The Twisted Morality of War

[SidneyCarton]

In the recent Hiroshima thread, I had a fascinating discussion with Tahiti Nut about some of the ideas regarding the morality of war, particularly in the ideas of Clausewitz. This sent my brain to clicking so here is a part of the fruits of my labors, as the article is long, I have provided a link to my blog where the curious (or gluttons for punishment) can read the whole thing.

The first question, and a vexed one at that, is whether or not War itself is moral. My answer is unequivocally no. War, to quote Thom Hartmann is “legalized mass-murder.” It is the releasing of all of Humanities baser instincts, the ideas that Thomas Hobbes feared so deeply, in the interests of gaining or defending objectives that could not be gained or defended through other means. Hence as Carl von Clausewitz famously stated, “War is politics by other means.”

(snip)

“The object of fighting is the destruction or defeat of the enemy…What do we mean by defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury or other means—either completely or enough to make him stop fighting…The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements…Direct annihilation of the enemy’s forces must always be the dominant consideration.”
-On War, pgs 226-229

What is stated here is essentially the central goal and primary virtue of any wartime action, the Destruction of the Enemy. While theoretically this should not override moral concerns, in practicality it does. For in wartime, the only deaths that matter are those on one’s own side, the enemy is supposed to take losses, the more one belligerent loses, the more likely the other belligerent will win, regardless of the means used.

Furthermore, on the battlefield, the veneer of civilization is rapidly peeled away, particularly in the face of the modern killing apparatus. A moment’s hesitation can mean death, mercy can mean death, and kindness can mean death. Under such circumstances, the highest virtue becomes one’s ability to take life and in doing so, preserve the life of one’s comrades. In the 19th Century, when most Military engagements took place away from populated areas, this posed fewer problems in dealing with non-combatants. In the 20th Century, the return of urban warfare, coupled with partisan resistance movements, insurgencies and irregular paramilitary forces, the virtues of the battlefield have caused considerable complications. The possibility and opportunity for atrocity have increased dramatically, with a corresponding rise in the actual commission of such acts. While war does not automatically convert all participants into amoral sociopaths, it has a tendency of rewarding such behavior, while dulling the moral sensibilities of others; as such sensibilities tend to be lethal under fire.

Furthermore, when Clausewitz wrote in the early 19th century, the enemy’s forces did not include their industrial plant. The First World War proved that modern war was essentially a war of material. That the nation that could throw more steel, explosives and men at the other, was the likely victor. Hence in the Second World War, there were the mass bombings of cities, culminating in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As abhorrent as these attacks have become in the light of the Nuclear Arms race they spawned, in 1945, under the harsh calculus of war, the idea of one plane being able to wreak the destruction on the enemy that usually required 1000 planes seemed both efficient and wise.

(snip)

Despite all these points, one is forced in the end to return to the key point: All wars are inherently immoral. Wars enthrone all that is vicious, cruel and violent in human nature as the highest, indeed the only virtue. All too often that which is purchased dearly in the blood of future generations could have been bought relatively at the bargaining table with patience and willingness to compromise. Moreover, not all the costs of war are in death tolls or debts. For the thousands, if not millions of veterans, it is a harrowing experience. In going to war we expect these men (and women as well) to live in conditions in which the morality we take for granted in civilization is a liability. We expect them to kill, destroy and do what is necessary for the greater national purpose, regardless of how they might be affected by their experiences. Generations of Shellshock, Combat Fatigue, PTSD, and Gulf War Syndrome should teach us that the costs of war are generational, and they rob our nation of its most important treasure… our future. Hence war should always be the last resort, ever prepared for, but rarely actually practiced, for the cost is such that we dare not pay it lightly. We may well rewrite Clausewitz and state that: “War is the failure of Politics and all other means.”

Want more? http://loadstonerock.blogspot.com