Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 4. december 2006 / Time Line December 4, 2006
Version 3.53. December 2006, 5. December 2006
12/04/2006
Reflections on War and Its Consequences
By Lawrence S.
Wittner
The shift of the Iraq War from what its early proponents claimed
would be a cakewalk to what most current observers—including
the small group of neocons who originally championed
it—consider a disaster suggests that war's consequences are
not always predictable.
Some wars, admittedly, work out fairly well—at least for the
victors. In the third of the Punic Wars (149-146 B.C.), Rome's
victory against Carthage was complete, and it obliterated that
rival empire from the face of the earth. For the Carthaginians, of
course, the outcome was less satisfying. Rome's victorious legions
razed the city of Carthage and sowed salt in its fields, thereby
ensuring that what had been a thriving metropolis would become a
wasteland.
But even the victors are not immune to some unexpected and very
unpleasant consequences. World War I led to 30 million people
killed or wounded and disastrous epidemics of disease, plus a
multibillion dollar debt that was never repaid to U.S. creditors
and, ultimately, fed into the collapse of the international
financial system in 1929. The war also facilitated the rise of
Communism and Fascism, two fanatical movements that added immensely
to the brutality and destructiveness of the twentieth century.
Certainly, World War I didn't live up to Woodrow Wilson's promises
of a "war to end war" and a "war to make the world safe for
democracy."
Even World War II—the "good war"—was not all it is
frequently cracked up to be. Yes, it led to some very satisfying
developments, most notably the destruction of the fascist
governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan. But people too often
forget that it had some very negative consequences. These include
the killing of 50 million people, as well as the crippling,
blinding, and maiming of millions more. Then, of course, there was
also the genocide carried out under cover of the war, the
systematic destruction of cities and civilian populations, the ruin
of once-vibrant economies, the massive violations of civil
liberties (e.g. the internment of Japanese-Americans in
concentration camps), the establishment of totalitarian control in
Eastern Europe, the development and use of nuclear weapons, and the
onset of the nuclear arms race. This grim toll leaves out the
substantial number of rapes, mental breakdowns, and postwar murders
unleashed by the war.
The point here is not that World War II was "bad," but that wars
are not as clean or morally pure as they are portrayed.
Curiously, pacifists have long been stereotyped as sentimental and
naive. But haven't the real romantics of the past century been the
misty-eyed flag-wavers, convinced that the next war will build a
brave new world? Particularly in a world harboring some 30,000
nuclear weapons, those who speak about war as if it consisted of
two noble knights, jousting before cheering crowds, have lost all
sense of reality.
This lack of realism about the consequences of modern war is all
too pervasive. During the Cuban missile crisis, it led Defense
Secretary Robert McNamara to warn top U.S. national security
officials against their glib proposal to bomb the Soviet missile
sites. That's not the end, he insisted. That's just the beginning!
After the crisis, President Kennedy was delighted that war with the
Soviet Union had been averted—a war that he estimated would
have killed 300 million people.
How do we account for the romantic view of war that seems to
overcome portions of society on a periodic basis? Certainly hawkish
government officials, economic elites, and their backers in the
mass media have contributed to popular feeble-mindedness when it
comes to war's consequences. And rulers of empires tend to become
foolish when presented with supreme power. But it is also true that
some people revel in what they assume is the romance of war as a
welcome escape from their humdrum daily existence. Nor should this
surprise us, for they find similar escape in romantic songs and
novels, movies, spectator sports, and, sometimes, in identification
with a "strong" leader.
Of course, war might just be a bad habit—one that is
difficult to break after persisting for thousands of years. Even
so, people will give it up only when they confront its disastrous
consequences. And this clear thinking about war might prove
difficult for many of them, at least as long as they prefer romance
to reality.
12/04/2006
Blair Announces Plan to
Replace British Missile Submarines and Reduce Warheads
British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced plans today to replace
British nuclear missile submarines with newer versions that could
allow London to reduce its fleet from four to three boats.
In a white paper released today, Blair also announced plans to cut
the number of deployed British warheads by 20 percent, to fewer
than 160 warheads, as the current submarines are retired
 |
 |