Friday - January 09, 2004

Category Image Is War an Inevitable Feature of Life?


I'd always been taught that as long as there are two people on Earth, that war is inevitable. It is simply the nature of men to fight each other. I think there is some truth to this, especially when we so recently note the tendency for bloodthirsty despots like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam to oppress their own populations. When Hitlers get in charge then war must be waged.

But I'm reading the second volume of Donald Kagan's analysis of Thucydides now, and a primary theme he presents is that the Peloponnesian War was not inevitable even though Thucydides, after living through the war and having written one of the best histories ever written, claimed that the war couldn't have been avoided. If Thucydides is wrong, perhaps there is hope for us after all.


Thucydides was very thorough in discussing the events leading up to his multi-decade war and he concludes that there was no way that it could have been prevented. Once Athens gained an empire, Sparta was threatened enough by her power and after being prodded by Corinth they invaded Attica and began the war.

Likewise, our War of 1861 (which is the term I now use for the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression) was portrayed by the people of the day as inevitable. The northern states, as I alluded in my last rant, used their political muscle to enact oppressive tariffs that were not well received by the southern states. As the nation expanded west, the controversy over these tariffs went west also. Both the north and the south wanted the new states to favor their economic policies, but unfortunately as often happens in politics the alignment of the new states' policies on economics was tied to their policies on slavery. It being much easier to get the voters attention concerning slavery than economics, the slavery issue became the rallying point that the power seeking politicians exploited on both sides of the issue. The tragedy of that war is that the north was right about ending slavery, and the south was right about ending protectionist, punitive, mercantilist economic policies that bankrupted the southern businesses. Both sides were right and both sides were wrong.

The Cold War is often compared to the Peloponnesian War of 2400 years ago in that the known world was divided into two camps which each had hegemony over their half. But no war resulted. Maybe we're learning?

In 431BC, Pericles in leading the Athenians was too clever by half. He formulated a strategy and policy that could very well have won the war. But he started with the assumption that the war was inevitable. Because of this preconception that war would come someday no matter what, he concentrated on getting the war started and done with before his treasury was depleted. We can't know what else could have happened, but Kagan shows in his tomes that it is entirely reasonable that Athens could have maintained its empire and avoided war by being less provocative and by simply continuing to talk with the Spartans. The war finally began when a Spartan army crossed the Isthmus and approached Attica, Athens' home territory. Rather than attack, the Spartan king Archidamus sent a herald to try to talk one more time. Perhaps this was already too late, but the war could have still been delayed. Instead, Pericles had a law passed that provided a death sentence to anyone who should listen to any heralds from Sparta. Prior to this, though, it was Athens' philosophy that its "allies" must be kept in fear and obedient that caused them to enact punitive measures against Megara and Potidaea, prompting Corinth to agitate against her. Had Athens been more like Sparta and headed a league consisting more of equals than vassals the war could have been avoided. It was the mindset that war was inevitable that caused them to be harsh with their friends and proactive in war with Sparta.

Preventable war? Yes, even to the day before it started, but it required good statesmen with a clear vision of a peaceful cooperative alliance, which Athens thought would be a sign of their personal weakness rather than a strength of Greek culture. Petty philosophy caused the war, it wasn't inevitable no matter what Thucydides says. The war was useless, no one was in danger, yet both sides were substantially weakened and eventually exploited by Persia, Macedonia and Rome. This disastrous war ended any hope that the Greeks would rule that which they created, namely Western Civilization.

Likewise the War of 1861 was preventable. Americans on both sides of the conflict convinced themselves that war was inevitable. There was no danger if no war was fought. Had they simply not started shooting at each other it could have been perpetually avoided. Sure that sounds simplistic, but it's really that simple. No one was invading, plundering or looting until Lincoln was elected. It was a failure of democracy to elect Lincoln to the Presidency just like Athens' democracy failed to prevent Pericles from preparing for inevitable war. In the United States, the failure came in the decade before 1861 when the Northerners allowed themselves to flex their electoral muscle. The majority acted without regard for the minority Southern states and used their political power to transfer tax burdens, caused by corrupt Hamiltonian spending projects to the very states that resisted supporting the projects. The Bill of Rights protected individuals in the minority, but failed to protect the states in the minority.

But the important point is that no leader rose up and extracted the nation from this bi-polar conflict. Had a leader shown up, a totally unnecessary rebellion would have been avoided. Tragically none did. Instead the radical Lincoln was elected which caused the deep southern states to secede immediately. Even then, a good statesman could have avoided war. Instead, while all other US forts in seceded states were turned over to the Confederacy, Lincoln managed to keep Fort Sumter. Lincoln had two choices: Give up the worthless fort and talk with the seceded states calmly and work to reunite the nation by reviewing the causes of the discontent, or he could reinforce the fort and instigate war. He chose the latter.

Until he sent the supplies to Fort Sumter, Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, and a few other states had not seceded. These states were sympathetic to the economic stance of the southern states, but were hopeful that they could remain with the Union. Lincoln's foolish act caused them to recognize him for the bloodthirsty tyrant that he was and they immediately seceded rather than be a part of a despotic regime. Maryland, as we know, was prevented from voting on secession because Lincoln jailed their legislature and sent troops in to subdue the population before they could vote on the matter.

So we see another incidence of a near universe divided into two poles, resulting in an avoidable and useless war. It never occurs to most people that a war wasn't necessary. The deep southern states could have seceded and we could have lived with it. Or we could have let them secede and then began negotiations to have them return. Remember that slavery was only an ancillary cause of the war, and the northern states were adamant that they were not fighting to end slavery, no matter what the abolitionists wanted.

The Cold War was different, thankfully. The fear of annihilation from nuclear war served to motivate statesmen on both sides to refrain from engaging in an active war. The result is that cooler heads prevailed and the war ended with both sides at peace, and now somewhat friendly.

Of course, some wars are avoidable while others would be wrong to avoid. In the instances I have cited the governments involved are responsible governments (except for after Lincoln was elected) with the best interests of their own survival in mind. The Soviets didn't want millions of people to die. They wanted to have tyrannical control over NATO countries but not at the expense of dying themselves.

In some instances, war is good. When a mad man like Hitler uses war to enslave neighboring countries, a war must be fought. When Lincoln invaded the Confederacy, war had to be fought. If the Soviets ever crossed into West Germany, war would have had to have been fought. When the Islamic world attacks the United States, we must fight.

But those are necessary wars. There is a time when an unnecessary war becomes necessary, but unless a mad man or a despot is in charge, this isn't usually the case. The Peloponnesian War was avoidable until Athens decided to stop talking to Sparta and not relent concerning sanctions against Megara. The War of 1861 was avoidable until Lincoln decided to keep Fort Sumter. In the First World War, the silly entanglements of frivolous alliances caused nations to stop talking and to instead attack with no logic. In all three of these cases a useless and avoidable war was fought and no one won because of the vanity of the leadership of the rivals.

Our current war is not in this category, so for now these comments are merely academic and likely won't be of use for quite a while if we stay focused on destroying the culture of Islam. However, if we allow ourselves to be distracted by the machinations of the European Union, we could easily be drawn into another stupid, useless, and pointless conflict just because of poor statesmanship. France hates us, and has at least since we conquered their Nazi collaborating regime in 1944. War with the Euros is very unlikely I hope, but so far it is the most likely to fit what I've been describing here.

So we need good statesmanship while we destroy fanatical Islam. We need to make sure that we always appear peaceful to the Euros, but we need to encourage divisions among them and keep them from getting the power that might encourage them to do something stupid. So far it appears like this is what we are doing. Spain, Poland, the United Kingdom, the Czechs, etc. are all limiting Euro cohesiveness by recognizing our leadership. Let's hope our government finds a way to keep this going.

Okay, now I'm rambling, I'd better get to sleep.

Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200   Send me your two cents
|