I just don’t get it (War -- Huh! What is it good for?!)

[capri0mni]

I know the arguments (I’ve heard them ever since Elementary School, when History Class was called “Social Studies”): that armed forces and war are unfortunate but necessary evils for a stable and functioning State, and therefore, Society.

But lately, as I wake up to news of yet another airstrike against a hospital, or a terrorist bombing of a school, or kidnappings or torture, or the burning down of villages, I only come away more baffled and more sad.

I mean, even if it were true that War is an ugly but necessary Means to a better End, I’m left asking:

A Means to What End?

Some killing, I understand.

• Killing another living thing for food, or shelter -- I get that (And there’s a growing realization that plants have some form of sentience, so vegans aren’t off the hook on that point, either).
  
• I understand using antibiotics to kill off microbes that make us sick.
  
• And I understand the rationale behind herbicides and insecticides -- even though I think they’re used too much and that the rationale is often misguided -- I can still see the logic behind them.
  
• Or killing lab animals so we can better understand disease and help find treatments for things like cancer; I understand that, too.
  
• I understand when a person decides to have an abortion.
  
I even understand the death penalty for certain crimes (though I don’t often agree with it).

So I understand that killing is often a necessary means to better ends. I get that bit.

But War? The systematic creation and maintaining of entire sections of society dedicated to the purpose of being cannon fodder?

Killing citizens (whether soldier or civilian) because you don’t like the policies of their leaders? Or killing people because you don’t like how they pray? Or, for whatever reason, you’re squicked whenever you think about the place where their ancestors came from? Or they speak the “wrong” language? Or they have the “wrong” skin color?

I just don’t get it...

Because whatever ends the means of war is meant to achieve, I’ve never seen any of the wars in my lifetime (since the invention of the telephone, radio, and television) actually work (If wars did work for solving problems, we wouldn’t have to keep trying them over and over, and over, and over, and over...).

Comments

[siliconshaman]

I was thinking more of the period after the World Wars, when the pattern for industrialised warfare came to fruition. Although elements of what I was described can be found during WW2 and maybe at stretch WW1, it is tenuous at best as you say, and hardly a primary reason.

Some of WW2, particularly on the german side, was for domestic consumption, but it was more a happy by-product. But it was that realisation, that lead to it being the primary purpose.

The Falklands being a prime example as you say... and one would could argue later middle eastern misadventures also.

Of course, that leads also to the argument, that if one is going to war in order to apply sticking plaster to deep divisions at home.. one needs must manufacture an enemy if none presents itself. You can't have an 'US' without a Them.

[davidgillon]

Of course, that leads also to the argument, that if one is going to war in order to apply sticking plaster to deep divisions at home.. one needs must manufacture an enemy if none presents itself. You can't have an 'US' without a Them.

Or even for better newspaper sales c.f. the Spanish-American War.

[siliconshaman]

Oh, yeah. I forgot that one! "You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war."

Pretty sure Murdoch knows that trick.