Pathfinder-X
August 7th, 2007, 02:54 AM
Hey guys, I haven't had the time to post in a while. I've been busy preparing my last two semester before I get my bachelor in Criminology and didn't have the time to get on.
Anyways I wrote this short piece of my War and Society course. I thought I share my shitty piece again with the members. I cannot get the in-text citation working, but I'll try to get those up as quickly as I can.
-------------------------------
Why We Fight
Conflicts have been part of human society since the beginning of time. While other species of animals also engage in fighting, none wage organized warfare, and at such a large scale as humans. From the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes to total mobilization of modern societies, conflicts between humans seem to have no ends in sight. In recent times, there has been a trend of proliferation of declaration of wars against seemingly abstract enemies, such as War on Terror and War on Drugs. The very cause of warfare has been studied upon for hundreds of years, more so in recent times. It is a vast and complex subject regarding the nature of human individuals and as a whole that no single sweeping explanation can define. The frequency of war has raised questions about whether humans are naturally inclined to inflict suffering upon others. While it is generally recognized that war is cruel, destructive and barbaric, this only recognizes the problems and offers virtually nothing to help end wars. It is survival and self-interests that motive and drive warfare, not the “war genes“. It is also preciously the same need for survival and protecting of self-interest that will maintain the peace, and retire warfare into history.
The biological explanation of war usually implies that humans are born violent and need outlets for their violence tendencies, with which warfare provides. If proven, then warfare is simply the manifestation of the inherently evil human instinct and cannot be avoided. Even before biological explanation became prominent, philosophers debated the state of human nature since the time of Socrates of Greece and Confucius of China. , Thomas Hobbes supported the view point of dark human nature, stating in his work Leviathan that “every man is enemy to ever man… [and there is] continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty brutish, and short.”
However, Jean-Jacques Rousseau criticized Hobbes’ theory and instead stated that the natural man is motivated by pity and self preservation, that he will not voluntarily cause pain to another human needlessly. Biological explanations of war failed to explain why many choose to avoid participating in wars and killings. Individuals go to great lengths to escape fighting, such as draft dodgers during the Vietnam War, self-mutilation of American soldiers to avoid serving in Iraq, and claiming conscientious objector status. Even the fully trained combat soldiers demonstrate the reluctance of killing another human being in combat, especially when they are alone. Rousseau’s viewpoint is confirmed in a study conducted in 1947 by Colonel S.L.A Marshall of the U.S. Army, which concluded that “This thing is simply this, that out of an average of one hundred men along the line of fire only fifteen men on average would take any part with the weapons.” He further emphasized in his work that:
"It is therefore reasonable to believe that the average and healthy individual- the man who can endure the mental and physical stress of combat - still has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man……At the vital point the becomes a conscientious objector, unknowing…"
As society advances, so do the technologies of war, which make conflicts more and more deadly. Resulting from that, nations developed international laws, treaties and diplomacy to avoid armed conflict. After the Third Years War devastated the land during the 15th century in Europe, the Treaty of Westphalia was signed between monarchs to set boundaries between kingdoms and attempt to secure peace. Fast forward to the 20th century, the preamble of United Nations Charter ratified by nations around the globe stated one of its main purpose was “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” and in its very first article expressed its mission:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."
Clearly from a historical standpoint, humans demonstrated the understanding that war is undesirable and taken steps to prevent it, putting the myth of the innate tendency or need for war to rest. So, if it doesn’t seem to be human nature that drives mankind to war, what is? The logical answer in most cases seems to be survival and self-interests. Hunter-gatherer societies fought over the control of land and resources for the survival and expansion of their tribe. Kings in Europe fought wars over control of land and people. Even war waged for ideological or religious reasons on the surface such as French Revolutionary Wars or the Crusades, the underlying reasons continues were for the benefit of the groups that is leading the war effort such as political power or loots. No war, it seems, was fought if neither side considers that there is something to obtain. As the famous Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz pointed out is his work Vom Kriege, war is simply the extension of politics by other means. Whatever that cannot be obtained by means of force, it is unlikely to be obtained by negotiation. Due to the fact that resources are always limited and human population constantly growing, potential for armed clashes was always present, and still is.
With new economic superpowers such as India and China fast on the rise, so does the competition for resources. Gwynne Dyer illustrated the that the leader factor of World War I was because of the system of the existing powers, Britain and France, could not adjust to the rapid growing German power due to industrialization. The end result produced the second most devastating wars in history on an unprecedented scale. As the victorious Triple Entente imposed their harsh terms on defeated Germany at the Versailles Conference, they planted the seed of hatred within the German population which was exploited by Adolf Hitler later. The Treat of Versailles, although made attempts to secure lasting peace, failed to do so due to its internal flaws. The supposedly “war to end all wars” became the factor that contributed to the outbreak of a greater conflict. The end result was World War II, which over 50 million was killed within six years of full blown combat. The idea that war would end other wars is another myth that has been discredited by history.
With the advance in weapons technology since WWII, killing is growing more and more efficient. The development and proliferation of nuclear weapons mean that a war on the scale of the previous world wide conflicts in the 20th century would almost spell certain doom for mankind. The price of war is now threatening the very existence of human survival. Countries recognize this problem and attempt to keep the peace by putting the UN into action. Largely thanks to the organization, there hasn’t been a conflict of global scale since 1945, more than sixty two years. While some progresses were made, major powers generally dislike being told what to do by a body of foreigners, and most continue to act unilaterally when UN policies do not favour their national interests, exemplified by the defiance of UN regarding 2003 invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration of U.S. However, the arrival of information age has made individuals grew more aware of political rights in society, and inter-connected economies between nations of make the idea of World War III unlikely at best.
There is no magical theory that can explain why humans engage in the activities of war, nor is there a magical solution that can end this misery. It is unrealistic to expect that mankind will drop their ideological, religious, national, racial and social differences and end all conflicts. However, it is the method of handling conflicts that can be changed to avoid armed clashes. Negotiation and diplomacy are the norms of the 21st century politics, not blunt force. Peace and prosperity are preferred over warfare. The stakes of war have become so high this day and age where the effect of war in any part of the world has global repercussions. In the end, human seeks to avoid pain and seek pleasure as Sigmund Freud pointed out, and nothing else brings more pain than war itself. Perhaps as the world becomes more connected, the need for war as a solution to political problem will eventually disappear into history. It is surely the one thing the world could live without.
Work Cited
Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. New York: Penguin Classics, 1982.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. “Discourse on the Origins and Basis of Inequality Among Men/ TR. By G.H.D Cole”. Constitution Society, 1754.
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm
SLA Marshall. Men Against Fire. New York: WM Morrow, 1947. 56-57.
Ibid, 79
Preamble. Charter of the United Nations. 1945.http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Ibid, Article 1
Carl von Clausewitz. Vom Kriege. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.
Gwynne Dyer. War: The New Edition. Toronto: Random House Canada, 2005. 426
William J. Duiker and Bessma Momani. Twentieth-Century World History: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: Thompson Nelson, 2007. 109.
Sigmund Freud. Beyond the Pleasure Principle /Tr. By James Strachchey. With an intro. And notes by Gregory Zilboorg. New York. Bantam Books, 1967. 23.
Anyways I wrote this short piece of my War and Society course. I thought I share my shitty piece again with the members. I cannot get the in-text citation working, but I'll try to get those up as quickly as I can.
-------------------------------
Why We Fight
Conflicts have been part of human society since the beginning of time. While other species of animals also engage in fighting, none wage organized warfare, and at such a large scale as humans. From the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes to total mobilization of modern societies, conflicts between humans seem to have no ends in sight. In recent times, there has been a trend of proliferation of declaration of wars against seemingly abstract enemies, such as War on Terror and War on Drugs. The very cause of warfare has been studied upon for hundreds of years, more so in recent times. It is a vast and complex subject regarding the nature of human individuals and as a whole that no single sweeping explanation can define. The frequency of war has raised questions about whether humans are naturally inclined to inflict suffering upon others. While it is generally recognized that war is cruel, destructive and barbaric, this only recognizes the problems and offers virtually nothing to help end wars. It is survival and self-interests that motive and drive warfare, not the “war genes“. It is also preciously the same need for survival and protecting of self-interest that will maintain the peace, and retire warfare into history.
The biological explanation of war usually implies that humans are born violent and need outlets for their violence tendencies, with which warfare provides. If proven, then warfare is simply the manifestation of the inherently evil human instinct and cannot be avoided. Even before biological explanation became prominent, philosophers debated the state of human nature since the time of Socrates of Greece and Confucius of China. , Thomas Hobbes supported the view point of dark human nature, stating in his work Leviathan that “every man is enemy to ever man… [and there is] continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty brutish, and short.”
However, Jean-Jacques Rousseau criticized Hobbes’ theory and instead stated that the natural man is motivated by pity and self preservation, that he will not voluntarily cause pain to another human needlessly. Biological explanations of war failed to explain why many choose to avoid participating in wars and killings. Individuals go to great lengths to escape fighting, such as draft dodgers during the Vietnam War, self-mutilation of American soldiers to avoid serving in Iraq, and claiming conscientious objector status. Even the fully trained combat soldiers demonstrate the reluctance of killing another human being in combat, especially when they are alone. Rousseau’s viewpoint is confirmed in a study conducted in 1947 by Colonel S.L.A Marshall of the U.S. Army, which concluded that “This thing is simply this, that out of an average of one hundred men along the line of fire only fifteen men on average would take any part with the weapons.” He further emphasized in his work that:
"It is therefore reasonable to believe that the average and healthy individual- the man who can endure the mental and physical stress of combat - still has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man……At the vital point the becomes a conscientious objector, unknowing…"
As society advances, so do the technologies of war, which make conflicts more and more deadly. Resulting from that, nations developed international laws, treaties and diplomacy to avoid armed conflict. After the Third Years War devastated the land during the 15th century in Europe, the Treaty of Westphalia was signed between monarchs to set boundaries between kingdoms and attempt to secure peace. Fast forward to the 20th century, the preamble of United Nations Charter ratified by nations around the globe stated one of its main purpose was “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” and in its very first article expressed its mission:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."
Clearly from a historical standpoint, humans demonstrated the understanding that war is undesirable and taken steps to prevent it, putting the myth of the innate tendency or need for war to rest. So, if it doesn’t seem to be human nature that drives mankind to war, what is? The logical answer in most cases seems to be survival and self-interests. Hunter-gatherer societies fought over the control of land and resources for the survival and expansion of their tribe. Kings in Europe fought wars over control of land and people. Even war waged for ideological or religious reasons on the surface such as French Revolutionary Wars or the Crusades, the underlying reasons continues were for the benefit of the groups that is leading the war effort such as political power or loots. No war, it seems, was fought if neither side considers that there is something to obtain. As the famous Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz pointed out is his work Vom Kriege, war is simply the extension of politics by other means. Whatever that cannot be obtained by means of force, it is unlikely to be obtained by negotiation. Due to the fact that resources are always limited and human population constantly growing, potential for armed clashes was always present, and still is.
With new economic superpowers such as India and China fast on the rise, so does the competition for resources. Gwynne Dyer illustrated the that the leader factor of World War I was because of the system of the existing powers, Britain and France, could not adjust to the rapid growing German power due to industrialization. The end result produced the second most devastating wars in history on an unprecedented scale. As the victorious Triple Entente imposed their harsh terms on defeated Germany at the Versailles Conference, they planted the seed of hatred within the German population which was exploited by Adolf Hitler later. The Treat of Versailles, although made attempts to secure lasting peace, failed to do so due to its internal flaws. The supposedly “war to end all wars” became the factor that contributed to the outbreak of a greater conflict. The end result was World War II, which over 50 million was killed within six years of full blown combat. The idea that war would end other wars is another myth that has been discredited by history.
With the advance in weapons technology since WWII, killing is growing more and more efficient. The development and proliferation of nuclear weapons mean that a war on the scale of the previous world wide conflicts in the 20th century would almost spell certain doom for mankind. The price of war is now threatening the very existence of human survival. Countries recognize this problem and attempt to keep the peace by putting the UN into action. Largely thanks to the organization, there hasn’t been a conflict of global scale since 1945, more than sixty two years. While some progresses were made, major powers generally dislike being told what to do by a body of foreigners, and most continue to act unilaterally when UN policies do not favour their national interests, exemplified by the defiance of UN regarding 2003 invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration of U.S. However, the arrival of information age has made individuals grew more aware of political rights in society, and inter-connected economies between nations of make the idea of World War III unlikely at best.
There is no magical theory that can explain why humans engage in the activities of war, nor is there a magical solution that can end this misery. It is unrealistic to expect that mankind will drop their ideological, religious, national, racial and social differences and end all conflicts. However, it is the method of handling conflicts that can be changed to avoid armed clashes. Negotiation and diplomacy are the norms of the 21st century politics, not blunt force. Peace and prosperity are preferred over warfare. The stakes of war have become so high this day and age where the effect of war in any part of the world has global repercussions. In the end, human seeks to avoid pain and seek pleasure as Sigmund Freud pointed out, and nothing else brings more pain than war itself. Perhaps as the world becomes more connected, the need for war as a solution to political problem will eventually disappear into history. It is surely the one thing the world could live without.
Work Cited
Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. New York: Penguin Classics, 1982.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. “Discourse on the Origins and Basis of Inequality Among Men/ TR. By G.H.D Cole”. Constitution Society, 1754.
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm
SLA Marshall. Men Against Fire. New York: WM Morrow, 1947. 56-57.
Ibid, 79
Preamble. Charter of the United Nations. 1945.http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Ibid, Article 1
Carl von Clausewitz. Vom Kriege. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.
Gwynne Dyer. War: The New Edition. Toronto: Random House Canada, 2005. 426
William J. Duiker and Bessma Momani. Twentieth-Century World History: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: Thompson Nelson, 2007. 109.
Sigmund Freud. Beyond the Pleasure Principle /Tr. By James Strachchey. With an intro. And notes by Gregory Zilboorg. New York. Bantam Books, 1967. 23.