War and morality

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:38 pm

It's trusim that war is really bad. So bad that almost anything is better than going to war. Considering the amount of death, suffering and destruction, it has often been said that nothing is worse than war.

Yet there is one thing that is always worse than going to war: losing a war.

So going to war and losing is the worst thing you can possibly do. Not only do you bring down all the same suffering and death, but your goals you hoped to achive ae also lost. Massive suffering and no benefit. Bad.

Now, with the current war in Iraq in your mind consider this next sentance:

>> No foreign army has ever defeated an insurgency. <<

Go back and read the sentance again. One more time.

Now think about the morality of war in Iraq.

So the question is, if you knew that the Iraq war was unwinnable, would it be moral to support it regardless of the motives?

It's true, BTW, that sentance. And it mattes not at all the disparity of power between the occupiers and the insurgents. Nor how brutal the operation. The Germans in WWII failed to defeat the insurgents in Yugoslavia or in Russia. The Japanese failed to defeat the insurgents in the Phillipines. Since then, the French were defeated in Algeria, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Cubans in Angola, and of course the US in Vietnam. The Isrealis have failed to defeat the intefada, and there is no hope that they will do so in the future. And there are other examples too obscure for me to remember. It's a strange fact that since WWII the utility of conventional armies has dropped out of sight.

DanZ

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:55 pm

>> No foreign army has ever defeated an insurgency. <<

The Last Nazis by Perry Biddiscombe describes a post WWII insurgency by a group of Nazi special forces. This would be a counter example if historically accurate. Also every attempt by Native Americans has been squashed. There is also the Bar Kokhba revolt that was completely squashed by the Romans. So ever is a pretty broad term.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:26 pm

I don't want to get distracted by the question of "what is an insurgency", but I don't think those examples would count. As for the ancient world, I don't think we can project the idea of insurgency as we understand it back that far. And I don't think the indian wars of North America count. They weren't thought of in those terms by either side. That story about the Nazi's looks interesting. I never heard of that before. I may buy the book. But it looks too small-scale to count as an insurgency. Like the French resistance. They were never put down, but never had any significant effect, unlike the Yugoslav or Russian resistance armies.

DanZ

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:10 am

Who killed the millions of innocent people in the Killing Fields set up after the US armed forces were pulled from Vietnam after the anti-War factions "won" their push for "peace" in America?

To those millions and millions slaughtered by the communists that Jane Fonda and other Liberals supported, would a war zone have offered a life better "lived?"

Insurgents don't always use bombs and guns to wage war on the innocent and sometimes don't even live in the places of conflict.

It seems, if the "freedom" to vote is any indication, that the war in Iraq was a victory again for America and those that were fought for. And a loss for the insurgents and anti-war activists too.

Iraqis Vote in Constitutional Referendum By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's deeply divided Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds took their struggle over the nation's future to the ballot box Saturday, voting in a fierce competition over a new constitution aimed at establishing a democracy after decades of dictatorship.

At the bottom of the article. . .

"I'm 75 years old. Everything is finished for me. But I'm going to vote because I want a good future for my children," Fliha said.

///

75-years old and now he can see a good future is possible. Brought to him by the morality inherent in fighting wars.

There are good guys and bad guys in wars. The morally sound bring freedom through war and the immoral take it away.

Do the math.

Johnnycomelately · Post by **Johnnycomelately** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:29 am

Just a few thoughts...

Remember the old Italian man in the Brothel in Joe Heller's "Catch 22" who Yossarian talked to? He'd lost many wars, or had other people lose them for him, and was happy about it.

There are people who advocate losing wars where possible, quoting Germany and Japan as examples.

Why are those opposing occupation in Iraq called insurgents? Fair enough if they're all coming in from Iran or Syria, but aren't those already inside the country more properly called rebels?

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 9:52 am

Why not just call them what they are? Murderers.

They are not fighting a war. They are just killing people. Even if they were to win power of the people hey would still be murdering.

Why is there not anti-Insurgent activists marching in the streets of America? Last time I looked (which was a few minutes ago) the Insurgents were "waging war?

Why the hypocrisy from the peace protesters???????

A 3rd Gentleman · Post by **A 3rd Gentleman** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:18 pm

AlAyeti wrote: Why is there not anti-Insurgent activists marching in the streets of America? Last time I looked (which was a few minutes ago) the Insurgents were "waging war?

Why the hypocrisy from the peace protesters???????

One reason is the Iraqi insurgents could care less about what a few wiley liberals think while the American goverment is forced to realise the demographic opinions of the American people.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:08 pm

There are people who advocate losing wars where possible, quoting Germany and Japan as examples.

Yes, but the main voice of those people, and Heller, is irony. Germany and Japan suffered more by loosing the war than almost any large group in history. For the survivors (to say nothing of the dead) the war was an unqualified catastrophe.

Imagine asking a German or Japanese survivor "Was the war worth it?" They couldn't possibly say yes, since they failed to achieve any of their objectives in any case.

The fact that the countries may rebuilt and develop thereafter is hardly relevant.

DanZ

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:16 pm

They are not fighting a war. They are just killing people.

Speaking of irony, the above quote is one of the best examples I have seen recently. If it were intentional, it would be brilliant.

Even if they were to win power of the people hey would still be murdering.

War and murder are identical. You kill people who have done nothing wrong to you. Even if you judge a war politically unavoidable it is still murder.

Why is there not anti-Insurgent activists marching in the streets of America?

Americans are confused. We usually view ourselves as the opposite of foreign occupiers. We really don't know what to think of them. Half the NRA own their weapons specifically to fight off an imagined foreign invader. Calling them "terrorists" sounds hollow, even to many conservatives, since it is their country not ours that we are fighting in.

DanZ

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:24 pm

BTW, the question is:

Is it moral to support a war if history says you are condemned to loose?

DanZ