Asymmetrical Information

'Everyone idealizes war'

You can't be serious. Outside of George C Scott's Patton, and some of Shakespeare's characters, I've never met anyone who did.

'...it is no accident that both most of the American Right, and George Orwell, look back at World War II as an idyllic time of moral clarity and national cohesion.'

Hardly. War can be a time of moral clarity--'sweet are the uses of adversity'--but, no one thinks of WWII as an 'idyllic'time. Especially the people who lived through it.

Ross didn't exactly get there first.

Given the recent studies by Lawrence Keeley at UofI which estimated that 87% of societies were at war at least once a year, you are right that that ardor for vengeance and justice may be a sort of immune reaction that protects societies in a violent world

About the Broyles piece linked above - I do know that my dad and uncle didn't like talking about their service in WWII. My dad was a surgical tech on a hospital ship that got hit by kamikazis. My uncle worked at a B-17 base as a crash crew medic and was sent to Omaha Beach on D-Day. I guess being in the "cleanup crew" give one a different perspective.

I've seen a claim that every war involving the USA has either been started by the USA or it has entered it of its own volition, the sole exception being WWII. Is that (i) true, or (ii) relevant?

George Orwell died in 1950. I don't think he's doing much looking back on World War II. I have read all of Orwell's published work. I don't recall any yearning for the glories of wartime.

Good post, Jane. And I reacted the same way to 9/11.

I can't fault him for saying there is a romance to war, but it's absurd to say that three years of warmaking so terrible it has not quite doubled the casualty rate of the second Clinton administration should leave us so war-weary that we accept a nuclear-armed Iran because we are incapable of further conflict.

I would be curious to read what Douthat's commentors are excoriating him for. Perhaps you could provide a link to his article?

I've seen a claim that every war involving the USA has either been started by the USA or it has entered it of its own volition, the sole exception being WWII. Is that (i) true, or (ii) relevant?

Well, if you consider an oil embargo to be an act of war, as it's considered to be under international law, then the US entered WWII of it's own volition. Check out the stuff Husband Kimmel wrote about the war. He basically says that the US was in a state of undeclared war with Japan and knew the Japanese were going to strike somewhere. The US put them in that position with the embargo. What the US didn't expect were torpedos which could strike in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor.

[and George Orwell, look back at World War II as an idyllic time of moral clarity and national cohesion]

this isn't true. Orwell saw World War 2 as a portent of a forthcoming class war and one which would inevitably lead to the breakup of the British Empire. He also spent most of that war engaged in vicious sectarian infighting within the British Left. He did, however, romanticise his time in the Spanish Civil War in exactly the way you describe (and viewed POUM through utterly rose-tinted glasses for that reason) so maybe this is what you're thinking of.

what's up with the latin titled war posts?

I'm thinking of Orwell's response (at least, I'm pretty sure it was Orwell), when asked what true socialism would look like; he replied "WWII". And indeed, everyone banding together against the common enemy, which, while not exactly as cheerfully complete it was portrayed in movies, did indeed resemble the bright socialist future we were all awaiting.

I've always admired the clarity of your thinking on issues. This post causes me to admire your eloquence as well.

MB

I've seen a claim that every war involving the USA has either been started by the USA or it has entered it of its own volition, the sole exception being WWII. Is that (i) true, or (ii) relevant?

(i) Given that the US is uniquely situated as the dominant possessor of a large continent with economically interdependent neighbors, and therefore nearly immune to a direct attack on its own soil, this may actually be true.

(ii) 'Relevant' only either as a passive-interest item, or in an anti-American quip-trading kind of context.

Having and defending complex global socio-economic interests does not require a nation-state to be attacked on its own soil by a conventional militarized aggressor. It just happens to have worked that way almost everywhere else, because most other continents are occupied by collections of entities that either are-now, or have-in-time-past, functioned as competitive feudal states.

I will not contradict anyone who avers that their reaction after 9/11 was not tinged with some amount of excitement at the sheer fact of having a just cause to pursue, an enemy to triumph over. But I will not believe them, either.

Well, there's no point in trying to reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into. If you "know in your heart" that you're right and aren't interested in hearing contradictory testimony, what more is there to say?

"what's up with the latin titled war posts?"

The title is from a Wilfred Owen poem. Owen fought in WWI. From the poems Owen really hated war, was injured and/or shellshocked, but went back to the front lines anyway. He was killed I think in the last week, if not the last day.

A short body of work that can be read every Memorial Day. But ranks with anything written in the 20th century.

The greater danger is not that we will idealize war and intervene where we should not, but that we will fail to face up to real dangers in the world and let problems metastasize. That is indeed what happened in the 1930's, and it has happened since.

It is clear, now, that North Korea would have been easier to deal with before it had nuclear weapons. Now there might be no choice but to give in to their blackmail. It is always easy to hope for peace and ignore gathering storms. So it was easier for President Clinton to pay North Korea off and hope for the best. It was easier for South Korea to declare a "sunshine policy" that enabled a terrible regime to continue.

As Winston Churchill warned, "If you want peace, prepare for war." I hope we heed his warning in dealing with Iran and other threats that arise in the future. We have sometimes failed to heed it in the past.

bgate
"has not quite doubled the casualty rate of the second Clinton administration"? I don't understand that. Could you explicate?
I also am interested in alternate ways at looking at war.

Ryan
The Brits had used torpedos modified for shallow water at Taranto a year earlier.
The US navy refused to learn any lessons at all from the UK navy until enough civilians got into uniform to straighten out the career military culture.

Orwell worked as a propagandist for the Ministry of Information during WWII. His job being to create broadcasts for the BBC Asian service that would counter the anti-British broadcasts being beamed by Germany and Japan into India and other East Asian countries. Those broadcast being created by Indians who wanted to free themselves by any means from the British Empire.

Orwell actually shared the view of his opponents that Britain's empire was evil, but his patriotism led him to serve his country (and its empire). He later used that experience to devastating effect in '1984', with its Ministry of Truth.

In that novel he can hardly be said to be idealistic about war.

Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

(How sweet and right it is to die for one's country.)

This pre-dates the Wilfred Owen poem by a couple of thousand years. As far as I can tell, Horace was the first to use it in a poem.

The supposed Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" reminds me that wars do lessen whatever boredom is around. And let's face it, most people are looking for some direction, a goal in life. I know it's trite and Treitschke, but Man is made for war. And in many situations, as with Israel today, war is better than a peace which leads to oppression and death anyway.
I find the suggestion that Iraq has somehow "gone awry" amazing. It shows how some people have unrealistic expectations of life, like for instance the expectation, against all history and logic, that it should, normally, be lived without war.

Jane,

Your insights are almost always interesting and quite often accurate but I think you are wide of the mark here. It's nice to believe there are simple, immutable traits that can explain human behavior but this one doesn't fit the evidence. Competition and perhaps even a warrior nature must be some part of any species if one agrees with Darwin. Survival of the fittest does not work without a drive to survive. But the human mind has evolved beyond this basic drive.

If I can be so bold as to make an assumption; you are not much of a warrior yourself and have probably been in very few life or death situations, especially where your well being was threatened by a real and present danger. You don't seem to have a native understanding for what it is that drives people to fight and kill. The vast majority of people will only kill other people as a last resort and very few can kill with no remorse. Most people would prefer to live in peace than live in a continual state of war.

Many (most?) people enjoy working hard for a simple, obvious cause, and perhaps this is what you mean about people's fondness for WWII. People didn't like the fear, uncertainty and brutality of war but they liked knowing that their work was for a good cause. Rather than making automobiles for private citizens they were riveting airplanes that would protect their countrymen's lives and vanquish an evil enemy. They no longer gardened as a hobby, they kept a "victory" garden that aided the war effort. This also ties with Orwell's statement. Clarity of focus and hard work towards an easily defined goal are most likely what these people fondly remember. Unfortunately it often takes a disaster or war to bring a majority of people into clear focus in a common cause.

wkwillis,

the military has detailed casualty figures for 1980-2004. Assuming the death rate has stayed constant since 2004, there have been just over 8000 casualties during Bush's 5 1/2 years in office. I think it's fair to say that some people have got the impression that this is a catastrophic figure that threatens to bleed us dry. It's also fair to say that was less of a concern during the last President's administration, whose 8 years in office saw exactly 7500 military fatalities.

"But the human mind has evolved beyond this basic drive." Are you kidding us? We've evolved beyond the basic drive for survival? What, exactly, are you smoking?

"Most people would prefer to live in peace than live in a continual state of war." This is true but banal. At most times during human history, the desires of the many for peace have been overpowered by the not-so-many's desire for war. You can't argue with someone who is trying to cut off your head, steal your food, and take your women. There are always those who want to take the "easy" approach to life and simply take what they want when they want to.

My unofficial estimate is that 10% of any population are thieves, whether they take from your wall locker in a barracks, your unlocked bicycle from the bike rack, etc. We've all had items stolen from us. Out of this population of thieves, there are a lesser number of folks who think that it is okay to kill to get what they want. Modern societies try to "civilize" their citizens to overcome their basic tendencies towards selfish "outside-the-group" behaviour (by which I mean that selflessness occurs within a group, but selfishness occurs when dealing with other groups--see Bill Whittle's essay on tribes, for instance), but it's a constant struggle. Re-read Lord of the Flies if you want to remember what the natural tendencies of young boys are outside the influence of civilization. Or just remember Junior High School and High School, and remember the behaviour of others when no adults were around. (Gym locker rooms come to mind.)

Rufus, the veneer of civilization is just that--a very thin and oft fragile veneer. Or to quote someone else, peace is that short interval between wars. Our history (world, European, American, take your pick) has proven this time and time again.

isocrates: "The greater danger is not that we will idealize war and intervene where we should not, but that we will fail to face up to real dangers in the world and let problems metastasize."

I agree. And with your excellent point about North Korea.

"Everyone idealizes war"

Perhaps. But of the many people I've met who were actually in combat, few have retained that idealism. Many years after killing the enemy in World War II and in Viet Nam, veterans still have trouble talking about their experience. I suspect the Afghanistan and Iraq combat veterans will be likewise troubled.

Re: whether "all" of the wars the United States was involved in were begun by the U.S., or entered into as a matter of choice:

The main problem in deciding who "started" a war is that conflicts usually begin in a process of escalation. It's often hard to fix the precise act of escalation that crosses the line into war.

The War for Independence: Who shot first at Lexington will probably never be known. It's kind of hard to decide who started that war, since it kind of dribbled into beginning, with both sides escalating after the initial skirmish.

I would estimate that many or most of the Indian wars were technically started by the Indians -- although they were usually severely provoked.

Naval "quasi-war" against the French in 1798 -- French privateers captured American merchant ships, after which American naval ships captured French privateers.

Wars against the "Barbary pirates" (Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, etc.): Again, the piratical city-states captured American ships and sailors, followed by various military expeditions.

War of 1812 -- The U.S. was the first to formally declare war, although the Brits arguably committed acts of war by supporting hostile Indians and kidnapping American sailors, including some from a U.S. Navy ship, after firing a broadside into it.

Mexican-American War -- The Mexicans fired the first shots, ambushing an American cavalry patrol south of the Rio Grande, on territory claimed by both sides. If sending troops onto the disputed territory was an act of war, then both sides started it. If firing the first shots constituted the first act of war, Mexico did.

Civil War: First shots fired by the Confederacy at Fort Sumter. The Confederates could have argued that it was an act of war for the federal government to retain the fort and attempt to resupply it.

Spanish-American War: U.S. started it, thinking the Spanish had blown up the battleship Maine, which, if true, would have been an act of war.

Punitive expedition into Mexico, 1916 -- America invaded Mexico, then without an effective sovereign as it was in the middle of civil war, in response to invasion over the border by one faction under Pancho Villa.

World War I -- America intervened after Germany sank American merchant ships.

World War II -- America declared war on Japanese in response to attack on American fleet and territorial possession of Hawaii, and on the European Axis powers in response to their declarations of war against America. Pretty clear-cut -- they started it, although America's territorial integrity was never directly threatened.

Korea -- UN forces, largely American, countered a North Korean invasion in the first test of the UN's system of collective security. Optional war for America, unless you treat America's obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Korea resolutions as compelling.

Vietnam -- American intervention in response to invasion of ally, South Vietnam, with which America had SEATO treaty obligations.

Kuwait -- Ditto Korea, basically: Optional unless treaty obligations are considered binding.

War in Afghanistan: America invaded because major faction controlling Afghanistan openly harbored al-Qaeda, which killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Optional only in the sense that it would theoretically have been possible to let the occasional big terrorist score just slide.

War in Iraq -- Basically a continuation of the Kuwait war, after Iraq violated the conditions of the cease-fire ending it. Optional.

Relevance of any of this: Very little. As pointed out in an earlier post, because of accidents of geography, America has had few occasions for direct invasions by neighbors -- pretty much Indians and Mexico, which (at least arguably) started most of the conflicts involving those parties. Most of the other wars, with the possible exception of 9/11, involved acts of war being committed against peripheral American interests rather than the heart of American territory, and could therefore be considered "optional," in the sense that it would theoretically be possible to accept the occasional hostage-taking or ship-sinking as the cost of doing business in a rough world. No thanks.

Ryan
The Brits had used torpedos modified for shallow water at Taranto a year earlier.
The US navy refused to learn any lessons at all from the UK navy until enough civilians got into uniform to straighten out the career military culture.

wkwillis-

It was my understanding that;

1. The information about the British performance at Taranto was not given to Kimmel, at least according to Kimmel's defense of his actions as written by him after WWII. I should have been more specific.

2. The British torpedos at Taranto struck in 40 feet of depth (IIRC), and the Pearl Harbor torpedoes struck in about 30 feet. There might have been a certain level of arrogance (racism?) which kept the US from considering that the Japanese might be able to outperform what the British had done.

Some posters above argue that the reluctance of war veterans to speak about their time in the theaters of war proves that not everyone idealizes war. This is at least an unpersuasive argument; it may very well be preposterous.

What Jane is getting at is an idealistic impulse, and there's nothing contradictory in recognizing through hindsight that our lived experiences of those acted-upon impulses brought more pain and trauma than we had expected. Just as the young man who idealizes speed may reevaulate his idealism after a near-fatal accident does not counter the reality that many men idealize speed, so the more mature view of those who have lived through war does not contradict the truth that something deep within human culture and psychology valorizes war.

Perhaps more preposterous, however, is the assertion that the desire not to talk about experiences evidences one's disappointment or disgust with those experiences. One more example of our Oprah-infested therapeutic decadence, I suppose. I idealize many things: the life of religious devotion, sexual love between committed individuals, and so on. But I find no urge to share my experiences in these areas with . . . well, anybody, really. That this reticence--or, better, sense of propriety--can be interpreted as my rejection of the value of those experiences is simply absurd.

I think Jane and Ross are on to something here. For whatever reason, most likely evolutionary pressures, human beings to some extent just like to fight.

Yes, most modern societies teach people to suppress their urge to violence, but that doesn't mean the urge doesn't exist. And many people -- deep down where they don't like to think about it -- are glad when the world gives them a legitimate excuse to drop the shackles of "humanity" and let the wolf come out to play.

No one wants to fight a war. War is (from the stand point of human civilization) a last resort. It is a means to an end when all other negotiations between two (or more) entities are at a complete and total "impasse."

That "impasse" exists for the values of Western Civilization and the values of Fundemental Islam. It is not possible for both of these cultures to coexist peacefully on this Earth. There simply isn't room enough for the both of us. And (for lack of a better understanding amongh those of us in the West) the "war" has existed (in one manner or another) between Western Civilization and Fundemental Islam for almost 14 centuries. The only difference now, is that much of the West finally fully recognizes that there is a war. It took an event like 9-11 for that realization to materialize for most of us. I would however argue that Israeli Jews have known about this infamous "war" since the late 1940s.

"Peace" (the absence or "war") is what much of Western Civilization desires. You hear models up on stage ask for "World Peace" at a beauty pagent. You hear college radicals holding signs with a Mercedes Benz emblem (plus that extra little strip at the bottom-middle of the circle) holding protests and marches demanding "Peace." You hear world leaders scream at each other on the floor of the United Nations as they do all they can to maintain the "Peace." And you hear the Pope, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church (one of the most prominent parts of Western Civilization) denounce nearly all wars in favor of the nations of the world to come to some sort of "Peace." Absent from many of the minds of Peace loving individuals is that the ONLY reason why there is currently a "war" of some kind, is because two or more parties have determined that there exists something on the Earth that is worth dying for, to change. If "Peace" is your ultimate option, (your final option, your ONLY option) excluding all other forms of how two or more parties settle differences, then in some cases, nothing will get done. "Slavery" can exist in "Peace." "Tyrany" can exist in "Peace." One can even say that "Genocide" can exist in "Peace." Now, we can sit here and use rhetoric to try and define what each of these things are, but in the end, only "war" can physically force another party to do your bidding, if they choose to ignore your "peaceful" pleas.

No, I don't think the majority of people idealize "war" Jane. That is because most people (at least, most people in Western Civilization) are still deluded enough to think that "Peace" is always the prefered state of existance between two or more parties that may be at a full and complete impasse. What you should really be asking these fools is do they desire a "Peace at all costs", or are they only in favor of "Peace" if it is a "Peace that is worth having?"

One of the reasons that war gets idolized is that it, like disasters, provides an opportunity for individuals to transcend themselves. Day to day life does not afford most people the chance to display heroism except the heroism of endurance.

Wars and disasters allow individuals to perform in ways that are immortalized in story, song, movie, and human imagination. The ability of humans to transcend their ordinariness in such situations is of incredible interest to people, and thus war will always fascinate us as arena in which a few special men and women can become in moments what most of us will not be in a lifetime: a hero.

Of course people like to fight. To live is to struggle, and consequently all literature is premised on conflict of one stripe or another. Literature sans conflict would obviate the need for Ambien.

My opinion is that humans (in general) "idealize" war because they idealize everything. It is the only way to break down knowledge - unless you want every sentence to disappear into a cloud of exceptions and special cases.

They also idealize peace, which I believe can be more debilitating than idealizing war. Even in an ideal war, you know some people are going to die, some or many of them innocent bystanders. This is a deterrent to excessive war.

However, few people count up the innocent bystanders of the peace - consider Saddam Hussein's peace, for example. This occasionally leads to excessive peace, in those cases where war actually has better expected results.

I will not contradict anyone who avers that their reaction after 9/11 was not tinged with some amount of excitement at the sheer fact of having a just cause to pursue, an enemy to triumph over. But I will not believe them, either.

My reaction was like, "Wow, they're really trying to make an impression, huh?" I could easily have gone without thinking about it again. The difference is, I didn't see it on television. I heard about it over the phone.

I will not contradict anyone who avers that their reaction after 9/11 was not tinged with some amount of excitement at the sheer fact of having a just cause to pursue, an enemy to triumph over. But I will not believe them, either.

Why is it so difficult to believe? Must everyone share you psychology?

Since Jane, and I assume most of the readers of this blog are officially Godless, you cannot possibly understand and accept the reality... war is part of the human condition... it is part of being human.

We don't revel in war, any more than we revel in any other facet of our existence. It is simply part of what we are and what we must be.

God made us this way. Go ahead and laugh.

"toujours l'audace." Not Latin; something about 'all days (the man) having audacity (courage)?' There were the famous studies finding fewer French suicides during the Franco-Prussian war; hypothesis: increased identification of the French with each other or 'social cohesion.' As for getting tired of the Iraq war, I think we Americans do find ourselves in a diffrent situation, as some bumblers might say of VN, from our historical. This is not a test, it seems, as Lincoln said of 'whether any nation so constituted shall long endure' but more like keeping the Macy's democratic shopping experience open for indefinite months so that somebody we don't know really can shop for it. (Of course thinking that we will make "money," i.e really peace, from it). And talk about unappreciative crowds. We need to identify more with the values of the 'police monkeys' I thought you blogged about?

Since Jane, and I assume most of the readers of this blog are officially Godless,

Why do you make that assumption. I'm not.

you cannot possibly understand and accept the reality... war is part of the human condition...

Why do you need to believe in God to believe in war?

We were born wanting many things, Thomas. Explain to me why it's Godly to indulge all those desires. I really don't follow you.

Unless I read you wrong, you seem closer to deifying your own internal desires than worshiping God.

But why is it so sweet and proper to build bridges for one's father?

Since Jane, and I assume most of the readers of this blog are officially Godless, you cannot possibly understand and accept the reality... war is part of the human condition... it is part of being human.

Well, that's certainly a stupid thing to say. You don't need gods to think that humans have an inborn tendancy to be territorial, xenophobic, and aggressive; there are good evolutionary reasons why humans would have those traits. Plenty of animals do.

Comments are Closed.