War...what is it good for?
Well, since you asked, DocBrain will answer. Every great leader over the centuries has endorsed war as a way of moving their world view of civilization ahead. Many thinkers have also endorsed conflict. Wars succeed when they create or promote something that is separate, superior, and sustainable.
Here is an example of a good war.
The American Revolution created the USA, which, if next to Great Britain, would have never survived, as the proximity would have led to its destruction. Its isolation and independent sustainability led to giving it time to develop. Its superior form of government led to its predominance on the world stage and the eventual American Century. Eventually, our number one enemy, Great Britain, has become our best friend.
Here is an example of a bad war.
Israel is engaged in perpetual warfare against its neighbors, countries and vigilantes. That it is superior to its neighbors is not a matter for debate, as from zero in 1948 it has risen to be a major player on the world's stage in medicine, information technology, basic science, travel, etc. That it is different is also obvious. It is a Jewish state, the only Jewish state on the planet. It is not separate, as its enemies abut on its borders. This lack of a buffer zone is the key factor that limits its sustainability. A buffer zone, large enough to prevent any attack, would be nearly impossible in practicality. Even a relatively large one could be spanned by missles or crossed by suicide bombers. Nonetheless, a buffer zone is the only viable answer to the Middle East conflict that would preserve both sides. The eventual hope would be that, like the USA and GB, one time enemies would become lasting friends.
There is only one more question to be answered: should both sides be preserved? If the answer is yes, then there must be a buffer zone. If the answer is no, then other alternatives are needed, and this gets into the realm of a different type of war: a war to obtain victory over an enemy. In that setting, the enemy must be crushed beyond ability to mount a response now and as far into the future as possible. This is the war of Sun Tsu; the war of Machiavelli; the war of Lincoln; the war of von Clausewitz, the war of Patton. No half way victory. Total annihilation for the enemy; a grovelling, defeated enemy, a subdued, fearful and unarmed populace. A rebuilding of the enemy in our image.
So, war is good. It allows civilization to go forward. It allows civilized, advanced cultures to crush that which is evil. It is both evolutionary in the Darwinian sense and ethically right in the seeking of God sense. That humanity has not evolved to the point where we all can just get along is not a reason not to have wars, but indeed is the reason for them.
Here is an example of a good war.
The American Revolution created the USA, which, if next to Great Britain, would have never survived, as the proximity would have led to its destruction. Its isolation and independent sustainability led to giving it time to develop. Its superior form of government led to its predominance on the world stage and the eventual American Century. Eventually, our number one enemy, Great Britain, has become our best friend.
Here is an example of a bad war.
Israel is engaged in perpetual warfare against its neighbors, countries and vigilantes. That it is superior to its neighbors is not a matter for debate, as from zero in 1948 it has risen to be a major player on the world's stage in medicine, information technology, basic science, travel, etc. That it is different is also obvious. It is a Jewish state, the only Jewish state on the planet. It is not separate, as its enemies abut on its borders. This lack of a buffer zone is the key factor that limits its sustainability. A buffer zone, large enough to prevent any attack, would be nearly impossible in practicality. Even a relatively large one could be spanned by missles or crossed by suicide bombers. Nonetheless, a buffer zone is the only viable answer to the Middle East conflict that would preserve both sides. The eventual hope would be that, like the USA and GB, one time enemies would become lasting friends.
There is only one more question to be answered: should both sides be preserved? If the answer is yes, then there must be a buffer zone. If the answer is no, then other alternatives are needed, and this gets into the realm of a different type of war: a war to obtain victory over an enemy. In that setting, the enemy must be crushed beyond ability to mount a response now and as far into the future as possible. This is the war of Sun Tsu; the war of Machiavelli; the war of Lincoln; the war of von Clausewitz, the war of Patton. No half way victory. Total annihilation for the enemy; a grovelling, defeated enemy, a subdued, fearful and unarmed populace. A rebuilding of the enemy in our image.
So, war is good. It allows civilization to go forward. It allows civilized, advanced cultures to crush that which is evil. It is both evolutionary in the Darwinian sense and ethically right in the seeking of God sense. That humanity has not evolved to the point where we all can just get along is not a reason not to have wars, but indeed is the reason for them.
posted by DocBrain at
5:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home