Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
It often seems somewhat silly to continue these conversations after a few days away, when the thread has grown cold, but your comments are so thoughtful and well-informed that I'm going to do it anyway.
If everyone avoided war at all costs, we wouldn't have any war. Of course, that will probably never happen, but it should happen. That is the point of the argument: a principled stance against war on everyone's part would result in peace. It is not realistic at this time, but it is a worthy goal.
This is true - it cannot be argued with. As things stand now, ultimate power is achieved through organized violence. However (as you point out), violence is the option for states and people who have nothing else - no resources, no moral leadership capabilities, no wealth. War is the first resort of tyrants and weaklings - war is a result of failure by any other civilized means. War should always be viewed as such.
This is a perfect example of a "just war," And it does lead inevitably to:
Ah, but the Iraq war is a great example of the consequences of the "just war" argument, played out in real-time, in our lifetimes. The results are an unmitigated failure.
The American neoconservative version of preemptive war as political tool has been a disaster in terms of lives lost and uprooted, wealth squandered, a culture ransacked, and the credibility and moral standing of the aggressor (the United States of America) being completely trashed. In addition, (and most importantly from a political perspective), the preemptive war strategy allowed Iran (the greater threat) to prevail.
We now face the very scenario we were trying to avoid: a belligerent state arming itself with nuclear capabilities. We find ourselves in a position roughly analogous to the democratic states in the mid 1930s due (in part) to our misguided belief that strategic preemptive war is the answer to our problems.
There are things that I think are well worth dying for as well. However, I don't want to have to kill and die for the things I love and hold dear. Fighting and dying is always a bad thing. I spent some of my formative years as a child on military bases, and members of my family are military lifers. Even they agree that war is hell.
A) That's why Lennon said that he's a dreamer, and so is everyone else who agrees with him. Humanity's reach should always exceed its grasp.
B) I disagree, there are many more things that unite humans than divide us. You almost contradict yourself in the next paragraph:
War is a political tool whether we like it or not. I simply don't agree that war should be avoided at all costs.
If everyone avoided war at all costs, we wouldn't have any war. Of course, that will probably never happen, but it should happen. That is the point of the argument: a principled stance against war on everyone's part would result in peace. It is not realistic at this time, but it is a worthy goal.
Politics can be many different things, from petty self-enrichment to vast efforts to better the lot of mankind. But there is one thing that it is always, without exception, about: Power. No matter what you want to achieve, power represents the ability to achieve it. You need it for altruistic aims as much as for anything else. And, military force is in the end the ultimate power trump. It is the only thing that allows you to exercise physical control in the face of even complete opposition. It decides, in short, who has the remote control. Historically, it has served as the better part of the basis for political power. Hence, war isn't simply a moral problem or an oudated and questionable practice, it is a part of politics that can't simply be jettisoned. The capacity for organised violence will always be there, and it will always offer tempting options to states and people who have few others.
This is true - it cannot be argued with. As things stand now, ultimate power is achieved through organized violence. However (as you point out), violence is the option for states and people who have nothing else - no resources, no moral leadership capabilities, no wealth. War is the first resort of tyrants and weaklings - war is a result of failure by any other civilized means. War should always be viewed as such.
The point involved here is in my opinion an important one. In 1933, when Hitler came to power, Germany was disarmed and militarily helpless. By 1939, Germany had re-armed to superpower status. They wouldn't have had any chance to sustain a major war during those early years. Nor for that matter would Hitlers regime have had much chance to survive one politically - as late as the Munich crisis in 1938, the German army leadership were ready to depose him in a coup de etat rather than end up fighting the Western powers.
For most of the thirties, Hitler's Germany was acutely vulnerable. What enabled Hitler to nevertheless achieve a string of bloodless conquests was the fact that the democracies embraced exactly the philosophy you argue for: They were more interested in avoiding war with Germany than they were in anything else, and acted accordingly. And here's the rub - without any credible implicit threat of war, their non-violent tools also became meaningless. Political pressure or diplomatic protests or League of Nations resolutions became just words that Hitler could choose to simply ignore, which he did. Hence, by treating war as something that must be avoided at all costs, the democracies robbed themselves of any capacity they might have had to prevent one.
This is a perfect example of a "just war," And it does lead inevitably to:
I know that this is starting to look like an argument for the Iraq war by proxy, which it isn't. The point is, again, that if you refuse to consider military force a political tool, you prevent yourself from using it as one, which again risks increasing the likelihood of what you want to avoid.
Ah, but the Iraq war is a great example of the consequences of the "just war" argument, played out in real-time, in our lifetimes. The results are an unmitigated failure.
The American neoconservative version of preemptive war as political tool has been a disaster in terms of lives lost and uprooted, wealth squandered, a culture ransacked, and the credibility and moral standing of the aggressor (the United States of America) being completely trashed. In addition, (and most importantly from a political perspective), the preemptive war strategy allowed Iran (the greater threat) to prevail.
We now face the very scenario we were trying to avoid: a belligerent state arming itself with nuclear capabilities. We find ourselves in a position roughly analogous to the democratic states in the mid 1930s due (in part) to our misguided belief that strategic preemptive war is the answer to our problems.
Okay, I agree different interpretations are possible. But it's hard to escape the sense that it paints a vision of bliss that is based on nobody caring much anymore about anything other than comfort and a sense of community, which is the exact essence of Nietzsche's last man. "Nothing to kill or die for". Well, I can imagine a certain number of things that I actually think is well worth dying for, and I consider it an important measure of their worth that I (and others) am.
There are things that I think are well worth dying for as well. However, I don't want to have to kill and die for the things I love and hold dear. Fighting and dying is always a bad thing. I spent some of my formative years as a child on military bases, and members of my family are military lifers. Even they agree that war is hell.
As an actual vision of humanity and its direction, an additional problem of course is that it's simply fundamentally disconnected from the basic nature of reality and mankind, which is annoying enough in itself when it is pursued to such extreme lengths that it lapses into escapism. The world doesn't work like that. People don't work like that. Those aren't the real issues. There generally isn't really, in point of fact, that many things who unite us, globally speaking.
A) That's why Lennon said that he's a dreamer, and so is everyone else who agrees with him. Humanity's reach should always exceed its grasp.
B) I disagree, there are many more things that unite humans than divide us. You almost contradict yourself in the next paragraph:
That being said, on reflection I must grumblingly admit that it does broadly stake out the direction in which we have been trying to move for the last few decades, and that I wholeheartedly agree with. The more focus there is around the world on common interest rather than points of conflict, the better it is. The more peace, the less war, the better. Maybe I'm just not very disposed to utopianism?