Ian Morris’, War, What is it good for?, explores the history of war and its consequences and comes to the conclusion that “war is approaching its extraordinary culminating point” . The word ‘culminating’ implies two things; that war is reaching its climax - its highest form of weaponry and tactics; and that war will be on the decline after reaching this climatic point. He suggests that warfare has developed so much, and become so lethal and efficient, to the extent that it is actually “putting itself out of business” .
And yet the current situation in Syria and Iraq seems to entirely contradict this thesis. The ongoing civil wars in these countries show no sign of war coming to an end nor do they show the pinnacle of war being reached.
Instead,
…show more content…
Starting with The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, there has been constant fighting in Iraq, and resistance to the United States . Furthermore, the U.S.’ decision to pull troops out of Iraq prematurely left a power vacuum which enabled the terrorist organization ISIS to sweep through the Northern parts of Iraq in June 2014, and cross the border into Syria . The situation in both countries threatens to ‘spill over’ to other countries such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon . The situation shows no sign that war will be waning away any time …show more content…
From fortifications, to bronze weapons, to armour, to chariots, to infantry and guns . He discusses how for every new defensive tactic, an offensive reaction to combat it was created. For example, the use of fortifications to prevent raiders from attacking cities led to new tactics being developed to siege these fortifications . This dialogue between offense and defense is what Morris describes as the Red Queen Effect, where all the advances in technology keep war in the same place . Morris describes how, “The Hare races forward, but the Tortoise always crawls just a little farther ahead, creating new rivals, new unknown unknowns, and perhaps even new storms of steel” . This quote implies that no matter what new advances in warfare may arise, new challenges and threats will always be one step ahead, and therefore war will never reach a culminating point because it will always be one step behind. The Red Queen Effect will always mean that new warfare is met with new situations which require a newer warfare .
The changing nature of warfare can be seen in the case of Syria and Iraq, where different tactics of warfare have been used. Warfare is drastically different in Syria and Iraq than what warfare was during the First World War one hundred years ago. There are no longer armies fighting armies, but militias of untrained civilians fighting against terrorist groups. The use of chemical warfare in
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Task #1 In War Gives Us Meaning Author Chris Hedges outlines a few points that give light to the whole book. He outlines three main points. War is part of our culture, we have a myth behind what is actually there and finally, we use war as a crusade. These three main points make up the entire book.
Airpower inevitably changed the characteristics and the environment for outcome of wars. Theorists contend that war results from drastic changes in the international security environment, diplomacy, domestic politics, ideology, economics, and revolutionary advances in technology. Clausewitz emphasized, “Each period would have hold to its own theory”. Douhet wrote, "Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur." Airpower technology changed everything. Airpower can exploit speed, range, and flexibility better than land and sea forces. War may be the realm of chance, as Clausewitz advises but victory or defeat are not recorded as random outcomes. “There is an approach to war that maximizes the prospect of the achievement of decisive victory (whatever outcome one decides is sufficiently decisive and adequately victorious).” As warfare expands to new domains, it must continue to look back at military theory to develop effective
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
Review of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, written by the talented author Chris Hedges, gives us provoking thoughts that are somewhat painful to read, but at the same time are quite personal confessions. Chris Hedges, a talented journalist to say the least, brings nearly 15 years of being a foreign correspondent to this book and concludes how all of his world experiences tie together. Throughout his book, he unifies themes present in all the wars he experienced first hand. The most important themes I was able to draw from this book were, war skews reality, dominates culture, seduces society with its heroic attributes, distorts memory, and supports a cause, and allures us by a constant battle between death and love.
Advancements in technology and science contributed to one of the most gory and bloodiest wars in the annals of human existence. These new technological advancements revolutionized how people regarded war. War was no longer where the opposite forces fought in a coordinated battle. War evolved into a game of cunning strategy where the side with the bigger, more powerful, and smarter toys played better. This led to a fierce competition where each side tried to create the smarter machines and better weapons, leading to deadly mass killing weapons in the process.
During the twentieth century, conclusions of wars created the conditions for subsequent wars. Whether it was the conquered or the conqueror, few ever remain content past an initial truce. Two examples of this can be found in the events that lead up to WWII and the constant conflict in the Middle East.
All throughout time and history people have been at war with each other at one point or another. War can, truthfully, at times be inescapable and considered by some historians as a natural instinct, an instinct that every human being possess. Throughout history mighty empires and governments have collapsed due to the damages inflicted on by a war, yet in spite of this, some have managed to face the odds and make it through, staggering along as if nothing happened. War is a true test of an empire or government’s determination to move forward, adapting using the knowledge and intellect they have acquired to their own advantage. Nevertheless, not all wars lead to fighting by physical means but instead it can lead to fighting mentally by opposing sides. One such example would be the non-traditional Cold War fought between the United States and Soviet Union. The Cold War was a time that caused an immense fear in the lives of many, and inspired novels such as 1984 by George Orwell, Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank, and essays such as “You and the Atomic Bomb” by George Orwell, which are just some of the voices from this terrible time.
It seems since that dawn of the era of man we have always been in competition with one another. We have fought countless wars over every issue imaginable, with many great civilizations being founded and destroyed by war. Though with each new conflict comes newer and better technology. Technology is what drives civilizations forward, but it can also lead to its downfall. It is fascinating see how much technology has evolved over history, and how we have incorporated these innovations into newer technology. In past century technology has seen its greatest leap forward. This is in large part due to the two major World Wars that plagued the early part of the 20th century. (Koch p.122)
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
The abrupt end of decade long dominating regime in three weeks had created a political vacuum, that is evident in shifting coalitions and divisions among religious groups, ethnic groups, regional groups and even classes (Barnett et al. 2003, 25). US did not realize, moreover, the depth of the hostility between Kurds and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites, and the members of different tribes and local religious groups. Furthermore, to deal with destruction in Iraq new plan was decided by the US. The plan was to pull out all troops and hand over the responsi...
...Ultimately, the way in which every war is won is by killing the enemy. That will never change. But the way in which an army goes about killing the enemy will constantly change due to ethics, new technology, new levels of hatred, and so on. There are always protesters to every war: “Stop the war! No more killing! Peace on earth!” Who doesn’t want these things? Do they think that the soldiers fighting for our country want to experience the horrors of war? Of course not, but if we do learn anything from history, it is that the human race will never stop waging wars on each other. People will inevitably die at the hands of war and the best that we can do is protect our troops at all costs, destroy the enemy, and spare as many civilian casualties as possible. I agree with General W.T. Sherman who said, “War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.” (Fussell, 774.)
Every day we are surrounded by stories of war. In fact, we have become so accustomed to it, that we are now entertained by it. Video games, movies, and books filled with heroes who once dominated the battlefields. However it is constantly stated, “no good comes from war.” Even famous songs state “war... what is it good for… absolutely nothing.” But what if war was actually necessary? Throughout history, we see examples of the good things wars have brought. War has freed slaves, modernized medicine, brought down evil empires, and even brought countries together
Military technology has been effecting the rules of war for years and it will for years to come. In medieval times, there were many advances that today we would not think of as technology but they are. Chain mail armor was invented to prevent injuries from sword fighting, catapults were used to throw objects over castle walls and break down doors. The American Revolution had an impact on technology, the first guns were just being made, without this technology we would be nowhere today. In WWI machine guns were invented by the Germans, and then more finely tuned for WWII. Since WWII, there have been so many developments that they can’t even be counted.
War has been around for centuries. From the time modern civilizations began, war has played an integral part in human history. It shaped the world into the modern world we live in. War has been said to be a great motivator, for example, the Great Wall of China was built to fend off the attackers from the north. However, the negative aspects of war far outweighs any positive effects it might have. The destruction of civilizations, cities and countries, mass killings of men, woman and children alike, the disastrous effect it has on economy and the after effects of war can last for centuries.