"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in might ... otherwise, the strong do whatever they can and the weak suffer whatever they must.”
― Thucydides c.400 BC
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace."
― Tacitus c.100 AD
“God of our fathers ... Strengthen my soul so that the weakening instinct of self-preservation ... shall not blind me to my duty to my own manhood, to the glory of my calling, and to my responsibility to my fellow soldiers. … Let me not mourn for the men who have died fighting, but rather let me be glad that such heroes have lived. If it be my lot to die, let me do so with courage and honor in a manner which will bring the greatest harm to the enemy, and please, oh Lord, protect and guide those I shall leave behind. Give us the victory.”
― George S. Patton c.1944
― Dwight D. Eisenhower c.1958
"As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that [violence will] not solve their problems. ... But they asked -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? ... Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."
― Martin Luther King Jr, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City
“Every 60 seconds 24 people flee their homes because of war.”
― International RESCUE Committee 2017
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
― "Political Observations", James Madison 1795
What are the historically revealed causes, characteristics, consequences and alternatives of/to war as a "necessary evil" ... and how have they changed for us in America today?
Mark Twain once joked that “God created war so that Americans would learn geography.” But, perhaps, there are sobering truths hidden in his words that can provoke us to think more deeply.
- How do wars start?
- How does war depend on the "parties" [military, allies, proxies, civilians] and the "weapons" [trade, currency, cold-deterrence, conventional, non-conventional, mass-destruction] ?
- Do wars depend on propaganda?
- What are the costs and benefits of war ... and who are the winners and losers?
- How do wars end?
- Has war always been and will it always be necessary and/or evil?
And although their collective wisdom will be great, we can still only hope to glimpse the distant outlines of such a vast and complex subject. Nevertheless it would seem to be an effort worth making in our day and time when "wars and rumors of wars" abound.
When, Where and a Flyer
Tuesday, February 20th, 7:00 to 8:45 pmFriends University, William Penn Hall, Room 100 [west of Riney Fine Arts Center]
Here is a FLYER you can print and post appropriately to alert others about the meeting.
Panelists and Moderator 👥
Please welcome our 5 panelists and moderator [listed in order of acceptance]. Click their name to see a bio [if we have it]. And remember, they have busy lives so we do NOT require them to provide a position statement or suggested readings in advance ... but if they do, we have provided links to those materials following their name/bio below ... and we encourage you to review these links to get to know our panelists and moderator better.Marvin Martin [panelist] - Marvin is a long standing member of and contributor to the Wichita community and well known to [and always in demand by] almost all of us for his friendly manners, his thoughtful insights and his firm convictions. As a young WWII combat veteran, Marvin returned to Wichita to embrace his adult life as a faithful husband, a loving father, and a distinguished jurist/lawyer [founder of the Martin Churchill law firm] … seeking to understand and further … law and order … liberty and justice … mercy and love.
#57 This time I don't even have to pack my bags
#58 Aliens and strangers in the world
for more reflections on life by Marvin go to http://fromgrandpawithlove.com/
Dan Gates [panelist] - As President & CEO of American Water Purification, Inc., Dan is a decorated Vietnam veteran from a military family who has given us a comprehensive position statement outlining his thoughts on war to help us organize our thoughts in advance ... an excellent strategy for those who wish to know where they may be headed BEFORE embarking [aka intelligence].
Holger Meyer [panelist] - As a physicist, Holger brings the powerful realities and sobering implications of science to our discussion of warfare ... a perspective that is analytical and ethical not political ... which can help us simplify [or avoid reaching] the "complications" which those with only a "just cause" for going to war always seem to encounter.
Andrew Veatch [panelist] - Andrew is the member of our panel who has had the least opportunity to consider war but is the most likely to fight and die as a combatant. On behalf of all "child soldiers" [see below], we need Andrew's generation to be more articulate and adamant ... since it is their futures which are being most affected by our wars. Thank Andrew for his thoughtful position statement.
Becky Elder [panelist] - Becky is known to most of us as a wife, mother and a teacher. The perspective she brings to us from her triple vantage point may help us to see a strategy and develop tactics that make war "less necessary" as the chosen pathway to reach our legitimate personal and social goals. Please read and feel free to "Reply" to Becky's blog "Comment" below summarizing her thoughts.
Thoughts on WAR from St. John
Russell Fox [moderator] - A distinguished and opinionated academic career in political science notwithstanding, Russell brings us the intimate and guiding presence of the classroom teacher ... one skilled in moderating dialogue to assist diverse participants to discover the answers which, as Socrates reminds us, they already knew. Russell has provided us with some initial thoughts which we have put into a Moderator's blog "Comment" below ... so read and "Reply" to Russell and help us "jump start" this dialogue.
Bob Love [stand-by panelist] - As the NSS trustee primarily responsible for organizing this symposium, Bob is actively searching for panelists and moderators to provide the perspectives needed to bring the "leviathan" of war into better focus. As usual, he sees war from a detailed economic point of view which he has also summarized and is prepared to share with us as a backup panelist. We can always count on Bob for an opening blog COMMENT or two below ... so watch our blog ... and learn how to enter into the blogging with your own COMMENTS and/or REPLIES.
PS. Please let Bob know if you are aware of others who would like to serve as panelists for this important evening, since sometimes "things change" and having good backups on short notice is a real blessing [ask any coach].
The Evening's Format [is a little different ... so read this carefully]
The first half of the evening will consist of each panelist presenting an opening position statement about war per se. Due to the breadth and complexity of the subject, we will give the different panelists greater than normal latitude to help us gain an overall perspective of the different vital aspects of war and how they relate to and influence one another.In the second half of the evening, we will depart somewhat from our normal procedure. Instead of simply probing the panelists' opening statements, we will be practically applying them. We want the audience to pose questions concerning the realities of war for Americans in the 21st century in light of what we have learned from our panelists. This will be a little different dynamic than normal, so bring thoughtful questions and be ready for some spontaneous responses from the panelists as they work together to apply general principles about war to the specific situations we are facing today ... putting static ideas into spontaneous practice ... something every soldier is required to do in combat !!
And for those of you who are inclined to get some questions out in the open for consideration BEFORE the evening's meeting ... feel free to join the liberales ... and blog your COMMENTS and REPLIES below as needed/wished to build some trains of thought for us.
Epilogue
“Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved.” ― Martin Luther
For those who missed another wonderful evening at Friends University, take time to view the excellent AV recording on "War Matters" from Paul Soutar at Graphic Lens ... or just go to YouTube and search for us under "New Symposium Society War Matters".We hope you will stay in touch with New Symposium Society in 2018 and join us again in the future. And if you have some ideas to share about ways to improve our work ... just let us hear from you ... contact us at newsymposium@gmail.com. Goodbye until our next meeting and stay tuned to our blogsite for further info.
NSS Suggested Readings [with links]
DocumentsWealth of Nations V.1.0 [on national defense], Adam Smith 1776
>> critical >> US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 1789
Articles
Just War Theory and War Finance Wikipedia
The Ethics of War, Bertrand Russell 1915
C.S. Lewis on War and Peace, CS Lewis Institute, David C. Downing
The Costs of War Project - Brown University Nov 2017
"No More Good Wars", A transcript of the Lew Rockwell Show podcast episode 431 with John Denson, LewRockwell.com, August 13, 2015
On War Propaganda
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
>> breaking news >> "The BIGGEST Secret", James Risen, The Intercept, 2018 "The media’s role in war propaganda", Elizabeth Willmott-Harrop August 2005
"War, Propaganda and the Media", Global Issues, Anup Shah 2005
"Western Media Persists in Propaganda About Iraq’s Purported WMD", Foreign Policy Journal, Jeremy R. Hammond 2009
A Saudi Imam, 2 Hijackers and Lingering 9/11 Mystery, NYT, Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, June 2016
Did France convince NATO to overthrow Gaddafi to prevent the launch of a Pan-African Gold-Backed Currency and to seize Lybia's oil fields?, Horace Campbell and Mark Fancher, Democracy Now 2017
On Child Soldiers
"Older men start wars, but younger men fight them.” Einstein
>> breaking news >> "Yemen's Child Soldiers", by Sarah El Sirgany, CNN, February 3, 2018 "Children in the Military", wikipedia
"The Disposability of Boys", Good Men Project
"Psychology of Child Soldiers", Carr Center Harvard
"Hitler Youth and Nazi Propaganda", Master of Education
Online Books
The Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar 58-50 BC
War is a Racket, General Smedley Butler 1935
The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories, John V. Denson 2011 [highly recommended collection of cutting edge essays and letters]
The Faces of War
ReplyDelete"Therefore, having laid waste all their country, [and] having burned their villages and houses, Caesar led back his army and stationed them in winter quarters among the Aulerci and Lexovii, and the other states which had made war upon him last."
The Gallic Wars: Book III Chapter XXIX, Julius Caesar 60 BC
"And I saw a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. ... And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. ... And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. ... And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."
Revelations 60 AD
If war had only one mask, we might be able to recognize it's dreadful approach from afar and take counter measures to avoid the train of destruction that inevitably follows indiscriminately in its broad wake.
But generation after generation as well as continuing advances in technology reshape and reshade the myriad masks of war so that they are unrecognizable even when war is advancing upon us in plain sight ... and so we delay until war can no longer be "stopped in the name of peace" but can only be "ended in the name of justice".
We hope you will join us at New Symposium Society for a wide-ranging discussion of war in which we will attempt to identify telltale characteristics that can alert us to the dangers of coming war [both distant and imminent] ... and to see if any of those indicators are flashing red for us today in America and for others across the globe.
Perhaps, it is not too late.
shalom,
Bob
My strongest considerations about our topic come from soldiers, the active participants, and those participants take sides. Some will hold to the identity of war by elevating the necessity and the sacrifice . Some will hold to the futility of war. Essentially, one side makes war sacred and thus unalterable. The other sounds a call to resistance by any means.One very good and concise look at this dichotomy is found in William Shakespeare's famous Henry V. Briefly, the plot of Henry V is a history play, probably written around 1599. It covers events during the Hundred Years' War. Soon after he becomes king, Henry V is considering making a claim to rule France as well as England. Finding himself and his army at the Battle of Agincourt, he gives this rousing charge to his troops that includes a call to manhood, honor, and the famous call to identity as a "band of brothers" who's integrity is so impeccable that all others, watching will long to join the battle. It is too lengthy to post, but in its entirety presents an iconic call for war.
ReplyDeleteThe King's speech is soon followed by Shakespeare's habit of seeing the other side of royal decisions through the eyes of the common man, Williams.
"But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day, and cry all, “We died at such a place,” some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle, for how can they charitably dispose of anything, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it, who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection."
Simplified, the King must justify the cause. The solider, who cannot disobey, accomplishes the cause of the King. The King will bear the judgement, the solider the devastation.
In such an explanation, and discounting a totalitarian form of government, wise leadership from the King seems imperative or the right of refusal for the solider. This is a proper tension. In earlier times when authority was less transient and ownership less widely distributed, the grip of the King on the solider was changed only by revolt. The more affluent, democratic and technologically advanced a society, the more pristine, and less violent, the revolt. That seems to be the most crucial pressure point, creating the resistance to explotation effectively. We have a system to follow in our republic. Unfortunately, the same affluence, widespread democratic franchise, and technology have produced a disinterested lethargy in the resistance. Instead of seeing war as just or unjust, our age tends to see it as a job, one more industry in the choices for vocation. The justification for the industry is readiness. The resulting army is mercenary.
The second law of thermodynamics holds, matter tends to descend from order to chaos. It is de rerum natura, the nature of things. We can expect change and that change is downward. As we devolve, and all things must, we have only one tool to interject decency. It is love. Love can be defined as education, ex ducare, to lead out of. Love leads us out of ourselves and into a greater awareness and empathy for more people, as individuals, in their places.
War as a necessary evil will exist, but the moderating and necessary antidote is love as education. Now, the question becomes. who will do the educating, the King or the solider?
Thoughts from our Moderator:
ReplyDeleteTwo of the most famous theorists of war, Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz, shared a couple of basic premises about conflict. In his The Art of War, the ancient Chinese Sun Tzu wrote:
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
And in his important study On War, the Prussian soldier Carl von Clausewitz wrote:
“War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means. We deliberately use the phrase ‘with the addition of other means’ because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essentials that intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs.”
In short, despite being separated by thousands of years and immense cultural divides, both these thinkers recognized that the common myths which have often been employed to make war seeming appealing—that it is inherently honest and direct, that it offers a sincere measure of human beings beyond politics, that it is, for all its horrors, a frequent site for heroism and integrity—did not reflect the reality of armed conflict. Wars are fought because the determined will of one or another factions of persons cannot be satisfied through political means—but that does not mean the will in question has been transformed by introducing armed conflict into the occasion. Fallen human beings remain fallen human beings, whether it is (supposedly) conniving diplomats making compromises in backrooms, or it is (supposedly) honorable soldiers submitting to rules of war on the battlefield. Those rules themselves, after all, are political constructs, arrived at through historical processes that reflect the self-interest of all parties involved. Even if those interests were themselves of a higher, religiously or ethically motivated source, that does not change that there was a will which wanted them. Even the rules of “just war,” rather than having been received by revelation from God, were human constructions and interpretations, drawn from both the Biblical record as well as human reasoning. In other words, when all is said and done, the fact remains: whatever happens on the battlefield, whatever humanitarian or aristocratic or Christian principles may or may not be invoked by various contestants to account for how and why the war broke out and how and why it is prosecuted, it remains that war is inherently political. It is, very simply, about who gets what, and how, and when. Everything else said about war is an attempt to either hide or elide or elevate this basic, grungy principle. Wars don’t emerge because politics failed; wars emerge because it makes political sense to the combatants for it to do so. So let’s keep this in mind, as we discuss the problem of war—when we do so we are also, ultimately, talking about the problem of politics, of sovereignty and power and security and the state, as well.
Russell Fox