One of the biggest differences between liberals and Republicans is their view of war. Particularly among neocons, it's a narrative in which the US is continually saving the world,''making the world safe for democracy''.
For any of you who know your Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat), that phrase will ring a bell. Indeed, it may surprise some to reflect that the dems got the US involved in WW1 and WW2, as well as Korea and Vietnam. Perhaps one of JFKs best known quotes is ''we will pay any price, bear any burden... to ensure the survival and success of liberty''. As some historians have rightly pointed out, this is a lot like the rhetoric of George W Bush, though as some would no doubt joke, infinitely more articulate.
Around JFK's time, the anti war New Left movement siezed power within the dems. Before long though, cold warriors like William F Buckley gained influence within the Republican Party, making it much more hawkish. Not that the dems transformed into principled pacifists - it's easy to forget how Clinton launched various operations around the globe, albeit on a small scale, and cynics would note that these often coincided when Clinton was in political trouble. Obama hasn't started any new conflicts, but he isn't withdrawing troops from the Middle East with much alacricity either.
That said, pacifism is still associated with the left of the political spectrum. I used to have a fairly low opinion of anti war leftists (Code Pink and Michael Moore types) but as I began to connect the dots economically speaking, I came round to a new point of view on war. Much of what I previously believed was based on a faulty understanding of both economics and history - beliefs shared by vast amounts of people.
For example, you regularly hear that WW2 got the US out of the Depression. This assertion is outrageous once you look at the facts (even more outrageous than believing it was the New Deal). The government went massively into debt in order to spend billions on military manufacturing and sends off hundreds of thousands of young men to kill and be killed. This may be necessary depending on the circumstances, or worthwhile depending on the cause, but it certainly doesn't cause prosperity.
Military production creates goods people wouldn't ordinarily want or need. You would have the same economic results if the government spent billions on computers and paid a few hundred thousand people to play WoW all day, and kill or maim those who let the team down on raids. The money invested into such a scheme would show up in and raise GDP, and all the men involved would be officially employed, however none of this helps the nation become more prosperous. See here for an excellent article on the real economic costs of war. It goes over many of the things you wouldn't ordinarily consider, such as how the domination of research by defence projects makes industry less suited for providing goods people want, as it drains the best scientific minds away from making our lives better, to designing weapons.
War can be justified. The ending of slavery in the US, stopping Hitler and the Nazis, saving Iraqi Kurds from Saddam. The cost however is too great. It is unsustainable, and there are generally other ways to achieve these goals. Even the war which is most morally defencible, WW2, probably wouldn't have occurred if it wasn't for WW1. Consider that if America had stayed out of the war, Britain and france wouldn't have been able to win so decisively, such a heinous treaty couldn't have been forced on the Germans, setting the stage for WW2.
I hope I've provided a coherent argument without wearing my heart on my sleeve too much, but please, do consider what I've said.
Firefly, I've also become more enlightened towards the political, socioeconomics of war. I've always been a history geek but I've only recently become focused on the history of war. My research and focus has been on the American Civil War but I think some basic principles still apply to the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts. Do you think it all boils down to oil?
In this context, when war is the last option available, and where the cost of the alternatives to war is too great.
Now of course that begs the question, define ''cost''. This isn't simply an economic term, it can apply to subjective moral principles, which leads me onto my next point:
I generally dislike blanket theories operating on ceteris paribus. They can be useful, but generally they are not a good idea when it comes to deciding to lay down blood and treasure to solve a problem. Case in point: Vietnam, Korea, Laos and Cambodia. By fighting based on little more than a vague principle and an unhealthy amount of cold war paranoia, massive unnecessary sufferring was caused to South East Asia. That's why wars should never be subject to such theories, as they can justify this. The only common demoniator there should be however, is a consensus that war should always be the last option.
Do you think it all boils down to oil?
No. Afghanistan is a historical quagmire. To get to the root of the problem, you should probably start with the British colonial presence and work your way forwards from there. Essentially, the present conflict in Afghanistan stems from two main things. The birth and rapid expansion of radical Islam in the 20th and 21st centuries and the classic mistake of lumping creating a state with no national unity, making sectarian violence and instability inevitable.
What are the alternatives to war? Can you prove that such alternatives have never been considered? Does it sometimes boil down to backing off and not getting what you want vs. doing whatever it takes to get what you asked for?
Can you prove that such alternatives have never been considered?
In many cases, governments for whatever reasons are either unwilling or unable to negotiate, normally due to dogmatic ideological principles.
Does it sometimes boil down to backing off and not getting what you want vs. doing whatever it takes to get what you asked for?
That's a very Thatcherite presumption. I don't think the intricacies of foreign policy are ever that black and white. What I will say is that there are great advantages in having a top flight diplomatic service. By avoiding wars, you save blood and treasure, and end up paying for yourself many times over. Wars involving resources are a good example: the cost of deploying and fighting a war vastly outstrips the material wealth gained from the outcome of the war.
