June 16, 2005

2. WAR CAN BE A TOOL FOR PEACE

In the second of my series on undeniable but commonly denied truths we will address how war can be a tool for peace. As luck would have it I ran across this excellent essay by Victor Davis Hanson entitled "The Utility of war" which coincides exactly with my thinking on this subject. I will discuss and show some excerpts here but a full reading of this essay is highly recommended.

We constantly hear how war never solved anything or that democracy cannot flow from the barrel of a gun. We also hear the praises of negotiated peace and unilateral disarmament. Is this sage advice based on historical lessons learned or is it more a product of pacifism, fear or subversion?

In an age when evil is being rejected more and more why does war break out?

Recently, we are told, the causes are twofold: ignorance and misunderstanding.
We are asked to understand root causes and temper our responses in understanding for past hurts real or imagined. While this may be useful on an individual basis it becomes problematic when trying to communicate in a personal way with an entire region where obstacles of language, culture, politics and logistics present formidable obstacles. Even here in America we are often unable to manage this kind of education. Besides, there are innumerable adjacent cultures that suffer chronic episodes of misunderstanding and yet do not go to war.

There are two more elements that must be considered, will and opportunity. There must be a perceived benefit and also a reasonable assurance of victory or at least an expectation of no retaliation.

So what does this have to do with war being a tool for peace? As long as two sides are hostile and unable to resolve conflicts the groundwork for war is always in place. Even a negotiated peace that does not also resolve the underlying conflicts will at best lead to a temporary peace or uneasy truce. This can be seen today in Korea, India/Pakistan, Bosnia/Serbia and to some degree in Israel/Palestine. To varying degrees all of these are uneasy negotiated truces which constantly break out in open conflict or rising tensions.

War on the other hand can be instrumental in washing away the old divisions much like melting several pieces of metal into a new whole. But for it to do this the victory must be total.

... clear victory can settle long-existing problems immediately in a way negotiated armistices cannot, as wounds are closed rather than allowed to fester for decades. Had George McClellan won the 1864 presidential election, a negotiated peace might have temporarily prevented another Antietam. But such a bellum interruptum certainly would have meant another generation of slavery and soon another round of fighting with weapons far more deadly than what finally appeared in 1865. In this regard, we should recall that the exhausted German army of 1918, perhaps qualitatively the most deadly infantry force the world had yet seen, surrendered in France, not Germany, later claiming it had never been defeated in the field but rather was "stabbed in the back" by "Jews, Communists, and traitors" in Germany. General John Pershing's idea of a victory march into and occupation of Germany was overruled by President Wilson. Such utopianism was not repeated by the Allies in World War 11, when the Third Reich and Japan were not merely defeated, but humiliated, their homelands occupied, and their machinery of government radically transformed.

Criticism is often voiced of stern demands for "unconditional surrender," firmness that purportedly causes needless casualties like at Hiroshima and prolongs the misery of war, as defeated powers dig in rather than have their homelands occupied or destroyed. Yet in the long run an insistence on abject surrender saves lives when truly evil regimes capitulate rather than bargain their way out of humiliation. Japanese citizens vote today because of the beating their grandfathers took on Okinawa and on the homeland from the U.S. Army Air Forces. Yet, had we brokered a deal after Iwo Jima, the wounded imperial government might well have recovered and been as provocative today as is North Korea-a regime that in fact never surrendered to the United States.

Today we have little to worry from either Germany, Italy or Japan. Not only are they no longer a threat, they are solid democracies.
We should appreciate the frequent utility of war, or at least the use of military force to stop aggression, dismantle malevolent states, and kill leadership intent on harming tens of thousands of innocents. The great ills of the last three centuries were largely ameliorated by war, not mediation. Our own freedom from monarchy and tyranny was achieved at Yorktown, not through shuttle diplomacy with London. Without war, the United States, for good or ill, would today probably more resemble Canada, which nearly a century after 1776 was gradually and peacefully evolving toward independence, rather than our own unique and more vibrant culture of radical egalitarianism, individualism, and economic dynamism that was born from musket fire.

A series of compromises for most of the first half of the nineteenth century did not end chattel slavery in America, but rather only prolonged and perhaps in some sense exacerbated the divide between South and North. Instead, Lincoln, with his brilliant military captains, Grant and Sherman, at a cost of some six hundred thousand American dead and billions of dollars in property and capital losses, nevertheless subdued in less than four years the rebellious South-a region as large as Western Europe-and ensured an end to slavery and a united nation for good.

The four great plagues of the twentieth century-German nazism, Italian fascism, Japanese imperialism, and Soviet communism-were all ended either through outright fighting or the threat of war, the butcher's bill made worse by the delays in using force to thwart such murderous regimes in their infancies.

Perhaps ancient Greek philosophers were right, after all: War per se is not evil, but rather its morality hinges on the reasons for, and the manner under which, individual wars are fought. Appeasing Hitler in the 1930s ensured the Holocaust; standing up to him in 1936 might have saved millions of soldiers and civilians alike. Simply invading North Vietnam and destroying the Communist dictators in Hanoi would have been a more moral act than either carpetbombing South Vietnam or allowing a Communist victory and the subsequent murder and exile of millions.

Complete essay here.

Posted by Sid at June 16, 2005 12:05 AM | Truths

Comments