War as a Fact of Life

Whether we respond to the current threat or not, wars will be fought, won or lost​

By Alan Caruba
September 2, 2014


Younger generations can be forgiven if all they know of war is what they have learned in school or seen dramatized on film and television. For most Americans, the Civil War, the two World Wars, and the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam are events that occurred “a long time ago.” For my generation, born just prior to or during World War Two, wars have been a constant element of our lives.

Anyone with an interest in U.S. history knows that America was born out of a long war (1775-1783) with Great Britain which eventually led to the writing of the Constitution in 1787 whose ratification became official in June 1788. A year later George Washington, the wartime general, became the first President and, thereafter, nearly every President has had to dispatch U.S. naval, land and air forces in combat. This is why the Founders concluded that the President also had to be Commander-in-Chief in order to respond to threats to the nation whether near or far.

Not all Americans were eager to engage in various conflicts and most of the larger ones have had to address a fair measure of opposition. Even the Revolution was resisted by those who felt being a colony was a wiser choice than being independent.

In the greater world, wars have been constant somewhere, a shaper of history, and, according to Benjamin Ginsberg, a prolific historian and director of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University, it has some beneficial aspects. His latest book, “The Worth of War”, explores this aspect of history.

“Organized warfare is among the most common and persistent of human activities,” says Prof. Ginsberg. “As terrible as it is, war and the possibility of war exert considerable pressure upon societies to think and plan logistically in order to protect their security interests and, sometimes, their very existence.”

“In the decades since World War II, of course, the United States has been at war on a continual basis. The nation has fought large engagements in Korea, Indo-China, and the Middle East, as well as numerous smaller conflicts throughout the world.” Americans are now debating having to return to the Middle East a third time since the Persian Gulf War 1990-1991 to undertake the vital mission of destroying the newly declared Islamic State that threatens the region and, should it grow more powerful, the West.

It may strike the reader as odd to think of war as a good thing, but Prof. Ginsberg points out that “Bureaucracies developed from war. Once built, they expanded the scope of their operations to handle purely civilian tasks as well. War also required societies to learn the rudiments of fiscal policy” because “armies and war are expensive.”

Much of the technology we take for granted emerged from the need to succeed in warfare. “Europe’s lead in military technology widened sharply with the European industrial revolution of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (and) with their weapons, their ships, and their tactics, European armies conquered the Americans, Africa, portions of Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.” In the process, the Europeans exported their technological advances to those they conquered, spreading knowledge.

The concept of being a “citizen soldier” developed out of war. “During the medieval and early modern eras, wars were fought by small feudal levies and professional or mercenary armies” but “beginning with the French revolution and Napoleonic eras, the size of national military forces began to increase substantially.” Not only did war become very expensive, a nation’s people had to be given a reason to feel they were defending or expanding the interests of the nation, having loyalty to the state. They had to be paid; funding had to be raised via taxes and bonds and, beyond conscription, others had to feel inspired to participate in making the instruments of war.

“In the modern world, military success requires a strong economic base to support the armies, weapons, training, and logistics need to prevail in serious or protracted combat.” Indeed, “the level of economic development is the single most important variable explaining military outcomes over the past century or so.”

(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65729


What Mr. Caruba excluded was the American Civil War and WWI. Since Biblical times till today our history reeks with the historical tales of war. To try to claim differently would be pure fantasy. Yes, It would be utopia to have no more wars. But like Utopia it's just a dream that will never be.

 

"War Is Peace"....one of the three mottos of IngSoc in Oceania

"1984"---George Orwell (1949)

 

Humans are a violent species but then again, so is every other species on the planet for the most part. There is actually more violence in an English Hedge Row in one day then has occurred by all humans since the beginning of time. (fact)

If there are alien life forms out there I am sure that they have visited us, saw what we are, and quarantined our planet off from everyone else for fear that if we escape our cage, we will end up dominating all other life forms in the universe. It is what we do.

Perhaps we should relish in the knowledge of understanding what we are instead of trying to change into something we are not and were not designed to be. Utopia for the human species is constant exploration and conflict, not wearing a white robe, sitting on a pretty beach, and contemplating worthless crap.

 

More war mongering from the right wing? Why am I not surprised.

Yes war is necessary, but invading people to make Halliburton rich is not. Are you aware of the Military Industrial Complex? That is not necessary.

 

Democrats have brought us into more wars, and major ones, then the republicans have. It is usually the right that get's us out of them.

WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam

We will ignore the early wars since we don't want to make the left feel any worse than they should for their war mongering. Ahhh, we can't leave out the Mexican/American war, the one that Polk purposefully instigated......that one is too good to pass up.

 

You know what's also a constant in life? Alcohol. Since that's a constant, we should get drunk off our butts without regard for the consequences.

 

Return to being teenagers, you mean?

 

I don't have to, I'm in college.

 

you watch too much F.O.X and hollywood. im human and am not violent, neither are every one of my associates, we must be undercover aliens.

 

Good to know that you and your small circle of friends are representative of the entire human species.

Ought to give you a cookie or something.

 

No, you would be the victim of war. Just because 15 people are meek means nothing.

 

Explains a lot

 

It really does.

 

Many people have trouble controlling their inclination to over indulge through their middle twenties; which -- ironically -- is also the age range (from older teen to mid twenties) when they make the best war bait for the military. After that, not so much.

In truth I admire anyone who looks askance at the U.S.' proclivity to get involved in wars and in relatively small bush-war conflicts at the drop of an excuse. I was definitely among the anti-war crowd of protesters back when G.W. Bush was obviously gearing up to launch an unprovoked first strike against Iraq. I happen to think that most U.S. war ventures were unnecessary.

But I am never under any illusion that war and battling and aggression and violence is NOT an intricate part of human nature and that peace oriented idealists are usually going to be doomed to disappointment. You give it a try anyway, to convince your fellow humanity that violence is not always the best response to provocations; but you do so while always keeping firmly in mind that most likely violence is going to be the instinctive response and even that every once in a while . . . it is the correct response.

 

most people are non violent. you should quit your job as an arms industry salesman because im not buying and neither are my large circle of friends.

 

Most people learn to be non-violent in actions (if not always in thought and impulses) but they are born omnivore predators and their instincts tend to default to violence. If you will, the hallmark of good civilizations is taking a natural predator and conditioning him or her . . . not to give into those base impulses as a matter of course. All hail civilization, eh?

 

Considering we were attacked first in each of those wars (save Vietnam, where our involvement started under a Republican), how exactly did Democrats bring us into them?

 

nothing can change what is meant to be, you like war, ilove life. you continue to die forever and icontinue to live forever.

 

Epic spinning there dude.

I could go through the list but I have a feeling it will be a wasted effort with you. The fact that you don't believe FDR was pushing for our involvement in WWII before the attack just shows how much in denial you are.

Believe what you want.

 

iam not a vampire, my incisors became less pronounced the more civilzed ibecame. if all else fails may irecommend a brace.

 

I recall over a decade ago helping produce a research paper on Pearl Harbor and during the process of reading 'And I was There' a book by former intelligence officer and (I think) former fleet admiral Layton he pointed out a photocopy of a White House memo wherein one of FDR's staffers is trying to set up a lowly PT boat ensign to take a Philippine Crew and then direct this poor bastard to put himself in front of where the White House thought -- via intelligence gathering -- a large segment of the Japanese fleet would be. This was obviously done in hopes that the ensign and his crew would be destroyed and so that FDR would then have an excuse to take the U.S. to war.

But before this could happen the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred.

 

Yes, and Conservatives at the time were admiring Hitler's forethought.

 

Cool, a koan! What is the sound of one hand clapping? Wiff!

 

Conservatives were leading the isolationist movement as you can see from leaders such as senator Gerald Nye and Hoover himself who refused to commit the US in any entangling engagements overseas. It wasn't until Wilson in the first war and FDR in the second relentlessly pushed for our involvement that we did eventually go into them. That was their main goal all along. FDR especially.

 

no, a dentist. you interested?