War and morality

[juliod]

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]

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

That just seems like an easy way out. So there has to be a mindset of the insurgent that qualifies an insurgency? It is also dependent on size? So then should your "true" statement read, no one has ever defeated a large insurgency? So basically your statement is true only in the examples that you choose. But I am curious how you know that the Native Americans didn't see the European armies as foreign invaders. The question was prefaced with a statement that you claimed was always true. So lets look at a different war, lets say the war against racism and sexism. We will never get rid of these things but we should definitely fight them. I think terrorism is truly a great evil. And if we let them suceed then we will only give them justification to continue. I am not sure that you could define the insurgency in Iraq as a true insurgency either because the supposed leader is from Jordan and is being fought by a mix of Iraqis and non-Iraqis. Even so, who is to say that this insurgency isn't small and insignificant as well.

[juliod]

That just seems like an easy way out.

No, it's just a way of discussing the issue rather than a distraction. I could give 10 reasons why the examples you cited don't count. But the issue is the morality of supporting a war if you are condemned to lose. We could argue about technicalities and jargon forever. The point is that no occupying army that faces what we face in Iraq has ever won.

DanZ

[youngborean]

So you mean when an occupying army faces fighters that are supported by foreign money and leadership, there is no chance of winning becuase the enemy is invisible? No one has ever faced what the US is facing in Iraq. To simplify it to absolutes seems difficult when it is a unique situation, that is the point. Conflicts are never the same, there may be a variety of reasons that people are willing to fight the US in Iraq. Some of those ideas may be more easy to overcome than others if the US does really relinquish more power to the Iraqis. You call counter-examples of you untrue statement technicalities. Well your examples could be considered technicalities too, by your own logic.

[juliod]

Well your examples could be considered technicalities too, by your own logic.

Nope. They are unified by many aspects even though it is true that no conflict is like another. They are all examples of what has become the main form of warfare since WWII, and in fact the only successful one. You can call it People's War, Insurgency, Low-Intensity Conflict, or any of a dozen other names.

We didn't know this is the 60's or 70's, but we know it now. There aren't any examples of victory in counter-insurgency, and there are good reasons why foreign armies can be expected to lose in the future. This inability to defeat insurgencies crosses the political spectrum and is not altered by technology. It matters not at all how disparate the amount of force available to either side.

All the examples I cited share many features, such as 1) The constant pronouncement of victory around the corner, etc, light at the end of the tunnel, etc; 2) Complaints that local troops on "our" side are lazy, cowardly, corrupt, inefficient, etc, while the insurgents are cunning, brave, resourceful, and steadfast; 3) That our regular troops become immitative of the insurgent's atrocities and commit atrocities of their own, including mistreatment of prisoners; and 4) That every operation, victorius or not, further alienates the local populace.

We need to face something. History says we are going to lose in Iraq. Modern history is very clear about this. And since the insurgency and resistance to our occupation was anticipated it is clear that we never had a chance. I've been following the war since the beginning, and I have yet to be suprised at developments.

So the question is, can you support a war if you know that victory is extremely unlikely?

DanZ