Bush's Handling Of The War

[kmc]

But it seems to me Chrisfan, that (apart from wars where the objective of one of the parties involved changes (i.e., our war of independence)), that war is simply a game of short term subjugation where the stronger side imposes its will on the weaker; war creates animosity and teaches that military strength should be the ultimate goal of any aspiring world superpower. For every Lybia, there is a North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan whose military buildups might also be directly attributed to American aggression in the middle east. It goes without saying, of course, that warfare in the middle east propagates Islamic terrorism, and has done so for as long as anyone cares to remember; the influx of American weapons to Israel has not kept Palestinians from blowing themselves up for the cause, and has certainly not helped to keep anyone in line.

Can war keep us safe, or is it simply the quickest means of achieving a temporary peace against the latest enemy? It's important to note that, if war is just the quickest means of diplomacy and does not achieve anything beyond some sort of temporary reprieve, then at which point do we stop sacrificing the lives of mostly poor people without the guarantee of a better tomorrow?

[chrisfan]

rockysigman said:

And yet we keep having wars. And they're frequently directly connected to previous wars.

Wars do usually end in a short term peace, but it's pretty clear from history that nations that go to war against each other often do so repeatedly. That's a fact, no? So how can it be said that war lead to peace, when 5 years, 20 years, 50 years whatever later there's another war over an issue either left over from, or caused by, the previous one?

As for how much peace comes from diplomacy....well, that's impossible to answer. It's obvious that the nations that we have the best diplomatic relationships with are the ones we don't go to war with. That's got to count for something. Who knows what wars would occur if we were less diplomatic with any of those nations. It's really rather impossible to guess how many deaths are prevented through diplomacy. But its pretty easy to see how many deaths come from war.

Diplomacy is more than hammering through a last minute agreement to prevent an otherwise imminent war. It also means maintaining strong relationships with other nations so things never get to that point.

So you're including nations that get along into the equation? With all due respect, that really doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not talking about all relationships between all nations. I'm talking about times when there have been CONFLICT between nations. I can think of moretimes that peace has been achieved after CONFLICT through war than by just sitting down and talking. Sure - if you add nations that are already allies into the mix then diplomacy works. But they were already allies - so what is really being accomplished?

[rockysigman]

We have conflicts with allies all the time. But because we have good diplomatic relations with them, they never rise to the level of possibly leading to war. I don't see why this shouldn't count as diplomacy leading to peaceful resolution.

And also, our good diplomatic relations with our allies prevents war in other unseen ways by discouraging other, less friendly nations. Nations with strong alliances are less likely to be attacked (although obviously not completely immune to it) because aggressive nations know that if they start a war with one nation that they might be able to defeat on its own, they'll actually be starting a war with 10 nations that they can't possibly defeat.

I suppose if you define diplomacy as only consisting of last second negotiations while both nations have their finger on the button, then yeah, that probably doesn't work that often, but I really don't see why that's the only thing that counts. Diplomacy is most affective in avoiding those situations all together.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

War creates subjugation, I can hardly see how kicking the shit out of someone could possibly bring about a union that is grounded in actual diplomacy. The Korean War is a great example of a stale mate. We're still working on that stale mate fifty years later.

[chrisfan]

rockysigman said:

We have conflicts with allies all the time. But because we have good diplomatic relations with them, they never rise to the level of possibly leading to war. I don't see why this shouldn't count as diplomacy leading to peaceful resolution.

And also, our good diplomatic relations with our allies prevents war in other unseen ways by discouraging other, less friendly nations. Nations with strong alliances are less likely to be attacked (although obviously not completely immune to it) because aggressive nations know that if they start a war with one nation that they might be able to defeat on its own, they'll actually be starting a war with 10 nations that they can't possibly defeat.

I suppose if you define diplomacy as only consisting of last second negotiations while both nations have their finger on the button, then yeah, that probably doesn't work that often, but I really don't see why that's the only thing that counts. Diplomacy is most affective in avoiding those situations all together.

Rocky, I agree with everything you are saying here. It just does not really apply to what I was talking about in saying that war is often more successful than diplomacy. I don't dismiss diplomacy. I prefer diplomacy. But when we're talking about serious conflict, not just a disagreement, I believe that throughout history, war has brought about more peace than diplomacy. Why do I think this? Because I can think of so few actual conflicts which have been settled once and for all through talking.

[Kensterberg]

The ultimate example of how diplomacy trumps shooting ... the Cold War. The distances between the NATO allies and the Warsaw Pact were as great as between any two adversaries in history. Disagreements over territory, foreign and domestic policies, etc. But there was never a war between these great powers. Indeed, such a conflict would have been unimaginable. When the alternatives were nuclear holocaust and diplomacy, even the most fervent cold warriors (i.e. Nixon and Breshnev) could agree on the necessity for diplomacy.

On a related note, the US stand-off with China since the rise of the Maoists following WWII has been dealt with almost exclusively via diplomatic channels. The one notable exception, the Korean War, showed to each side the futility of a shooting war with the other. America learned that it is pointless to take on a country of more than a billion people in a ground war, and the Chinese ultimately decided that such a conflict was too disruptive for her citizens, and that the threat of American nukes again made any thoughts of ultimate "victory" fleeting at best.

These are simply two examples of how great powers are better able to resolve disputes via diplomacy rather than war. Note also that, after literally centuries of almost continual conflict, France and England in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries negotiated a peaceful alliance between them. Had it not been for this alliance, Germany would likely have defeated the French in WWI (indeed, a half-century earlier the Brits would have certainly allied themselves with their German cousins), and the map of modern Europe could be far different.

Diplomacy is the only route to lasting peace. Modern Europian co-existance did not come from the turmoil of WWII, but rather from the Marshall Plan which followed, and the necessity of continuing and expanding the Western Alliance against Stalin's USSR. Diplomacy, not gunfire, is what brings people together. Strong commercial ties between countries, not strong armies standing between them, are what foster lasting peaceful relationships. The French and Germans still do not care for each other, but their economies are simply too dependant on one another for them to consider raising arms again.

Sorry for going on so long ...

[phil]

There will never be a nuclear war;
there's too much real estate involved.
(Frank Zappa)

[Galactus]

Frank was a prophet, I would love to know what Frank would've thought about the last ten years.

[Thorngrub]

It is reassuring to know Mantis does take interest in some human affairs.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I somehow think while he would have a very humorous take on things, I don't think Zappa would have been too pleased. I really wish we had a Zappa like person becaues I miss Frank.

[strat-0]

George Carlin said (about the problems developing the Iraqi constitution), "Why not give them ours; we're not using it for anything."

[phil]

Nuclear explosions under the Nevada desert?
What the fuck are we testing for?
We already know the shit blows up.
(Frank Zappa)

[chrisfan]

kenholzman said:

The ultimate example of how diplomacy trumps shooting ... the Cold War. The distances between the NATO allies and the Warsaw Pact were as great as between any two adversaries in history. Disagreements over territory, foreign and domestic policies, etc. But there was never a war between these great powers. Indeed, such a conflict would have been unimaginable. When the alternatives were nuclear holocaust and diplomacy, even the most fervent cold warriors (i.e. Nixon and Breshnev) could agree on the necessity for diplomacy.

On a related note, the US stand-off with China since the rise of the Maoists following WWII has been dealt with almost exclusively via diplomatic channels. The one notable exception, the Korean War, showed to each side the futility of a shooting war with the other. America learned that it is pointless to take on a country of more than a billion people in a ground war, and the Chinese ultimately decided that such a conflict was too disruptive for her citizens, and that the threat of American nukes again made any thoughts of ultimate "victory" fleeting at best.

These are simply two examples of how great powers are better able to resolve disputes via diplomacy rather than war. Note also that, after literally centuries of almost continual conflict, France and England in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries negotiated a peaceful alliance between them. Had it not been for this alliance, Germany would likely have defeated the French in WWI (indeed, a half-century earlier the Brits would have certainly allied themselves with their German cousins), and the map of modern Europe could be far different.

Diplomacy is the only route to lasting peace. Modern Europian co-existance did not come from the turmoil of WWII, but rather from the Marshall Plan which followed, and the necessity of continuing and expanding the Western Alliance against Stalin's USSR. Diplomacy, not gunfire, is what brings people together. Strong commercial ties between countries, not strong armies standing between them, are what foster lasting peaceful relationships. The French and Germans still do not care for each other, but their economies are simply too dependant on one another for them to consider raising arms again.

Sorry for going on so long ...

There is no need for the Marshall Plan without WW2.

Regarding the Cold War, and US/China relations, you do make a good point. But, while I acknowledge that it's without firing shots, does the military not play a very relevant role in both of those? Certainly the arms race played a key role in the cold war. And you said yourself that it's the threat of what war could be that keeps war off the radar in the US/China situation.

As I said to Rocky, I do not dismiss diplomacy. There is without question a need for diplomacy, and a role for diplomacy in ALL conflicts. I don't see diplomacy vs war as an either or proposition. But it appears to me that there are those who believe firmly that war is NEVER the option, and that diplomacy is always more effective than war. I strongly disagree with that.

[kmc]

I wouldn't propose that war is NEVER the option, Chrisfan, but I would argue that war as a means to any meaningful peace is overrated. At best, war seems to me like a reactionary means to a global problem. Necessary? Arguably. But to tout war as a peace making/keeping force is a stretch, given that warfare seems to infrequently create lasting peace.

[chrisfan]

And pure diplomacy, with no related military action, creates lasting peace even less frequently. So where does that lead us?