'War' - what is the good of war ?

Huh? One wages war to acquire territory, resources, people, trade routes, prestige, or buffer zones. Or else to eliminate or subjugate rivals who pose threats, real or imagined, to those things.

Reply to Amity
I am glad to see your thread discussion and the article links, and I think that the ethics of war and peace is an interesting area.

I have always had a leaning towards pacifism and its philosophy. I found a CND badge when was I still at school and felt that the non violent protest of Ghandi was an important philosophy to follow. However, I am aware of it can be seen as a form of idealism to oppose war, and, of course, CND is against the idea of nuclear weapons, not war outrightly. There is also the big question of just and unjust war, but I do still believe it is better to find solutions which don't involve war.

I often try to get a white poppy rather than a red one, but that is not to say that I undervalue the people who lost their lives in the first and second world wars. But, I think that we have gone past the age of martyrdom and the couple of individuals who I know who joined the army hoped that they would not be in any frontline conflict. But, I also believe that avoiding war is the best option for leaders with all the sophisticated weaponry available because increasingly it looks more possible that mass destruction could occur.

I'm uncertain just what a philosophy of war is supposed to be. Is it an explanation of it? Is it the consideration of how war should be waged? Does it involve the question of when war is "just"?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

War is the result of an error of humanity. We have already moved past the biological reason to have conflict within the same species. The biological factor is that of fighting for the best genes to mate. Through our evolving intelligence, that drive has been put onto the idea of power. Instead of just going by the instinct of fighting for the chance of spreading one's genes, we've conjured up other reasons driven by those instincts as the core drive.

In the end, the politics involved in pushing for war usually comes from people who have primal minds, stuck in instincts because they are weak-minded. Like a catholic priest who can't stop touching his dick. People who are well-balanced and understand how to balance the ego and the collective rarely go to war, but instead collaborate, build and find solutions that last and are constructive.

Today though, most major powers of war mostly have a strong military as a necessary protection, but no one really wants to go to a major war (world war size), because it's draining resources and there are no resources left in the nations to conquer. War has become so destructive that it's not a viable solution to anyone except the stupid and crazy leaders (who are usually invaded early and executed before they can even try to do anything stupid).

The better way today is to use corporations and establish yourself in other nations. This is what China is doing. They establish a lot of power through corporations and economies outside their nation in order to control through that. Most major politicians know that corporations have more power in free-market capitalism than they would ever have as a political party. So they play the charade of democracy to the stupid sheep herd people who don't realize this and then they establish power through corporations powers overseas.

The second cold war that we live in today is so cold and silent that hell froze over.

@Amity @Sheps
This song is so popular amongst the Italians and Opera goers but beyond that I don't know because I grew up with this song being used as a lullaby by my Grands who came to America from Italy.
My Dad wanted it to be sung at his funeral, another promise I was unable to keep.
He was a family man and got out of the draft because of college and flat feet. My Uncle (his brother) quit Loyala medical school before his senior year and left for Vietnam.
The irony for me personally was impactful.


Ave Maria (Schubert) (With Pavarotti)
Bono

Bono:
Ave Maria
Where is the justice in this world?
The wicked make so much noice mother
The righteous stay oddly still
With no wisdom
All of the riches in the world
Leaves us poor tonight

And strength is not without humility
It's weakness and untreatable disease
And war is always the choice
Of the chosen
Who will not have to fight
Ave Maria

Pavarotti:
Ave Maria
Gratia plena
Maria gratia plena
Maria gratia plena
Ave ave Dominus
Te cum

Bono:
And strength is not without humility
It's weakness and untreatable disease
And war is always the choice
Of the chosen
Who will not have to fight

Bono and Pavarotti:
Ave Maria

Reply to Amity :up: "Best job I ever had."

War, even more so than religion (re: Göbekli Tepe?) or the plow, may have been our species' greatest organizing principle the last tens of millennia. In the preface to Infinity and Totality (which I don't have at hand to quote from at the moment), Levinas suggests that war is the complete negation (suspension? à la Kierkeegaard) of ethics and (my read) therefore, paradoxically, it's raison d'etre is to remind us to oppose and then how to recover from war.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=17CsLvJS4cc :death:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TLV4_xaYynY :flower:

Like the majority here on this forum (I assume), I am a man of peace and never seen war personally. I really hope that I or my children never see war. I have no illusions of war being just a distant thing happening somewhere else, that couldn't happen here. I don't think that people would be now more reasonable than in the 20th Century. War could happen even if at the present there is peace and good relations in this area of the globe.

My parents did remember WW2 as young children. My father remembered the bombings and being in air raid shelter, my mother remembered when she was six falling from a horse when riding to the country house when it was accommodating German soldiers in the summer of 1944. Both of my grandfathers fought in that war and they remembered from their own childhood the civil war, which basically was part of the Russian revolution during the WWI era. My country has never enjoyed such a long time of peace as we have seen now (thanks to the Crimean war disrupting an otherwise largely peaceful 19th Century as a Grand Duchy of Russia).

I don't have high hopes for the goodness of man, for universal pacifism or other high mindedness and pompous grandstanding. I believe in the old Roman saying from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

I think it is a proper and realistic way to confront one of the worst things humans do to each other. Deterrence along with friendly relations can sustain peace.

I know that the politicians of this country see war as not the likeliest, but the greatest threat possible to this country. I know that they and the military have taken and take dead seriously the possibility of war, unlike our Western neighbors that basically got rid of their large army after the Cold War ended and genuinely believed in a "New World Order" or something. As the only country that had fought on the axis side yet survived WW2 without an occupation, people here do believe that defending oneself is a rational thing to do. In many countries were the attempt of defending militarily the country from a bigger aggressor has meant only death, pain and humiliation, the attitude can be different.

If I would have been an American, I surely would support the troops, but would have never thought of volunteering to the military as I wasn't good in sports and haven't seen myself at all as the military type that Hollywood depicts (which is largely absolute bullshit). Here of course military service is obligatory and as I'm not a hippie I was conscripted and hence to my total surprise I found myself as a reserve officer in the war time army, which for some years I still will be.

Is there another philosophy for war?
I remember what once war veteran once told me: "In war never forget your humanity".

I think that is a great philosophy especially for an officer to remember.

Quoting ssu

I believe in the old Roman saying from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

:100:

Is there another philosophy for war?
I remember what once war veteran once told me: "In war never forget your humanity".

I think that is a great philosophy especially for an officer to remember.

Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius come to mind. Also the contemporary Stoicist writings of James Stockdale and Nancy Sherman.

As two time recipient of the medal of honor, Smedley Butler said:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses...

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912...

I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Reply to Manuel Gospel :fire: :death:

Reply to Manuel Ain't that the truth. I read the story in Niall Ferguson's Ascent of Money, of how the Rothschilds expanded their massive fortune on the back of the Napoleonic wars.

And imagine the money involved in the global arms trade today. Every time a Cruise missile is fired, some sales rep in Tucson Arizona probably makes a couple of hundred grand. That film, Merchants of War, tells the story.

But aside from all that, war is always the absolute worst-case scenario - especially in today's world. Wars have only ever been justifiable from a defensive perspective - I believe that the Allied forces had a moral imperative to win the Second World War so as to save the world from Hitler. But it can never be a good thing, especially now, with weapons that can destroy all life on earth. I'm just old enough to remember the Cuban Missile crisis, my parents were terrified by it. And I'm pretty scared of armed conflict involving China. Pray that never happens.

Reply to Wayfarer

Yep. The Cuban Missile crises was averted by one Russian general who refused to launch a nuclear missile as his submarine was being bombed.

Now people don't worry about nuclear weapons, when, as you say, the situation in Taiwan is extremely delicate. WWII is the exception, which could have been avoided had The Treaty of Versailles not been so harsh with Germany.

War is still about money and power.

Quoting Manuel

The Cuban Missile crises was averted by one Russian general who refused to launch a nuclear missile as his submarine was being bombed.

Never knew that! I was always of the view that Kruschev backed down at the last minute.

I studied origins of WWII at school, well aware of the role of Versailles and so on, but it still never would have crystallised without the meglomaniacal Hitler to drive it.

Noticed this CCN story on Chinese missile silos yesterday, sent a shiver down my spine.

I've also had the gloomy thought that the reason that SETI has never found a trace of another intelligent civilization is that any one of them that discovered nuclear war obliterated themselves before going interstellar. :yikes:

Reply to Wayfarer

Yeah. I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but it is surrounded by countries that have the capacity to hit them with nukes. It's not surprising they are responding in kind.

But it will likely lead to escalation...

The story of Arkhipov is quite nuts:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man

Fascinating. Links to another great PBS documentary by the look of it. Just finished watching HBO's Chernobyl last week. Also terrifying. (But then discovered these Russians. Put a whole different spin on it. :-) )

Reply to Wayfarer

I've yet to see that one. Yay, more doom and gloom.

Just what I need given the state of the world. :wink:

Reply to Manuel It was scarifying, but the best realistic production I've ever seen, by a long way. I've been interested in Chernobyl a long while, actually took a book out of the library on it once. The last episode gives a minute-by-minute breakdown of the single greatest cock-up in history. Also an incredible insight into the Soviet state mentality.

Reply to Wayfarer

Sounds interesting, I'll be sure to check it out.

Quoting StreetlightX

Huh? One wages war to acquire territory, resources, people, trade routes, prestige, or buffer zones. Or else to eliminate or subjugate rivals who pose threats, real or imagined, to those things.

'Huh?' - what is that supposed to mean. It sounds dismissive. Why did you feel you had to start off with that, huh ?

Let's look at 'threats real or imagined' - there are different desires are fears involved.
Fear of invasion. Desire for peace and security. Against different ideologies, competing religions.
Any war of independence isn't the elimination of a threat, as such, it is a response to actual conditions that prevent independence.

'War' can be at a personal level as well as global. Individual struggles to conquer inner demons, to find peace. None more so than the soldiers who are conflicted - their concerns that the war they are fighting might not be 'just' - the guilt involved. The realisation that comes when the pockets of dead enemy soldiers are picked or discovered - the diaries, the family photos - just like those carried by themselves. Who is the enemy ?

The moral issues creating an inner war.

Quoting Jack Cummins

I have always had a leaning towards pacifism and its philosophy

We can't talk about 'war' without discussing 'peace' and pacifism.
As usual, the SEP has an article and its definition.
When defined as 'anti-warism', we need to define war.

Quoting SEP: Pacifism

War is usually thought of as violence between states or, more broadly speaking, political communities. But the term “war” can also be applied to violent conflicts among individuals, as in Hobbes’ idea that the state of nature is a state of war. Similarly, although peace is usually thought of as a political condition of amicable relations between states, terms like “peace” or “peaceful” can also be used to describe a relation between individuals or even a person’s state of mind.

Quoting Jack Cummins

There is also the big question of just and unjust war, but I do still believe it is better to find solutions which don't involve war.

Indeed. We can even wonder what problem is it that war is supposed to be the solution for.
Is 'war' not the problem, in and of itself ?
How do we solve it ?

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

I'm uncertain just what a philosophy of war is supposed to be. Is it an explanation of it? Is it the consideration of how war should be waged? Does it involve the question of when war is "just"?

You and me both. I am not a student of war or 'philosophy of war'.
As to your questions, I would say 'All of the above and more...'.

The usual resources can be used to read more:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
https://iep.utm.edu/war/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_war

More than the various theories, I wonder about your own perspective and thoughts.

I asked earlier if 'war' is seen not as a solution but a problem in itself, how do we solve it ?
What sayest the Pragmatist or Stoic view. John Dewey, Epictetus ?

Quoting tim wood

...for many, not warring is not an option. Where there is no choice philosophy cannot be of much help unless peripherally. For the people who choose war, I don't see how that can be justified.

Well, we can ask : Is it true that 'not warring is not an option' ?

The only time an individual doesn't have choice is when they are conscripted, as in WWII.
Populations don't choose war, it is usually a decision made by those wielding political power.
As to it being 'justified', there are screeds written about 'just war' in philosophy.
For example:
https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/

Quoting Amity

'Huh?' - what is that supposed to mean. It sounds dismissive. Why did you feel you had to start off with that, huh ?

Because the OP seems to barely have anything to do with war. It reads like how someone who has spent too much time reading books treats war - as an issue of 'beliefs' and 'justifications' and 'ideologies' or else negative feelings. Your other posts speak of 'fear' and 'desire' and 'inner wars' and so on. It's like a 12 year old's view of war. War is material first and foremost. It involves arms, metal, wood and stone. It involves bodies and their destruction, the logistics of moving men and supplies across treacherous lines, the conquering of lands and the negotiation of geography. It involves production at home and the organization of economies for the sake of sustaining troops on battefronts longs distances away, along with defense infrastructure, among other things.The OP reads like an academic whose notion of war was formed by watching too many Hollywood war movies and reflecting not on war, but on how those movies made them feel.

If your thread on war begins with a discussion of feelings, it's probably not a thread on war, but some librarian's bookish take on it from the comfort of a cozy chair somewhere pontificating about war as a matter of ideas and feelings and erasing almost the entirety of what war has ever meant for human beings both today and throughout history. 'Inner war'? What a pathetic notion. The appropriation of the horror of one of the most destructive things that humans do to each other to be twisted into some New Age hippie kumbaya 'find yourself' nonsense. It's hard to imagine anything that makes more of a mockery of war and those who have suffered from it than this kind of spiritualization of it.

War & ethics:

War causes ethical inversion, a few instances of which are:

1. Killing is permissible and even glorified. Death to the enemy!

2. Rape becomes a crime more heinous than killing. War atrocities, crimes against humanity. The Koreans & Chinese have more or less forgiven Japanese-inflicted war casualties but so-called comfort women still, after even 7 decades, are seeking justice.

Quoting Christoffer

Instead of just going by the instinct of fighting for the chance of spreading one's genes, we've conjured up other reasons driven by those instincts as the core drive.

That's an interesting take. The 'chance of spreading one's genes', I would have thought would be more about making love than war. In one evolutionary sense, yes, 'war' and fighting is about 'survival of the fittest'.

Quoting Christoffer

most major powers of war mostly have a strong military as a necessary protection, but no one really wants to go to a major war (world war size), because it's draining resources and there are no resources left in the nations to conquer.

Global resources such as oil are still available to plunder...
The economic resources involved in war efforts are astronomical.
The profit gained is what some see as the 'good of war'.

Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff

...got out of the draft because of college and flat feet.

Wonder how he felt - relieved tinged with guilt ?

Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff

My Uncle (his brother) quit Loyala medical school before his senior year and left for Vietnam.

Did he survive ?

What do you think of the films portraying 'Vietnam' ?
Last night, I watched 'We were soldiers'...

Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ave Maria (Schubert) (With Pavarotti)
Bono

:sparkle:

Quoting 180 Proof

"Best job I ever had."

Thanks.
You might like this article - a personal story of tank warfare - March 2003, Iraq - discussing the film 'Fury'.
https://warontherocks.com/2014/11/best-job-ive-ever-had/

Quoting 180 Proof

Levinas suggests that war is the complete negation (suspension? à la Kierkeegaard) of ethics and (my read) therefore, paradoxically, it's raison d'etre is to remind us to oppose and then how to recover from war.

War as the negation of ethics. Permission to kill ?

The latter is an aspect which isn't really given much attention. The history of WWI and WWII shows the importance of fairness in treaty negotiations. One example:

Quoting Treaty of Versailles: Rise of the Nazis

The Treaty created much resentment in Germany, which was exploited by Adolf Hitler in his rise to power at the helm of Nazi Germany. Central to this was belief in the stab-in-the-back myth, which held that the German army had not lost the war and had been betrayed by the Weimar Republic, who negotiated an unnecessary surrender. The Great Depression exacerbated the issue and led to a collapse of the German economy. Though the treaty may not have caused the crash, it was a convenient scapegoat. Germans viewed the treaty as a humiliation and eagerly listened to Hitler's oratory which blamed the treaty for Germany's ills. Hitler promised to reverse the depredations of the Allied powers and recover Germany's lost territory and pride, which has led to the treaty being cited as a cause of World War II.[184][176]

Reply to ssu
Thanks for sharing your family story of WWII.

Quoting ssu

I don't have high hopes for the goodness of man, for universal pacifism or other high mindedness and pompous grandstanding. I believe in the old Roman saying from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

So, 'universal pacifism' might not be achieved but there are other kinds, perhaps more realistic.
Peacebuilding interventions - and asking questions about 'whose peace' for whose benefit and at what cost ? Peace has to become the more attractive option - how can that be done ?

'Si vis pacem, para bellum'.
From wiki:
Quoting Wiki

Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war."

The idea which it conveys also appears in earlier works such as Plato's Nomoi (Laws) and the Chinese Shi Ji.[3][4][5] The phrase presents the insight that the conditions of peace are often preserved by a readiness to make war when necessitated

Quoting 180 Proof

Is there another philosophy for war?
I remember what once war veteran once told me: "In war never forget your humanity".
I think that is a great philosophy especially for an officer to remember.
- ssu

Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius come to mind. Also the contemporary Stoicist writings of James Stockdale and Nancy Sherman.

:up:
A bit tired now after responding to posts - but all of these I have read to some extent, especially Marcus Aurelius...more later.

Quoting Amity

The 'chance of spreading one's genes', I would have thought would be more about making love than war.

It's basically what the conflicts within groups of primates are about. The dominant ape conquers over the weak and gets the girl. But since humans in civilizations aren't just thinking about food and sex, but unable to ignore such instinctual drives, it forms into other needs and wants. Some seek it in art, others in war.

Quoting Amity

Global resources such as oil are still available to plunder...
The economic resources involved in war efforts are astronomical.
The profit gained is what some see as the 'good of war'.

Resources like oil are going out of fashion, technology is much more interesting to governments today. There's still money in oil, but everyone knows they can't keep up the charade for long when floods and other environmental disasters keep getting worse, so they know they need a backup plan for their wealth and power.

But no one goes to war over resources. Why do that when you have proxy wars? Feed weapons into the hands of some minor forces and militias and pit them against other superpowers' little toy soldiers. It's basically the game Russia and US has played since far into the previous cold war.

I'm not saying the craving for resources is gone, it's just that no one but the crazy dictator will go to a world war in the name of it. Resources are gained by diplomacy or smart surgical strikes that are hard to blame the superpower for. "Giving weapons to these people wasn't supposed to make them terrorists, it's not our fault they became Al-Qaida."

The cold war era was an identity crisis for most superpowers. Eventually it led to the collapse of the soviet union and a massive decline in the popularity of war in US. Instead of doing another Vietnam, US took part in the Gulf war with much more emphasis on claiming oil than fighting communists. And they did it with more focus on technology as a means to fight the war than brute force numbers. The next big conflict was the post 9/11 Iraq war. This was based on a delusional president who tricked US into why they were there. But underneath it was all about oil, they wanted an excuse to setup moneymakers in the middle east so they used the anger of the US population after the 9/11 attacks.

Today, however, 20 years later, it's almost impossible to trick the people in the same way. Information flows much more freely. Conflicts have changed into information wars and cyber warfare. Why send troops when you can take out a nuclear power plant with a virus? A couple of years back there was an attack on a nuclear power plant in Iran. Made by an unknown virus that shut down many of the cooling rods. This virus was deemed created by a government and not something someone could just cook up in their basement. Everyone knows this was most likely a strike test by the US military. And it was successful.

The next big conflict will be so sudden and strange that people won't know what has happened before it's over. Surgical strikes are preferable over a nuclear blast. The superpower that finds a way to just flip a button and eradicate the enemies and leave a vacuum for the attacker to take power in, will be the way of war going forward.

Quoting Manuel

As two time recipient of the medal of honor, Smedley Butler said:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses...

War as a racket. That about sums it up. There has always been war profiteering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering

You can read the famous booklet by the ex high ranking Marine, here:

https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket/mode/2up

Quoting Wayfarer

Wars have only ever been justifiable from a defensive perspective - I believe that the Allied forces had a moral imperative to win the Second World War so as to save the world from Hitler. But it can never be a good thing, especially now, with weapons that can destroy all life on earth.

Agreed. The use of force is necessary at times for self-defence.
That is when 'pacifism' turns realistic...

Reply to Manuel Reply to Wayfarer
Thanks for interesting conversation. There's a lot there I didn't know about.
No surprise there - but, after all, that's why I started the thread :sparkle:

Reply to Amity :up: Thanks for the article. Also, "Versailles" flashed through my mind when I'd paraphrased Levinas' reflection on war.

Reply to Amity

Thanks. Good to see it available for free. :up:

Quoting Amity

Wonder how he felt - relieved tinged with guilt ?

I don't think he ever felt like he should fight in many ways. My Dad was a devote Roman Catholic and went to church daily for decades, just to light candles for his prayers up to coordinating the living Manger each Christmas.

Quoting Amity

Did he survive ?

Absolutely he survived and served 33 years to the USA Army from Vietnam to Desert Storm. My Uncle is a language specialist (7 languages the last being Spanish) and as a Master Sergeant he would be called up to be part of a mission and essentially creates the relations with the locals where they would be based. The only gun he ever had was his issued sidearm that was never fired in deployment except for one time when he managed to shoot himself in the stomach. No Purple Heart please!
His most soul touching memory was his first day in Cambodia. On his first day he held a baby boy, with distended stomach and very ill from starvation who sadly died that night in my Uncle's arms. He was crushed. The next morning he was brought to a clinic where he was able to hold a new born baby. I have never met someone so adamant of not letting any piece of food go to waste.
Amazing man who wishes to be buried at Abraham Lincoln Veterans Cemetery in Illinois, second in size only to Arlington.
:flower: :heart: :flower:

Quoting Amity

I asked earlier if 'war' is seen not as a solution but a problem in itself, how do we solve it ?
What sayest the Pragmatist or Stoic view. John Dewey, Epictetus ?

Marcus Aurelius spent a good part of his reign as Emperor at war, and died in his military headquarters in Pannonia (now Serbia). The Empire also saw famine and plague while he was Emperor. I'm amazed he found time to write his Meditations--but know of nothing he wrote specifically addressing war. I suspect his attitude toward it was that war was evil, but a necessary evil to sustain the Empire. From the standpoint of a Stoic Sage, I think war, if not defensive, would be viewed as motivated by concerns related to acquisition of territory. wealth and power, which are matters regarding which we should be indifferent, and contrary to virtue.

I'm not sure what Dewey felt about war, but suspect that he would feel context must be considered in assessing the appropriateness of judgments, and that as a result it's not possible to to draw absolute conclusions regarding it, if he addressed it as a philosopher.

Quoting ssu

I don't have high hopes for the goodness of man, for universal pacifism or other high mindedness and pompous grandstanding. I believe in the old Roman saying from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

And I believe in Cicero's assertion that silent enim leges inter arma, and think Sherman was right when he said war is cruelty and cannot be reformed.

Quoting Amity

So, 'universal pacifism' might not be achieved but there are other kinds, perhaps more realistic.
Peacebuilding interventions - and asking questions about 'whose peace' for whose benefit and at what cost ? Peace has to become the more attractive option - how can that be done ?

The distrust nations share doesn't go easily away. The Swiss still have a large reservist army even if it is crazy to think that the EU countries would invade it (or any other country would). Yet the Swiss have decided after a referendum to sustain their military and the country still opts to be non-aligned.

(Even if literally being inside the EU, the Swiss still have keep their fighters inside mountains. As the saying goes: the Swiss don't have an army, they are an army.)


Having armed forces being a deterrent and then welcoming cooperation between the nations is one way for peace to endure. In fact the US policy from Teddy Roosevelt of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick" could work, if there is no need to use that stick and there wouldn't be imperial (or post-imperial) aspirations. Unfortunately Teddy Roosevelt among others had those aspirations.

The real tragedy is that politicians (and people) will seriously work for cooperation and peace only after truly horrific wars. Nowhere, not even in China with it's large population, has more people been killed as in Europe during WW1 and it's sequel WW2. It sounds bleak, but I think that only with huge losses felt among the entire society jingoism and aggressive militarism is defeated. If war doesn't affect the ordinary person's life, if it's fought somewhere else with volunteers or robots, then the causes for going to war can be quite obscure and light. Many don't even know that their country is engaged in a low-intensity war even today, thanks to the obscuration of the line between peace keeping and war.

A real danger for ruinous wars are ideas like the Thucydides Trap. Just like with the "Domino Theory", these kind of ideas can get the World into wars. The worrisome thing is that there exist between the US and China (or Russia) these tragic vicious circles.

Quoting StreetlightX

Because the OP seems to barely have anything to do with war.

Quoting StreetlightX

it's probably not a thread on war, but some librarian's bookish take on it from the comfort of a cozy chair somewhere pontificating about war as a matter of ideas and feelings and erasing almost the entirety of what war has ever meant for human beings both today and throughout history.

Wrong.
The only bit you got somewhat right is 'from a chair'.
Like many here - discussing 'war' and sharing ideas - who don't have first hand experience of war, as usually thought of in military terms. Yourself included, perhaps ?
Quite the ridiculous leap from there to 'erasing...what war has ever meant for human beings...'.
But you know that.

Quoting StreetlightX

Your other posts speak of 'fear' and 'desire' and 'inner wars' and so on.

Correct. So what is the issue ?

You previously said:
"One wages war to acquire ..." - that is Desire.
"threats, real or imagined" - that is Fear.

Quoting StreetlightX

It involves arms, metal, wood and stone. It involves bodies and their destruction, the logistics of moving men and supplies across treacherous lines, the conquering of lands and the negotiation of geography. It involves production at home and the organization of economies for the sake of sustaining troops on battefronts longs distances away, along with defense infrastructure, among other things.

Of course it involves these things, but it does not exhaust all what is involved and does not cover all of the issues we are discussing.

Quoting StreetlightX

'Inner war'? What a pathetic notion. The appropriation of the horror of one of the most destructive things that humans do to each other to be twisted into some New Age hippie kumbaya 'find yourself' nonsense. It's hard to imagine anything that makes more of a mockery of war and those who have suffered from it than this kind of spiritualization of it.

It would have been better if you had used the quote function, to give context:

Quoting Amity

'War' can be at a personal level as well as global. Individual struggles to conquer inner demons, to find peace. None more so than the soldiers who are conflicted - their concerns that the war they are fighting might not be 'just' - the guilt involved. The realisation that comes when the pockets of dead enemy soldiers are picked or discovered - the diaries, the family photos - just like those carried by themselves. Who is the enemy ?

The moral issues creating an inner war.

The inner mental conflict of soldiers is well documented. This is nothing like a 'spiritualisation' exercise but a clear recognition of all types of suffering involved, not just the physical.
At the extreme, there is post traumatic stress disorder.
In the past, it was known as 'shell shock' for which there was little sympathy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/extra/series-1/shell_shocked.shtml

Terms like 'peace' and 'war' are not just for military talk.
They can be used to describe interpersonal relationships and, yes, even a person's state of mind.

You can't be unaware of any of this. So why the attack - the accusation of 'mockery', huh ?

Quoting 180 Proof

Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius come to mind. Also the contemporary Stoicist writings of James Stockdale and Nancy Sherman.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

And I believe in Cicero's assertion that silent enim leges inter arma, and think Sherman was right when he said war is cruelty and cannot be reformed.

Those just justify the position. But it is interesting to see how these historical people were totally aware of what they do to other people in war, be they the Romans or general Sherman who famously "made Georgia howl".

Reply to Manuel Smedley Butler is an interesting case. But then he fought in "the Backyard of the US" in the Banana Wars and in the Boxer Rebellion and saw quite openly American imperialism. His small booklet is worth reading.

I remember reading the memoirs of an American Sergeant Major from special operations (a Delta force operator). Even if obviously the author was patriotic, as an NCO he told things as they actually were, which made the story in the end comical (or grotesque), but it in it's way it just underlined how correct Smedley Butler had been (especially when comparing the time during the Reagan and older Bush years in Central America).

War has this curious way of intoxicating us and our societies. It shows how frighteningly adaptable and malleable we are. Yet that might be also our strength that we do adapt. Because it's usually not that only the so-called anti-social type who prevail in wars, it's how totally ordinary people do fight them. Military men and women are usually the most rational and pragmatic people and furthest from the erratic "artist" type. I think it the way how we as a species have rationalized war in our society that is the most surprising and puzzling things in our society.

Quoting Amity

"One wages war to acquire ..." - that is Desire.
"threats, real or imagined" - that is Fear.

Wrong. One is not blown to pieces by 'Desire'. It's not 'Fear' that drops bombs that decimates populations. This shamanisation of war into capitalized psychological categories (capitalised to give it some affectation of "depth") is the stupidest possible take on war. It's telling that war becomes so sanitized in your discussion that PTSD and "interpersonal relationships" are where the bulk of the emphasis lies. This is subject matter for Oprah and Dr Phil, not 'the philosophy of war'. The neoliberal drive to psychologize every possible phenomenon including war - the most impersonal of human phenomena - is a real discursive cancer, and it really needs to stop. Not only is it incredibly lazy - any reference to history, sociology, or power dynamics is mute - a phenomenon that is primarily historical, sociological, and related to power becomes medicalized and introspective. Want to discuss war? Well, open the DSM-V; search your 'feelings'. It's hard to imagine a more ass-backward way of approaching war.

Reply to ssu

I remember the late great Robert Fisk quoting a US soldier, don't know his rank, who was patriotic and wrote really well.

Chris Hedges has an interesting book on the things you are talking about called War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. Yes, it is very strange - but then again group psychology is extremely complex, we are all subject to such behavior, depending on our life's circumstances.

For a "Philosophy of War", perhaps we should read it as Just War Theory.
SEP has this for war: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/.
Just War Theory on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

I support Just War Theory and I think the public in most nations support Just War Theory too. If they find that a war has been for evil, there will be consequences to those responsible.

Quoting StreetlightX

The neoliberal drive to psychologize every possible phenomenon including war - the most impersonal of human phenomena - is a real discursive cancer, and it really needs to stop. Not only is it incredibly lazy - any reference to history, sociology, or power dynamics is mute - a phenomenon that is primarily historical, sociological, and related to power becomes medicalized and introspective.

:up: :up: :clap:

War! Kill OR Killed! That "OR" seems really, really (sorry couldn't think of a better superlative) important!

Avoiding War - Philosophy of Peace
War requires money, money, and money. As simple as that. Okay how we get money from? From taxpayers, selling an unborn generations as debt slaves, and so on.

The war in Afghanistan cost U.S. taxpayers more than two trillion dollars so far. What happened to that amount of money? Where did it go? Funny because that money exists in physical form even now, but it became totally worthless. The inflation has eaten it up completely.

What is missing is the fruit of two decades of work of Americans, their investments, the future of their children, creativity, talent, and their hard work that didn't pay off. It did not benefit society. It was not invested back into the economy, but consumed by the military industry.

U.S. taxpayers worked for virtually free for twenty years for their own government to finance the meaningless war on the other side of the world. The war which solved nothing. And even God knows how long their children will work for the same war for free to repay the huge public debt. Which will never happen, but the debt slavery will still remain.

One of the ancient great Christian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus said: inflation is the mother of war, and of course the mother of taxation.

What do you think? Is it really worth fighting the endless and meaningless war of the ruling elite? Is the life is not short enough for doing this?

SP

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

From the standpoint of a Stoic Sage, I think war, if not defensive, would be viewed as motivated by concerns related to acquisition of territory. wealth and power, which are matters regarding which we should be indifferent, and contrary to virtue.

I'm not sure what Dewey felt about war, but suspect that he would feel context must be considered in assessing the appropriateness of judgments, and that as a result it's not possible to to draw absolute conclusions regarding it, if he addressed it as a philosopher.

Thanks for your response. War motivated by desire as being 'contrary to virtue', therefore seen as a problem ? What about war as motivated by fear, same thing ?

I always have to think about what 'indifference' means. As a reminder:
Quoting thewisemind.net

Indifference exists between good and bad. Stoics claimed that virtues are desirable, while vices should be casted away. Therefore, indifference appears to be the gray area between these two categories. It is important to note that both vices and virtues are within our control, because we can control our mind and will, and therefore we have power over our actions. Things that are indifferent lie completely out of our control, and this is very important to remember for Stoics. In the Enchiridion, Epictetus further explains the difference between the things we can control and the things we cannot.

So, desires related to war are those we should be 'indifferent' to. But 'War' itself - and the related issue of 'Fear'; the concepts, experience and function of ?
If war is seen as a problem rather than a solution, how would pragmatists deal with this, as per their decision-making process?
And with regard to education about war and fear, I mentioned stoicism and pragmatism here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/573670

Grateful for your thoughts.

Quoting ssu

War has this curious way of intoxicating us and our societies. It shows how frighteningly adaptable and malleable we are. Yet that might be also our strength that we do adapt. Because it's usually not that only the so-called anti-social type who prevail in wars, it's how totally ordinary people do fight them. Military men and women are usually the most rational and pragmatic people and furthest from the erratic "artist" type.

I had a quick look at this - what do you mean by 'the so-called anti-social type' and how do they 'prevail in wars' ? Examples ?

'How totally ordinary people do fight them' - the ordinary as opposed to the military person who fight in wars have been either conscripted or they stay at home, supporting and coping - even with all the traumas involved.
The 'totally ordinary' become out-of-the-ordinary in how they feel and act in such a scenario.
There is a whole spectrum of views and arguments...from strong to weak...how humans are affected.

That includes the military and artistic types. Why would you describe the latter as 'erratic' ?
The conscripts fighting in the trenches included all types.
A lot of what we know about war is from the poets who fought and suffered.
They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war. Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen being the most memorable from WWI.
Other artists changed how we view war. Well, some of us.

Quoting Wiki

His poetry both described the horrors of the trenches and satirised the patriotic pretensions of those who, in Sassoon's view, were responsible for a jingoism-fuelled war.[2]

Clearly, military personnel are probably not given to poetic thoughts as they follow out orders. But even if rational and pragmatic, imagination is still required to arrive at creative solutions.
Problems are not just technical in nature with a manual to follow...not so very far from being 'artistic' by using their skills and thinking of 'brotherhood'.

Quoting Amity

I had a quick look at this - what do you mean by 'the so-called anti-social type' and how do they 'prevail in wars' ? Examples ?

It's the idea that people who don't fit into the peace-time society, have brawls with the police or end up in jail then show their potential as being great soldiers. It's a popular storyline in war films and books. Basically it's a myth. The reality is different, with the worse example perhaps being the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger.



Quoting Amity

That includes the military and artistic types. Why would you describe the latter as 'erratic' ?

Erratic in the positive way, not something regular. Art that catches our attention is something out of the ordinary. And artists generally show in their work, whatever it is, human feelings.

Quoting Amity

The conscripts fighting in the trenches included all types.

All servicemen, volunteers and professional soldiers include all types of people. Somehow many people think that those drafted, conscripts, are "people like us" where people volunteering for military service are different. It's degrading to think so. When you have such large numbers of people, there are all kinds of people involved and the idea of one "military-type" is wrong (even if you can find the occasional stereotype). If people's perception of the military is what Hollywood represents it to be, it's far from the actual reality of ordinary military life and those who serve.

Besides, armies have for all known history trained those individuals representing all types of people to act in uniform as an organized group. It's simply a pragmatic issue: the better controlled, coordinated and organized force likely will prevail. A combat situation is obviously dangerous and extremely stressful, hence military training focuses on learning to operate in such dire situation. Automatic responses and learning by heart practices help in such situation to operate.

Quoting Amity

They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war.

And how many in the military are for war? It's like saying that doctors and medics are for disease and accidents.

Quoting Amity

Clearly, military personnel are probably not given to poetic thoughts as they follow out orders.

To follow orders, yes. But to serve in the military, they are given a lot of those "poetic thoughts". Still, the hire-for-money-willing-to-serve-anybody mercenary is an rare oddity. In fact the modern private contractor business has long been taken under the control of the intelligence services of the great powers. I think the South African Executive Outcomes was for a while genuinely offering "will serve without political links" service.

Quoting Amity

Problems are not just technical in nature with a manual to follow...not so very far from being 'artistic' by using their skills and thinking of 'brotherhood'.

True, but the pragmatism of the human endeavor like in the military and in war is many times sidelined to make a statement about politics or the society in general.

The intelligent people must WAR against the LESS INTELLIGENT!!!!! There’s no way democracy will save us. The majority (ignorant) will drive us in the dirt

Reply to ssu :100:

Reply to ssu
Thanks for clarifying with such a substantive and thought-provoking response.
So many points to discuss but, right now, I'd like to focus on:
Quoting ssu

They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war.
— Amity
And how many in the military are for war? It's like saying that doctors and medics are for disease and accidents.

A question I raised in the OP:
Quoting Amity

Many politicians and the medical profession still use war vocabulary to further their agendas or projects.
Should we be changing the way we approach such issues - having a 'War Cabinet' about Brexit or a 'War on Cancer' ?

So, the analogy is interesting one to consider; there are similarities but also many differences.
Where to start...
How many in the 'military' standing 'for or against' war compared to individual health professionals 'for or against ' disease and accident.
The military:
Quoting Wiki: Military

A military, also known collectively as armed forces, is a heavily armed, highly organized force primarily intended for warfare. It is typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform.

...of uncertain etymology, one suggestion being derived from *mil-it- – going in a body or mass.[5][6]
As a noun, the military usually refers generally to a country's armed forces, or sometimes, more specifically, to the senior officers who command them.[4][7] In general, it refers to the physicality of armed forces, their personnel, equipment, and the physical area which they occupy.

As an adjective, military originally referred only to soldiers and soldiering, but it soon broadened to apply to land forces in general, and anything to do with their profession

Anyone who signs up for the military know what they are signing up for.
They take an oath. In the US, it includes defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to obey the the orders of the President.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/oath-of-enlistment-3354049

Another discussion could be had about who the President might consider a 'domestic enemy'.
Think protest march v riots. Who are the 'patriots' ? Who the traitors ?

So, individuals acting within this 'machine' are not mechanistic robots but include:
Quoting ssu

...all types of people to act in uniform as an organized group. It's simply a pragmatic issue: the better controlled, coordinated and organized force likely will prevail.

There is a need to strip away some individual identity. To obey orders without question. The training is tough and designed to harden.

The danger of this lies in taking a dehumanising attitude towards the 'enemy'.
https://www.soldiersforthecause.org/2012/03/21/dehumanization-eliminates-the-guilt/
Quoting Dehumanization Eliminates the Guilt

So the cat is out of the bag… Soldiers kill people. Now what are we going to do about it? And the big one at the moment is the case of Robert Bales. It’s the major issue that has spearheaded this sudden distaste for the ravages of war — the issue of the American soldier that killed 16 civilians in Afghanistan. But what did he do wrong really? We can criticize in our recliners, but few of us have actually been those dogs of war crying havoc...

Turning to the health profession - the oath. There are variations and updates of the Hippocratic Oath.
Important aspects:
Quoting The BMJ :Is the Hippocratic oath still relevant to practising doctors today ?

For Warriner, the original oath still resonates, particularly the phrase: “I will utterly reject harm and mischief,” which is commonly misquoted as “First do no harm.” He says, “For me that fits perfectly with not over diagnosing, not over treating, and sharing decision making.”

He finds the vow, “I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being,” which was included in the 1964 version of the oath, particularly meaningful. “When I teach juniors about how to help patients I remind them these are not blood tests—they are people,” he says.

So, to return to the analogy, individual health professionals are not 'for' or 'against' disease and accident.
The militaristic or 'war' language is not helpful as this article explains from a nursing perspective:
Framing the pandemic as a war, with battles and sacrifices, sends the wrong messages

https://rcni.com/nursing-standard/opinion/comment/covid-19-why-we-need-to-ditch-military-terms-160071

Quoting Covid 19 - Why we need to ditch the military terms

We call it a ‘fight’, with individual battles and skirmishes and sacrifices to be made, and when lives are lost, we make death an honourable and heroic martyrdom.

That last sentence was difficult to write. I felt awkward writing it and you may feel uncomfortable reading it because as I type these words from the safety of isolation, my colleagues are facing serious risk. Many lives have already been lost.

We all feel heartbroken at the loss of our colleagues but we must not accept that their deaths were necessary or inevitable – this is not a war and it is not what nurses joined the profession for. We should not be expected to give our lives for our work.

Therein lies the biggest difference.
Soldiers join up with full knowledge that involvement in killing might result in their death.
That is the greatest sacrifice of all.
They are 'for' war or defence of their country and people in that respect. To that degree.
A highly developed sense of duty. For better or worse...

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

Marcus Aurelius spent a good part of his reign as Emperor at war, and died in his military headquarters in Pannonia (now Serbia). The Empire also saw famine and plague while he was Emperor. I'm amazed he found time to write his Meditations--but know of nothing he wrote specifically addressing war. I suspect his attitude toward it was that war was evil, but a necessary evil to sustain the Empire.

[ emphasis added * ]

I had meant to say Thanks for this.
I have read his Meditations and likewise wondered how he found the time.
But this was a case of making time. As a way to help order and clarify his thoughts.
A necessary daily practice to cope with all the vicissitudes and responsibilities.
Like having to make war as a necessary evil.

* I had thought of looking up the index, but I take your word for it :smile:

Reply to Amity War is used as to define serious dedicated engagement and that the issue tackled is extremely important and if not solved even an existential threat. Or something like that. I remember in Mexico City the traffic jams are so huge and the traffic so awful that people refer to going into traffic as "going to war". Well, naturally actual war is very, very different.

Quoting Amity

Anyone who signs up for the military know what they are signing up for.
They take an oath. In the US, it includes defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to obey the the orders of the President.

The interesting question is just who signs up for war? Consider my country, for example. Here in Finland the Constitutions says the following:

Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence, as provided by an Act.

Notice that it means every citizen, man or woman. And only after the 1970's a further exemptions have been made for military conscription for males:

Provisions on the right to exemption, on grounds of conscience, from participation in military national defence are laid down by an Act.

Before the 1985 for example Jehova witnesses for their grounds of conscience went to jail for 11 months when they refused conscription. And that act doesn't exempt Finnish males at wartime: they still are in a category of being reserves. Only at the age of 50 for soldiers and 60 for officers is when reserve duty ends.

(Men, largely Jehova witnesses, who had abstained from military or national service at a special camp (read=jail) in Finland in 1968.)


This just shows that many countries, which are quite peaceful and democratic, have these quite totalitarian rules to be possibly implemented, even if they are very improbable. Such draconian laws might come as a surprise to people as they aren't obviously talked much about.

This also shows how totally different the role of the armed forces can be. In many Western countries that don't have a potential enemy lurking on their physical borders, the armed forces are made usually up of voluntary professional soldiers that are there to participate in international operations. Then there many armies in Third World countries that basically concentrate at the domestic security issue and often are nearly the only working part of the government (which makes things problematic). The role can be quite different.

Quoting Amity

Another discussion could be had about who the President might consider a 'domestic enemy'.
Think protest march v riots. Who are the 'patriots' ? Who the traitors ?

Interesting question. I'll just answer about the use of military force. How "patriotic" is to defy your government and resort to "extra-parliamentary opposition" is another question I think.

To bring in the military to any domestic problem is a sign of defeat. That basically means the police or the legal system is incapable of handling the issue. Do notice the lengths that the US military went to for the active military units NOT to be used during the turmoil of the Trump presidency. Using active military can be also a statement like with Eisenhower ordering paratroops of the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock because of school policies.

(Safety in going to school?)


Yet when the military is used, it also gives credibility to those who are engaged. Remember that prior to 9/11 terrorists belonging to the same cabal of islamist tried to bomb and pull down the Twin towers. They failed, only a few people were killed and the whole thing was a police matter. The terrorists were found by the FBI in Pakistan and tried in ordinary courts and put into a normal jail.

Imagine an US President doing the same after 9/11: coming out and saying that this is now a police investigation and the FBI will be on it. And the investigations would have gone on for years.

Nope. That would have been something that the American psyche wouldn't have tolerated. President Bush would have been a weak dick, a pussy.

Bush had to go to war. Invade Afghanistan. Use the armed forces and invade a country. And for the matter, an Al Gore administration would have done the same. Absolutely. Again the reason was that a) the US could do it, b) it would not upset the ordinary life of Americans and c) Americans are accustomed on actions like that. And I'm really not blaming Americans here. I think that the vast majority of people in this World in the situation of the US (having a huge army) would have acted the same way.

Quoting Amity

'Absolutely NOTHING' as Edwin Starr sings ?

The good of war is it allows us to express and live the desire for war inside of us.

Reply to hope "The good of war is it allows us to express and live the desire for war inside of us." . . . and if I never am put into such a situation or do not join the armed service to put my life on the line to fulfill this desire then as a person i'll forever regret as well as atone for this failure.