Were all wars pointless?

Have there been wars that, looking back, may be described as justified or that created “progress?”

Or were all wars pointless? Does it even make sense to ask this question?

Jean Amery writes: One should not and must not leave the past undisturbed, or it may rise once more and become a new present.

Let us look at the wars in Iraq first. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. A few months later, a Coalition led by the USA began the fighting to liberate Kuwait. Kuwait was free just a few days later and the Iraqi troops suffered a devastating loss.

In 2003, a war was once again started in Iraq and led by the USA. The USA had suspected Iraq’s dictator at the time, Saddam Hussein, to be in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). They toppled Saddam Hussein and pursued the goal of bringing a democratic government to power.

The Liberation of Kuwait by the armies of the Coalition was, without a doubt, a justified and successful operation.

In contrast, the Invasion of Iraq, which consequentially led to the toppling of the dictator, Saddam Hussein, must be described as a huge disaster.

The claim that Saddam Hussein had been developing WMDs turned out to be false. It is true that he supported terrorism and oppressed his people. But may allegations as these legitimize military interventions in the future? The Invasion of Iraq claimed many lives among Iraqi civilians and after the war was over, the situation deteriorated and resembled a civil war. This was an advantageous condition for terrorist attacks and the spread of the so-called Islamic State.

The intention to install a democratic government was completely unrealistic! The hope remains that the insight finally asserts itself that democratic governments can only be installed in countries with a population that is ready for it.

Were any lessons learned?

The conflict in Syria began in 2011 with peaceful demonstrations which quickly turned into armed clashes with the authoritarian regime of Assad. A large number of armed groups fought for power, who also represented the interests of foreign powers.

The heterogeneity of the Syrian state and society leads to a great potential for conflict. The Sunnis represent the majority of the population. The religious minorities include Shiites (Alawites, Druze), Yazidi and Christians. President Bashar al-Assad belongs to the Alawites. Most rebels were Sunni, who felt oppressed by Assad.

Starting in November 2012, the secret service CIA massively supported the rebels by means of covered operations (Wikipedia: Civil War in Syria since 2011).

From July 3013, the Obama Administrations only openly supported “moderate” rebels with weapons.

The “Islamic State” benefited from the chaos in Syria and quickly conquered large areas of the country. It could only be pushed back once US and Russian fighter jets intervened.

Half a million Syrians have lost their lives due to the war and more than 5 million have fled abroad.

Why did the Syrian people have to suffer? The rebels, the Obama Administration and many European states supported the removal of the despot, Assad. They received moral support from renowned newspapers in the US and Europe. Most newspapers were of the opinion that peace would not be possible with Assad in power.

Sure, Assad is a dictator who can only cling to power using brutal violence. But what is the alternative?

In predominantly Muslim Syria, a culture dominates in which violence is and always has been commonplace. The conflict between Sunni and Shia is not a new phenomenon. 18 years after the Prophet Mohammed died, the Sunni and Shia resolved their disputes in bloody conflicts. I do not believe that the West can develop Syria into a functioning state.

The violent toppling of Gaddafi in Libya has also not concluded in great success.

       The military deployments of the West described above were all carried out in foreign cultures.

The conflicts in Yugoslavia occurred in the realm of our culture and a military intervention there should therefore be rather successful.

NATO’s intervention in Kosovo cannot be explained without the mass murder of Srebrenica. People in the West felt guilty for not having intervened in Srebrenica.

In 1999, the conflict between Serbs and insurgent Kosovo-Albanians had reached a level that made it impossible for the public to simply stand by. The intervention of NATO was meant to protect Kosovo’s civilian population.

NATO assumed that a few heavy air attacks against military targets would suffice to make the Serbs change course. However, the Serbs only changed their actions after civilian infrastructure was also targeted, which led to about 500 civilian casualties.

In the end, the intervention brought about the contended independence of Kosovo, where the weapons are now silent, however.

Are there further wars or interventions that one could rate as a success today?

A website titled “Wars of Humanity” lists more than 400 wars. We are no longer concerned with most of these wars and can only discern why people budded heads back then with great difficulty.

Yet the War of Secession in the US still keeps our minds busy these days. There are countless articles online and easily hundreds of books have been written about the American Civil War. Yet only very few actually ask whether this war was necessary and what would have happened, had it not been fought. When Abraham Lincoln, who is seen as an opponent to slavery, was elected President, the South seceded and proclaimed the Confederate States of America. Lincoln could not accept the dissolution of the United States’ unity and started the Civil War in 1861. 

In 2015, the Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote: “It was only by means of that war that the USA could ascend to become a world power. The conflict revolutionized the economy of the North.”

I, however, have my doubts that the North’s economy would not have become stronger even without the war. And even if that is the case, was it worth the death of 620,000 people - 2 percent of the American population?

In my Pacifism post of November 2017 I wrote:

In recent years there have been two principle reasons for armed conflict:

·       Minorities without any autonomous rights are held in the central state by force of arms in order to preserve the unity of the states. How many deaths is the unity of a state worth? It should become customary law that all minorities should be allowed to vote on how many autonomous rights they wish to claim.

·       Over the past two thousand years, ideologies and religions have repeatedly led to catastrophic wars.

I believe that the Confederate and Union States would have found a way back together after several decades even without this bloody war and that the inhuman slavery would also have been abolished in the South. The citizens of the North, who wanted to use armed force to control the states of the South, certainly meant well, but..... (cf. Foreign Policy of Oct. 2017).

The question does arise whether it is appropriate to interpret US history as a European. The assessment of the US Civil War still has an effect on the whole world to this day. Because if you are of the opinion that Lincoln had to invade the South to end slavery and preserve the Union, then you will take the same view today - that governments that violate human rights must be overthrown by use of force.

            

Fighting for the apparent good - Robin Hood Syndrome

When prehistoric man was surprised by an enemy, his body released adrenaline. His heart would beat faster, his breathing accelerated and the blood pressure increased.

Man was ready for a fight or flight in this mode. When man decided to fight, the excitement gave him enormous power and could lead to disinhibition, which allowed him to defeat the enemy.
The ability (disposition, drive) to fight enemies with great commitment is deep within all of us and was essential for survival. When the will to fight was weak in a tribe, it would perish.

While we live in the 21st century, the predisposition to fight against enemies is still fully developed.

In my “Peace” post in December 2017, I described how wars were waged almost continuously over the last 3000 years. 

The Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research counted 20 wars and 385 conflicts worldwide in 2017.

         Most people now desire peace.

But this also applies:

"The devoutest cannot live in peace if the evil neighbor does not like it."
But when there is conflict, when does a state that has a fully defensive predisposition have to say: up to this point and no further?

The conflict between the West (USA/Western Europe) and Russia is particularly suitable for discussing this in concrete terms in a current conflict.
    In 1989 the western border of the GDR was the border between NATO and the Soviet Union. In 2004, the Baltic States, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria joined NATO, moving NATO’s border closer to Russia’s. But that went further in 2008.
     Jack Matlock, former ambassador to Moscow, said: “In 2008, NATO decided to put Ukraine on a track to gain membership. A country deeply divided internally, right on Russia’s doorstep.”

In September 2008, Ukraine and the EU reached an agreement on an Association Agreement.

This sparked fears in Russia. Russia began supporting rebels in the Donbass, whose population was predominantly friendly to Russia. And Russia annexed Crimea. How can Russia justify this step? Sevastopol, Russia’s most important naval port on the Black Sea, is located on Crimea. Crimea was assigned to Ukraine only in 1954 by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Elections in 1994 revealed that the majority of Crimean citizens are friendly to Russia. Only Russia declared the 2014 elections (after annexation) as valid.

To secure peace, one should always try to understand the enemy's point of view.

     What would happen in the reverse, if Russia tried to organize a military alliance with Canada and Mexico? The USA rightly reacted vehemently when Russia concluded a military alliance with Cuba under Fidel Castro.

In 2018, all 29 NATO countries spent around 963 billion dollars on military armaments. Russia disarmed (also because of the crisis) and spent 61 billion in this area (Sipri).

Given these figures, can Russia really be dangerous?

Is it justified to start talking about a Cold War, again?

Since they could carry weapons, humans have waged wars. Must this continue in the 21st century?

Or is the rule now: If you don’t have enemies, you go out and find some?

Or rather: If you aren’t with us, you’re against us?

Russia is aware that it has nothing to offer that is on par with the Western arsenal. Based on military logic, it is thus understandable that Russia restarts a nuclear armament. Do we want to die in a nuclear war unleashed under unfortunate circumstances?

Wouldn’t it better to come to terms in a peaceful coexistence? The Eastern European states worry that Russia could once again try to “protect” the Russian minorities living there. So couldn’t one speak openly about these fear at a conference and make Russia promise to not move any borders in the future?

An objection may be that Russian agents kill critics of the regime. We cannot allow that. But can we really achieve anything by means of economic sanctions and the Cold War?

We have only reached one thing: Rearmament has returned.

          The predisposition to want / be able to fight enemies with great commitment is not equally pronounced in all people. Anyone who wants to follow this “urge” these days can play violent computer games, join a soccer fan club or join a left- or right-wing extremist group.

Be it peaceful or militant - what matters is the resistance. This saying was expressed by a left-wing extremist movement, but could also come from a right-wing extremist group.

Based on a readiness to fight enemies, the disposition developed to be able to also fight evil.
Leftist organizations convey to their adherents the conviction that they are fighting against evil (capitalism) and are thus standing up for good. This is very appealing to young adults and many fall for the Robin Hood syndrome.

The young bourgeois parties have a much harder time. They need to strive to find the best path on which the market economy can thrive while incorporating as many social components as possible.

In a grouping in which all share the same world view, the group members feel secure.

That "we-feeling" contributes to a positive attitude to life. All are on the same level and can fight together against people who dissent.

It is often overlooked that the good that is fought for is only supposedly good and often such engagements have catastrophic consequences. I described examples in the post titled “The problem with do-gooders” in March 2018.

Peace

in German published 2017-12


Everyone wants peace.

Not true, unfortunately!

For ideologues of all kinds, their own version of the truth is more important than peace.

According to Marx, peace will only come when communism has achieved world dominion.

What kind of behavior does the Bible recommend?

The New Testament states:

Jesus said unto him: Put up your sword again, for he who lives by the sword shall perish by the Sword. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

The New Testament advises highly defensive behavior. However, the New Testament writers certainly did not want their faith to become a state-sponsored religion. Subsequently, many wars were waged and terrible atrocities committed in the name of the Christian faith.

In prehistoric times, and even in the last century, tribes of primitive peoples were almost constantly fighting.

If a tribe wanted to live in peace, it was overrun by the neighboring tribes. Each tribe had to arm itself well and practice the art of warfare. These exercises quickly became warlike conflicts.

In ancient Greece, war was considered a normal condition in relations between the poleis in Greece. Accordingly, peacetime was usually described using terms such as spondai, which roughly translates as a truce (Wikipedia).

In North America, wars between the immigrants and the Indians led to the subjugation, expulsion or extermination of a large section of the native Indian population. But there were also frequent armed conflicts between the Indian tribes.

In the Middle Ages, it was practically a matter of honor for the feudal lords to increase their territory by means of wars.

Today, peace is repeatedly shattered when states try to maintain their unity by force of arms.

In recent years, Islam has proven that the only-true religions cause wars.

        And the Christian West tried to enforce its values by force of arms in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and Syria, with catastrophic consequences.

As long as people are guided by emotions rather than by reason, they cause enormous misery.

I suggest that our history books be rewritten.

Alexander the Great, Charlemagne and Napoleon must be removed from their pedestals and must be shown to have been responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and all those responsible for the peaceful revolution of the GDR in 1989 were exemplary.

Pacifism

in German published 2017-11

Strict pacifism stands for absolute nonviolence and has ideological characteristics.

There is little talk about pacifism today, since there have been conflicts in the recent past where it has become clear that strict pacifism is an absurd ideology.

However, I think we should bring a moderate type of pacifism back to the debating table. Weapons should really only be resorted to if there are no other options. It was wrong to intervene in Iraq, Libya and Syria!

In recent years there are two principle reasons for armed conflicts:

• minorities without any autonomous rights are held in the central state by force of arms in order to preserve the unity of the states. How many deaths is the unity of a state worth? It should become customary law that all minorities should be allowed to vote on how many autonomous rights they wish to claim.

• Over the past two thousand years, ideologies and religions have repeatedly led to catastrophic wars.

Nationalism

(in German published 2017-09)
I discovered the following definition of nationalism at the Federal Agency for Civic Education in Switzerland:
Nationalism describes an ideology that exaggerates the characteristics of one's own ethnic community (e.g. language, culture, history), defines it as something absolute and leads to the overstressed (in general aggressive) desire for the unity of people and territory.
Of course it is only natural to loves one’s home and to feel most at ease in one’s own country, but when the love of one’s country is exaggerated and inflated, it turns into nationalism and can become a dangerous ideology.
Here, too, an excessive sense of superiority leads to conflict with minorities or groups of people with different views of the world or ideologies.
As soon as nationalism acquires an ideological character, sooner or later it leads to war.
However, replacing nationalism with socialism is not the solution. One shouldn’t replace the devil with another.