Writers' Community!

Log in / Sign up

Sometimes it's hard to realize we are at war. Sure, we hear about it sometimes on the news, and sometimes the newspapers will print a photo or at least a headline about it. For the most part, though, it's hard to imagine since this war (or these wars, since we are still in Iraq) has not overtaken society as previous wars have and as future wars might.

 

For example:

 

World War One, the 'Great War', was the first major global conflict, of course. This war was the first to involve almost every segment of society. And yet, that war wasn't taken seriously (France sent troops to the front in taxicabs, at first) until trench warfare and mass slaughter was introduced. Then, of course, it was taken very seriously as blood ran as rivers across the landscape and rooftops of Europe. Life as was known was changed forever.

 

That war ended with the armistice which created the League of Nations, a kind-of precursor to the current United Nations. This group of nations was to prevent any future wars from ever happening, and all disputes would be presented to this League and a solution arrived at without warfare. Sounds simple, of course, unless you are Germany and are presented with four-digit inflation and reparations to pay to France (and England) which were thought unreasonable. Add in a ruthless egomaniac and a soft, tired Europe (including England, at first) and you have a recipe for future war.

 

World War Two started with the invasion of Poland by Germany. It perhaps started earlier, when Hitler was named Chancellor, yet the Poland invasion was the first domino to fall. The others (Holland, France, Norway, et al) fell quickly as Germany decided not only to revenge the humiliation of the first World War, but to make it impossible for it to be conquered ever again. It made deals with Italy and Japan, made concessions with Russia (about Poland), and every country in Europe was embroiled in yet another world war. The United States was brought in on December 7, when Japan (not surprisingly, given their ambitions and sanctions at the time) decided to attack and our lives would change forever.

 

Once again, the United States brought herself up, pulled together, and created a military that was unmatched. Japan had no chance, it knew, yet only wanted time to conquer the southern Pacific. Germany also had no chance, yet it (or more succinctly, Hitler) decided to wage war against America since it had no confidence in the Americans. Strangely, the only country Hitler declared war upon was the United States.

 

At any rate, once again there was total war and once again Europe (and the Pacific this time) ran with blood. Once again every segment of all of the populations were involved in the war. And once again, as with the first war (1914-1918), four years pass and the war is declared over.

 

In both instances above, the wars were (relatively) quick and horrifying. In both instances the populations were completely immersed in their country's drive to either defeat or prevent defeat (can you imagine rubber, or gasoline, or chocolate rationing these days?). And in both instances, the war diverted life from 'what used to be' and turned it into 'what will have to be'.

 

Korea and Vietnam were slow, drawn-out wars in that we were too tired of slaughter (perhaps) and too overwhelmed with our own ability to destroy and maim. Slow and drawn-out is not a good description for war, and because it is not quick and the aim or goal is not clearly defined (or changes constantly, as in Vietnam especially), the population never gets completely involved and so 'what used to be' is 'what still will probably be'.

 

Now we are (still) in Iraq and Afghanistan and these are both long, drawn-out wars. Unlike the first two World Wars, these are not completely-immersing and the rivers don't flow with blood of the enemy. The enemy is ill-defined (at best) and so 'surgical strikes' are needed. We use drones, we bribe tribesmen, we do everything we can to prevent mass slaughter. We do these things because we don't want the alternative, which is total war. And because it is not total war, the population will never get completely involved, and because the population will never get completely involved, 'what used to be' is 'what still is, as always'.

 

Life goes on. We hear of the war(s), we sometimes hear some senator or congressman speak of either getting out or putting more troops in, we hear bloggers and commentators describe the wishy-washiness of Mr. Obama not realizing one fact: we are no longer politically able to wage total war.

 

Mr. Obama has three choices with regard to Afghanistan: Pull everyone out, which would allow the tribesmen to fight amongst themselves and the Taliban (which they are doing now anyway), leave things as they are (which means another couple of years of questionable progress), or put enough troops in to create mayhem, not just mayhem but so much the rivers and rooftops run with blood (which the population would probably never go for). I don't see any other choices.

 

Mr. Obama has to decide which way to go. We should all be thankful we haven't the same choice to make.

 

 

So, using my three main reasons for going to war (natural resources, ego, pre-emption), let's now look at some reasons countries are not technically at war yet who are not at peace. These countries at Non-war include Isreal and Syria/Jordan/Egypt/Palestine (or at least the Palestinian people), and the United States and Afghanistan.

 

Outight war is horrifying and terribly costly. The alternative, non-war, is to be prepared to go to war at a moment's notice, or to actually be fighting without any formal declaration. There are some obvious examples: Isreal has been at this state since inception in 1948, and the United States is fighting a non-war in Afghanistan since we are not technically fighting the country but rather a small (yet significant) part.

 

Other than War and Non-war, everyone is at peace or at least neutral, right?  Unfortunately, that is not the case. For one thing, peace and neutrality are not the same thing. Switzerland is known for being neutral, yet it wasn't during World War II as it helped both the Axis (by laundering gold) and Allies (with information about Nazi troop movements). Argentina was also 'neutral' during that conflict, yet Nazi submarine bases were built on her shores.

 

These days, howevever, without any global conflict (I don't mention the War on Terror since that is not technically a concerted effort, despite the best efforts of the Americans), more countries are in a state of non-war than are at peace. England and the United States can be considered at peace, of course, yet China and the United States cannot. Why? Because the United States has something China wants and, sometime in the future, will have to fight someone for (natural resources). The United States and Mexico are also in a state of non-war in that Mexico wants something the United States has (economic opportunities, infrastructure) and will one day have to fight for what it needs or slide back into a third-world country. Almost every country in Africa with the exception of Morocco and South Africa are in a similar state: they either have natural resources they will one day have to defend (oil or crops) or are nearing (or at) a desperate state where they will have to invade. Africa specifically cannot continue to to subside on help from the West (or East) as sooner or later those countries helping Africa will have to turn their attention inward (again, to either protecting what they have or fighting for what they need).

 

So. A fragile world without peace is where we seem to be heading. And yet, I have hope.

 

One day perhaps countries will look beyond their petty differences and realize we are all at risk if we continue as we are. We as a planet have come together (it seems) with regard to global warming (or cooling, or rotating, or whatever they call it these days), why can't we get together on peace?

 

I have hope. This is a fragile world, sure. But it is the only one we have. Let's never forget that.

 

 

Archives:

November 2009

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30
« Oct