American soldiers on patrol last month in Kandahar, Afghanistan, found and blew up a Taliban bunker. An influx of troops has begun to change the area. Michael Kamber for The New York TimesJason Burke, The Guardian: Why is the world at war?
Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, Afghanistan, Ukraine – the globe is scarred by violence
We live in a world of trouble. Conflicts today may be much less lethal than those that scarred the last century, but this brings little comfort. We remain deeply anxious. We can blame terrorism and the fear it inspires despite the statistically unimportant number of casualties it inflicts, or the contemporary media and the breathless cycle of “breaking news”, but the truth remains that the wars that seem to inspire the fanatics or have produced so many headlines in recent years prompt deep anxiety. One reason is that these wars appear to have no end in sight.
To explain these conflicts we reach for easy binary schema – Islam v the west; haves against have-nots; nations that “play by the rules” of the international system against “rogues”. We also look to grand geopolitical theories – the end of the Westphalian system, the west faced by “the rise of the rest” – or even just attribute the violence to “geography”. None of these explanations seems to adequately allay our concerns.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I am a student of wars and conflicts .... it is why I have this blog. There is no easy answer to "why is the world at war" .... except one .... we have always been at war, it is our nature. Case in point .... The Oldest Known Evidence Of Human Warfare Has Been Confirmed (January 21, 2016).
10 comments:
Its simple:
In the old days they exterminated their enemy and today they defeat the "army" and try to befriend them.
The definition of war is somewhat broader than it was long ago.
Think of a wheel with all its spokes connected to a single hub, each spoke representing a different "war" with a common thread, the hub, and you might have the source of the problem, if not the solution.
Ah, no Hans. That was not always how it went. Then as now there are some that want to finish a war not keep it going. Wars are news in the West more because the US just can't seem to stop starting new wars and getting itself involved where it has no business being. But yes WNU Ed is right, there always have been wars and sadly that will continue.
No longer a massed army or armies confronting another massed army or armies (ie, allies) but instead insurgent groups, rebels, proxy outfits. Compare say, WWII, Viet Nam, Korean War with any of the miliary operations taking place today. The data (discussed by Steven Pinker) shows clearly that historically there is much less warfare than in earlier centuries.
Haha really Jason? Ok. Ask the Carthaginian's.
are the Carthaginians in Syria? which side do they support?
Yes Hans, really. For instance in 1799 the French were defeated by the combined Ottoman and Russian forces at Corfu. All the survivors were transported back to France by the RN. There are plenty of examples of the Romans not sacking defeated cities.
You don't need to go back to Carthage for instances of sacking or attempted annihilation of an enemy. Bosnia, Viet Nam (both sides), Korea and so on. My point is that it didn't always happen that populations faced annexation after defeat. Often times commanders realized that it was better to get war out of the way and that it was better for all to do so ie. the western allies after WWII.
But we've strayed from what my main point was. That there is/was always war and that we hear more about it, I believe, because the US is involved in so many now.
Two models of capitalism are in conflict inside two main factions who want to lead the world: the actual ruling side of USA/NATO, Israel and Saudi Arabia who is in decline. And the rising East side made by China, Russia and Iran.
Countries in the middle of clash of two great powers are first victims.
Control on energy resources, tech minerals and trade routes is crucial.
Armies of today are not more the massive national armies made by common peoples, but from professional soldier, the rest are mercenaries, terrorists (no one interested to end war) and a little of separatists.
Capitals usually use wars to steal and regenerate from crisis.
Leaders very distant from wars they caused, and the individualism and indifference on others rule the mind of tired western peoples.
Haha what has Syria to do with the Carthaginian's?? And you Jason, that was an army, not a people they transported home. Look outside your box to figure out the awnser to the question and try not be stuck up on modern history.
Well I'm sorry Hans I don't know what you are on about. You said "In the old days they exterminated their enemy" and I'm say that that is just not so. I gave you examples supporting you and mention that the Romans did not always "exterminate" their enemies. In fact many empires and countries were built on not doing that. Are the Aztecs old enough for you?
The Aztec empire (really an alliance of three city-states) did not exterminate the various populations they conquered. They exacted tribute, realizing that it's much more profitable that way. Sung Tzu* and Clausewitz both argued that war, the final diplomatic tool that can be used, be fought to win quickly with the minimum of bloodshed. They both also argued that war should be avoided (it's cheaper and smarter that way) and that countries should find other ways to pursue their aims.
Your absolute blanket statement is just not so, as they often are. It is poor policy and poor generalship that leads attempting to "exterminate their enemy".
*Yes I am aware that Sung Tzu is probably an amalgam of Chinese generals.
Post a Comment