Views On Victory (War and Peace)

[metro]

After reading publications and listening/watching "experts" in/on the news, (I'm not sure where he/she can go to receive an "expert" degree ) I find myself going back and reading the likes of Sun Tzu (again).

I am wondering what your feelings are on how "Peace" should be pursued.
As an american I have heard all the arguments and seen the polls where we are up there as the "most hated nation and biggest threat to the world."

IMO, it's sort of discouraging. There's no doubt that we, like every nation, have our own strategic interests and in this global world, we seek to protect them.

However, I do believe that the US wants to give any nation/people the opportunity to live in "peace"-which implies a condition of freedom, prosperity, and the ability for different societies to deal and/or cope with challenges. This is not to say that the US can be or needs to be everywhere at once to help promote this ideal. Yet, it seems impossible to to please those who yearn to live within a framework of "Peace."

In Iraq, we know the conditions that the people lived under during Hussein's rule. When we finally decided to topple Sadaam, Iraqis were given the chance to take advantage of their new freedom, but the Iraqis didn't take advantage of it and many other States made sure they Iraqis would be taken advantage of.

Meanwhile, america is chastised for trying to "impose peace," upon everyone. So now "peace" is a bad thing? Yet, how many times have there been calls for Peace from every country in that region? How many times have we heard, "The US/West is propping up dictators."?
We got rid of one in Iraq and we're imposing upon them.
We don't get rid of one somewhere else, and we're allowing/helping in their suffering.

IMO, the US and the West won their Peace and we've been lucky to live during this period of time. Post WWII and especially in the 15yrs after the fall of the USSR, the west as been able to enjoy the fruits of "Victory." Europe, Germany, and Japan recovered from WWII in an unprecedented way. However, total victory and a complete surrender took place before a "peace" was offered. Hence, peace was won and then it was shared.
This is pretty much the essence of my question; must "Victory" be achieved by a population/nation, in order for the attainment of a real "peace" to be accepted by the people?

Will people accept a "peace" that has been "handed to them"? Or, must they share in "Winning the peace." If one looks at Iraq, all seemed hopeless. When Iraqis "got sick" of al-qaida, and started fighting them on their own, those Iraqis started sharing in "Winning their Peace." The participation in victory within certain areas has seemingly completely changed things in a positive way.

-IMO, the West was victorious, but failed to defend it through more victories in the past 15yrs, instead choosing to sit back and enjoy it.

-The longer there is asymmetry between large powers and those with very little power, the greater the prospect that only "Victory" or a "Shared victory" for the smaller power, will bring about an acceptance of peace.

-As time goes on, in the West, people are much more unlikely/reluctant to defend "our" victory (Peace), as it has been ingrained in so many that living in "Peace" is the best to live, and we can just offer it to others, or waive a magic wand and distribute it, to those who cry for it. We seem shocked when that when we make that offer, it is rejected.

-We then are made to feel guilty that we are imposing Peace upon someone, and if not that, we are ignoring them while living thee "good life."
-Thus, we are imposing our way of life on those who suffer, and are calling for peace; but this is their "peace," which they want to impose upon us (their victory).

-IMO, many of those who live in the victorious societies, have failed to understand that Peace is a byproduct of Victory. Peace can only be won therefore, victory must be defended at all costs.

-Unfortunately, when the "jungle isn't calm," we try to keep the noisemakers quiet through appeasement (not a tactic to defend victory). This is understood by smaller powers. Most of us who start crying our lungs out for "Peace," are in fact screaming for appeasement. Meaning, "Peace at any price." They are calling to remove this new fear or uncertainty, lacking the understanding of what brings peace, to anyone; victory!

-IMO, competition is fundamental to nature (Darwin), all people and societies wish for their own victory. Gifts can be exchanged between equals as a show of respect. Between highly asymmetric powers, a gift of freedom from the larger/stronger power, though it may be coveted immensely, is seen as a handout and not Victory. Victory, in some manor must be won or shared in order to satisfy the core need which drives the competition for the survival, progress, and evolution of the species.

-I'll stop here for now. I just want to get your' opinions on this topic which I believe is central to so many things going on in the world today. Is "Victory" the key to peace. Is appeasement a legitimate strategy. Add as much as you wish.

Cheers

 

[Rythm]

These are som interesting questions.

I want to focus on the differences of the victories in Germany 1945 and the ongoing war in Iraq. There are some major differences in these two cases and i dont think you can compare them at all. Sure, in both cases peace came after a US-led victory, and in both cases the countries had been ruled by dictators. But (and this is a rather large but) Germany had been a democracy for many, many years before the Nazis took power in 1933. With the exception of children and teenagers, all germans had first hand seen a democracy at work. And most had even seen a prosperous democracy in the years before WWI. So they could relate to a democracy in a totally different way than Iraqis can today.

Also, after the liberation of germany, there was instant peace. The amount of Nazis continuing the war was insignificant. The average german could concentrate on rebuilding the nation. Where as in iraq the war continues, there are constant military operations being conducted. And the stories of atrocities, unlawfull killings, torture and so on doesnt help the image of "the good americans who came to rescue us" at all. On the contrary! I personally think that the point where the USA could have repaired their reputation in Iraq has passed years ago.

In general i think that US foreign policy has changed dramaticly since post WWII. The marshall-plan was pure genious and indeed catapulted the USA to the top spot of "good nations". But since the 80s its a different story. Look at US involvement in South America for instance. The tortures, the support of contras and other groups who are anything but interested in peace and prosperity for the population. I think you will be hard-pressed to find an average south-american who thinks that the USA is acting in a gentleman-like way. And this goes beyond pure military matters also.

 

[kato]

But (and this is a rather large but) Germany had been a democracy for many, many years before the Nazis took power in 1933. With the exception of children and teenagers, all germans had first hand seen a democracy at work.

Huh?

Before November 1918, Germany was a federalized constitutional monarchy with little parliamentary powers. This monarchy was actually brought to fall because of a democratic revolution after that same monarchist structure wanted to do a final "honour sacrifice" - leading to the Wilhelmshaven Mutiny, then their alliance with the workers and unions and finally the Social-Democrat Party, with the Spartacist Uprisings and finally the November Revolution leading to the Weimar Republic as a result of it.

Most Germans in WW2 had seen "a democracy at work" in the sense that they had seen the Weimar Republic fail over its mere 15 years of existance (and this failure was commonly agreed upon), and that they had seen how easily a parliamentary democracy could be corrupted (resulting in deep restrictions in postwar democracy).

 

[Rythm]

Huh?

Before November 1918, Germany was a federalized constitutional monarchy with little parliamentary powers. This monarchy was actually brought to fall because of a democratic revolution after that same monarchist structure wanted to do a final "honour sacrifice" - leading to the Wilhelmshaven Mutiny, then their alliance with the workers and unions and finally the Social-Democrat Party, with the Spartacist Uprisings and finally the November Revolution leading to the Weimar Republic as a result of it.

I agree, i should have defined "many, many years" better
But its exactly my point: the germans had, on their own, sought democracy and won it. Even up-held it for some time before the Nazis. Granted, the weimarer republic isnt a brilliant example of a working democracy, but people had held the power that voting is. The iraqis never have.

 

[kato]

I agree, i should have defined "many, many years" better
But its exactly my point: the germans had, on their own, sought democracy and won it. Even up-held it for some time before the Nazis. Granted, the weimarer republic isnt a brilliant example of a working democracy, but people had held the power that voting is. The iraqis never have.

The early years of the Weimar Republic (up till ~1923) pretty much were Civil War between all kinds of groups for all kinds of reasons. Spartacist uprisings, Bavarian Social-Revolutionary (Anarchist) separatists, Free Corps mercenaries, Nationalist/Revisionist coup attempts... wasn't pretty as "democracy" goes. And i'm talking MG fire in the streets and targeted killing of political opponents, not just some light "misbehaviour".
In 1923, Germany suddenly met economic total crash and occupation by foreign troops in the West, followed by similar localized revolutions and rebellions as already in 1918/1919 before.
The only "quiet" time that the Weimar Republic had was about from 1925 to 1929 - and that was under WW1 Marshal of the Armies Hindenburg, who first got permission by former emperor Wilhelm II (!) before running for office, and whose time in office - as a president with near-absolute powers - saw a couple political relapses to Imperial times.
Following that, 1929/30 to 1932/33, economic collapse again, and mass unemployment. Government collapsed, and Hindenburg appointed a minority coalition to rule. Then that government lapsed in not regulating unemployment - and employment - properly, and large proportions of the population suddenly sank into poverty; the government at the same time tried to consolidate expenses and inflation by cutting social support payments. While at the same time favouring Prussian landowners in the East with large payouts. Big ouch.
The next collapse of government in 1932 directly led to Hitler then.

 

[funtz]

Where do I even begin?
World War 2, those were imperialistic times when most of the world was oppressed. Most of the nations that recovered had the basic structures required to do so in place (a education system, people with industrial and scientific knowledge) however many of the nations who were in the dark remained so.

Further down the road there is the excellent history of the USA of cooperating with a host of dictators on various issues, again that is the past and too complex a history lesson.

Peace is not what USA is imposing on any-one, Iraq War was not for liberating the people of Iraq, even according to the US policy makers, it was more about ensuring a dictator who might have had biological, chemical or nuclear weapons meets his end.

Iraq in itself is a complex place with people who have not seen eye to eye for a long time in history, with out using the absolute oppression like the Baath party - what ever progress has been made is good and some people around this world recognize this, sadly they do not go out and organize a parade to celebrate this fact.

However the eye of some in the Middle East is fixed on Palestine, and everyone knows for how long that has been a flash point.

Taliban’s dictatorship came to an end not because they oppressed people –it was attacked because it was openly supporting Al Qaida, Had the Taliban cooperated with the USA they would have been in Kabul making local Hindus wear white patches on there clothes (yes just like those unfortunate Jews facing the NAZI Germany), forcing women to live like sheep, destroying whatever education and healthcare facilities were there. Until they would have started killing enough people to the even Hitlers NAZI party to shame no one would have cared.

There was active opposition of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they participated in removing Taliban from power, until the warlord culture disappears and fewer centers of power survive (hopefully of democratic inclination), there will always be violence.

US has experienced a Failure to maintain enforce a peaceful environment, the only way this can be done is to stop the constant supply of men, money and ammunition, after this removing several small power centers through any mean necessary and providing political platform and solutions to address the problem that people and groups face can have a chance.
Easier said than done, US will not engage the sources of men, money, and ammunition in Iraq or Afghanistan, it might be because this might increase the battlefield. Dealing with the problem in the way the US is doing it will take a longer amount of time.

And ofcourse as you said with out the involvement of the people there will never be any solution.
That involvement can be finding political solutions to the problems faced.

 

[Rythm]

I fail to see the point you are trying to make, Kato. Could you expand on this issue a bit?

 

[kato]

I fail to see the point you are trying to make, Kato. Could you expand on this issue a bit?

While Germans did gain and experience democracy between 1918 and 1933, the experience wasn't a positive one at all. That's pretty much the point.

My former neighbor, who was born in 1908, remembered the Weimar Republic pretty much only by two "highlights": The 1923 hyper-inflation, and the 1929 total economic crash.
No "good points" to the Republic, just those two "bad points" that cost him all his money, with the government unable to prevent them, and in political deadlock half the time anyway. That is what average people of that age thought of the Weimar Republic.

 

[Rythm]

I guess that depends whom you ask. My Grandfather said pretty much the same about the situation, but always claimed that if that was the price of democracy and liberty, then it was well worth paying for his generation.

Granted, he was a socialist (as in Social democrat) to the core.