, back to the bronze age even, you find strings of wars — the resentments and enmity created by one war adds fuel to start the next one.
Its true that one side or another often justifies their violence with some pretty screwed up claims, and its true that a lot of times a war could have been prevented. But just because most wars are that way doesn’t mean its acceptable to ignore that other wars are different.
I cannot think of a single war in all of world history in which the aggressor’s claims and justifications for starting the war were not pretty screwed up. This includes the American Civil War, which was started by South Carolina’s unlawful assault on a federal military reservation. If you can think of an example in which the aggressor was completely justified, please enlighten me.
Some people truly will not stop until somebody pushes back, and forces them to stop. The question is, what do we consider sufficient cause to push back?
It depends on what you want them to stop. If they’ve bombed your navy or landed an invasion on your shore, then it’s pretty clear cut that you’ve got to stop them. If they declare war on you first, then certainly you’re justified in declaring war on them right back. If they invade the sovereign territory of an ally, then it’s probably very reasonable to send troops in support of your ally. Throughout U.S. history the U.S. has claimed a strategic interest in making sure there is no foreign takeover of other nations in the Western Hemisphere (the Monroe Doctrine). although we’ve not always been real diligent about enforcing that.
But if the “pushing” does not constitute an actual threat, that’s another matter entirely.
As far as your “signs of weakness” argument — sometimes that holds water, and sometimes it doesn’t. Certainly the Bush Administration should have reacted to the U.S.S. Cole incident as soon as the intelligence guys confirmed that al Qaeda was to blame, which happened just after Bush was inaugurated, as I recall. As I remember the 9/11 Commission concluded that the lack of reaction inspired bin Laden to up the ante and initiate the 9/11 attacks.
On the other hand, our stubborn persistence in staying in Vietnam until we found “honor” did more harm to us than it did to the cause of World Communism. And our leaving Vietnam certainly didn’t strengthen World Communism or the Soviets or anybody else that really mattered to our security.
I think that stubbornly remaining in Iraq just to show how tough we are is counter-productive to our interests, to put it mildly.
Regarding the Iraq Civil War (which, note, is different from the “insurgency”) — yes, of course it’s likely to continue if we go. It’s also likely to continue if we stay. And our troops should remain in the middle of it because … ?
The question for me becomes “is it too little, too late?â€
It’s way too late. The Bushies had the first six months (a.k.a. the first “Friedman Unit”) or so to get it right. They blew it. It’s over.
As for the first part, I would say my emphasis is on the peace agreements as fuelling the next conflict, rather than the war itself. As they say “war is the continuation of politics by other means”. If the ‘peace’ leaves one side with a grudge, it does fuel the next war.
As for Iraq – because despite all the crap for the past three years there are signs that everyone is finally getting their act together. The biggest issue is that nobody trusts the government forces, so you need US forces to patrol and keep the peace while the government roots out corruption and sectarianism. Once the Iraq government is reliable, they’ll be able to take over. But turning things over to them now would be a disaster.
Errr…well, not exactly peace. But we are keeping a lid on the worst of it.
I agree, Preston..The pot has been stirred so vigorously in Iraq that the only accurate terminology that could apply to describe the various elements in conflict would be total chaos. And we can only extract one immutable fact from all the chaos..”Freedoms on the March”
As for the first part, I would say my emphasis is on the peace agreements as fuelling the next conflict, rather than the war itself. As they say “war is the continuation of politics by other meansâ€. If the ‘peace’ leaves one side with a grudge, it does fuel the next war.
But vindictive peace agreements generally are a continuation — the last shot, if you will — of the war itself. If the peace agreement is punative (because of what happened during the war) then you can’t separate it from the war.
As for Iraq – because despite all the crap for the past three years there are signs that everyone is finally getting their act together.
And did you get these signs from a Ouija board? I sure haven’t seen them.
The biggest issue is that nobody trusts the government forces, so you need US forces to patrol and keep the peace while the government roots out corruption and sectarianism. Once the Iraq government is reliable, they’ll be able to take over. But turning things over to them now would be a disaster.
The question is whether US forces could keep the peace, no matter how hard we try. I think it’s clear that we cannot, and sending the few more troops we might be able to send will not make that big a difference.
But turning things over to them now would be a disaster.
There is no avoiding disaster. Disaster is upon us. Hell, disaster moved in and took over the living room some time back. The question is, is there a course of action that might tone down the disaster a couple of decibels, and if so is it worth the additional cost and risk to execute that course of action? I am skeptical.
I suppose we’ll have to differ there, as decisions on whether to make the peace putative or not are made by politicians and in my mind are different. If a well-crafted peace agreement is made, then there won’t be a future war. Or perhaps you could also look at Japan and Germany…if the seeds for a future war are planted in the past ones, then should we be worried that we’ll go to war with them again? Soon?
As for Iraq – there were some serious issues above and beyond our own mistakes. Especially given that Saddam ruled by dividing and conquering them, encouraging them to rat on each other, and killing anyone who was a threat. So what we got was a bunch of people that didn’t trust each other, had no problems lying, and didn’t feel any loyalty to the nation or anyone outside their immediate circle of family and friends.
We still could have handled things better, if we’d been prepared to. But at this point it really is in the Iraqis hands. Except. Except that they hadn’t really known how to act as a nation. Each group was out for themselves. And they passed along a lot of rumors and propaganda that was utter bullshit (like saying that 40,000 americans died in fallujah. Or that the sunglasses had x-ray vision and our soldiers were checking out their women.) And they really didn’t seem to have any concept of reality, because the Sunnis really thought they had enough people to take over. Despite being the minority.
So all of them were maneuvering for the best positions so that when we left they could rule…and since everyone was aiming for the same thing (but with conflicting overall goals. All want to rule Iraq, but some want a caliphate and some want Sunni rule like Saddam, and some want a Shi’a strongman, and some want a Shi’a theocracy) we know that they’ll all fight it out with each other in an all out dogfight. Which, despite the killings and intimidation and pressure on various groups, is not honestly at that point. Yet.
But there’s been a significant change in tone amongst the Iraqis. People from all the different groups seem to have realized what would happen, and don’t like it. Hence why we have the beginnings of a moderate bloc composed of Kurds, Sunni and Shi’a.
Iraq may still work out, but if so it will be at the Iraqi level. And they still need time to see which way its going to go.
Look, given that I am sitting in Baghdad right now, and have access to exactly which sectors have how much violence going on, plus translations of some of the Iraqi news briefs and various other things, I think I have a fairly good idea of just how bad it is.
And I think we’d be making a mistake to decide that there’s no hope, and to pull out unilaterally. If the trends I see don’t come to fruit in the three or four months, than we can honestly say all hope is lost.
Or perhaps you could also look at Japan and Germany…if the seeds for a future war are planted in the past ones, then should we be worried that we’ll go to war with them again? Soon?
Son, there is nothing that pisses me off more than somebody who comments on one of my posts without actually reading it. You just earned the twit filter prize. Goodbye.
I bet you’re not in Sadr City, Chris… Sight unseen, I’ll guarantee that you are nothing more than a prisoner of your location given the violence in Iraq. The short answer is you are hoping against hope to believe than anything Bush does can recitfy his blunder. Again I’m compelled to bring up Riverbend’s eloquently simple and profound wisdom as to what course America should take..” Just Go!”
Where’s the cut off for hope in Iraq? How long are we going to sit around saying, “Don’t give up yet, it might get better” before we can say, “It’s bad, it stops now”?
Wars can’t be tied in neat little packages with a bow on the day of surrender. There’s always an aftermath, and I’d argue that the American Civil War was not so much of an anomaly because the aftermath of the war (Reconstruction) was responsible for decades of conflict that might have been resolved earlier had the aftermath of war been handled better. And the Civil War itself sprang out of issues left unresolved in the aftermath of the American Revolution. My point, Chris, is that you can’t look at war and post-war peace agreements in separate vacuums. It’s all interconnected.
Incidentally, a number of people wound up in prison for treason-related charges after the Civil War, but the assassination trial happened so soon after Lincoln’s death that I think it distracted from public outcry for punishment for the war. (The assassination trial has a lot of interesting parallels to the “war on terror,” by the way, including the imprisonment of suspects without due process, torturing suspects into confessions, sketchy evidence, etc. The Moussaui trial comes to mind — since John Wilkes Booth died while being captures, the conspirators on trial were mostly tangentially related to the crime itself. But the public was so anxious to see someone pay for the crime that the show trial and subsequent executions were supposed to appease an angry nation, regardless of how flimsy some of the evidence was.)
Bonnie wrote (way upstream, comment 2):
I refuse to be included with those in the pharse “We did this.†I fought going to war in everyway I knew how. Wrote letters, fought with friends, and whatever else I came upon.
If you’re a US citizen sending a check to the US Treasury by April 15 of each year, you indeed are part of it. I went through the same anguish you did, and concluded that tax resistance was the measure of whether I was serious or not about stopping Bush. Cut the funds off to these bastards for their immoral acts. I’m ashamed to say that I couldn’t be bothered to upset my life by becoming a tax resistor. And so all this blood is indeed on my hands.
I don’t mean to single you out Bonnie, but I am amazed how often I hear arguments like yours voiced from people on the left, who are basically trying to disown the actions of our government, when they in fact are facilitating it by paying their taxes. Denial, ignorance, and bloodlust from righties is an unfortunate given, but we on the left need to own our part in this.
Back to the main topic, I read a bit from Deepak Chopra’s Peace is the Way: Bringing War and Violence to an End where he argues that the desire for war and violence is a natural part of our human makeup. At some level, we actually want war and convince ourselves by various rationalizations that it’s a reasonable course of action.
No wars are fought to establish peace and justice. WWII came closest to that, but I can’t think of any others.
I have to agree with Carroll’s assesment that ‘wars do lead to the next wars’ and I believe WWII fits into that mold, as well.. The Cold War strategy of containment grew out of the national consensus to never have another surprise attack like Pearl Harbor and made everyone hyper-aware of any threat, (real or perceived)especially after the Soviets got the bomb and continued with Sputnik, and the space race.
The Cold War strategy of containment grew out of the national consensus to never have another surprise attack like Pearl Harbor and made everyone hyper-aware of any threat, (real or perceived)especially after the Soviets got the bomb and continued with Sputnik, and the space race.
Ain’t it the truth! I remember back in the day my Dad used to justify the war in Vietnam by the attack on Pearl Harbor.
We had to destroy the village to liberate it.
It’s hopeless fools like Chris that brought Cheney and President Death to power.
It’s folks that really, really ought to know better like Senator Reid that are gonna let him keep killing and killing and killing and killing…
For no good reason.
None whatsoever.
Chris, we all see “trends” but the issue is not that there are trends or even what they mean. There not now nor has there ever been a valid reason for the United States Army or a coalition of the stupid to be in or near Iraq. There is nothing to win or lose except lives and treasure. We will gain, not lose, prestige and credibility by exercising common sense and withdrawing from Iraq thereby demonstrating the rationality that should be the hallmark of a great power. The “democratically-elected” government of Iraq is playing us for suckers and draining the resources that we desperately need at home. The sooner we awake to that fact, the sooner we can get back to more important, certainly more critical, domestic issues.
Chris, when I was in the US Navy, I knew a few guys who did MULTIPLE tours of duty in ‘Nam. You were not required to do more than one tour, and most guys counted with fear to 365, and a trip home. Usually those guys who volunteered to stay in ‘Nam were in it to avenge the loss of a comrade.
My point – being there (‘Nam or Iraq) and seeing some reason to risk your life in active combat does not validate the war. Viet Nam was a miguided misadventure and so is Iraq, tragicly, for the same reasons. (No real threat to America, endless costly confict with no exit strategy, steady stream of body bags) I salute you for being there, and doing your duty (I hope).
One thing you seem to be missing is that our occupation is fueling the Islamic jihad. MORE Moslems identify with radical Islam as a result of what THEY perceive as an invasion and occupation of Sacred land. I do not doubt your individual intentions are honorable, but over 70% of Iraqis think you should be killed. Radical Islam is MORE of a threat NOW than before 9/11 – BECAUSE we invaded and are occupying Iraq.
Good luck Chris – I hope you get your ass back home in one piece.
Moonbat: “If you’re a US citizen sending a check to the US Treasury by April 15 of each year, you indeed are part of it.”
But I don’t send them checks on April 15. They’ve already with-held part of my income, before I even got any of it. The best I can do is turn in a 1040 form, complete with as many deductions as I can legitimately list, so that _they_ send _me_ a refund check, later on. Realistically I cannot recover most of the money already taken by the taxman. In what sense am I responsible for the use of funds I never actually controlled and cannot expect to acquire?
Ah, but the taxes pay for my government, which I and others like me have a vote in. Well I did vote, and along with an overwhelming majority, rejected the war. The government’s response is to ignore our clearly-stated wishes.
I am indeed part of the war system, but not as one of its intended beneficiaries, still less as one of its controllers. I am more like its resource base. Involuntary.
And, paradoctor, if you didn’t pay your taxes, you would be in jail and lose your right to vote in that government. Also, if you are in jail, you are not allowed to own cats. Couldn’t live without my kitty cats.
I’ve been reading this blog for a couple of years now; and, I have a great respect for all the commenters here including moonbat. However, moonbat, I really believe that saying a person pays taxes, and therefore is part of the torture, war, death, and destruction caused by this immoral and inhumane President and his cohorts is just a bit too simplistic. I did not vote for any of the people who have created this chaos. And, I did as many things as I could within my limited resources and abilities to prevent them getting into office; but, I am only one small old American Indian woman with a chronic disease, and two very painful knees. Bush did not did not start this war and torture people because I told him to. I do not have to take responsibility for this just because I am an American and pay my taxes.
Pingback: The Heretik : On War and Denial
Pingback: Don’t know how to stop? « cannablog