In studying war, I believe that it is important to have a clear idea of what exactly war is. Although everyone has a general sense of what war is, most people have a different understanding of the details of war. To me, war is a military conflict between two or more countries (or civil war) over a clear issue. Last trimester, I took Understanding September 11th, in which towards the end of the trimester, we were able to analyze in depth America's response to the September 11th attacks. We were able to then formulate our idea of war based on America's responsive actions in the Middle East. After Bush ordered the American military to invade Iraq, he coined this conflict the "
War on Terror." In order to understand this phrase, you must then identify the enemy of Bush's "War of Terror." In class, we identified the enemy, Terror, as being a group linked to an individual (not a nation) who imposes terror. Because I feel the war is between countries, not organizations, I did not classify the current situation in Iraq as a war.
Secondly, it is important to know why we stud war. Learning about battles and skirmishes in world history is completely meaningless unless you know why these wars happened and how they have shaped society today. To me, the most important reasons to study war are to learn from past mistakes and, further to learn how to "wage peace." It has been often said that history repeats itself. With that being said, if history does repeat itself, studying wars is the only way to learn how to avoid them. Not only can wars be avoided, but if we study war, we can learn how to do the direct opposite of waging war. Understanding how and why wars are started gives countries the opportunity to see what has worked and what has not, which should help create not only a war-free environment, but also a genuinely peaceful world.
Thanks for reading, and you stay classy Greenhill.
Paul Stanley
11 comments:
I like how you compared Understanding September 11th with this class and can understand how you do not classify the US involvement in Iraq as a war. War, as you say, and I agree with you on it, is a military conflict waged between two countries but that does not necesarrily mean the US should not be fighting against terrorism, and more specifically Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I also see how you hope that the world can move towards peace but disagree once again regarding war. To me, war is inevitable, mainly because there are so many different types of people in this world that can have conflicting ideas.
I believe that your post brings into question our class discussion (or one of our big questions) which was can a war be won against a concept? Such as the war on terror.
As far as what you say about history repeating itself, if history repeats itself what is the point in studying war? Even if we know what is going to happen isn't it still just going to repeat itself in either the same way or in a similar way since history repeats itself? Probably the one thing that people forget is that history is a tool to be used for the future. Without history we would never learn from our mistakes, so isn't history really avoidable but repeats through human mistakes (or human ignorance in ignoring the past)?
I have a quick question. How were the American fighters viewed by the British Army during the Revolutionary war? You could not have labeled us a country considering the fact that we were fighting to become one. What about civil wars. These are by far the most common war situations. Funnily, these wars are not fought between two countries, but two ideas within one country. Has war not always been fought over an idea? Have people not always been driven by their ideas and beliefs. Why else would they fight. Too much is made of this fight against and idea and whether or not it is possible to defeat an idea. History tells us this can happen. It has.
Paul, I think your entry is great. I like the idea that we, as a nation, must define war. I, like you, think that's important. However, who gets to say what war is? You mention that George Bush coined the "War on Terror," but how can people overturn that? Do you think that we should call it counterterrorism conflicts? Nevertheless, I think your points are valid and make sense.
Second, the idea that war is important to study is also very true. I think that while the military aspects are important, the causes and motives for war are even more vital to growing as a nation in the world.
I politely disagree. I think no matter how long or in depth wars are studied they can never be avoided. Whether you define war by two countries fighting each other or just simply two groups, war has existed for all of history and will never cease to exist. No one can possibly cure all of the reasons for war; there are just too many.
As much as i would love to see a completely peaceful world, personally i do not think its possible. Conflicts happen between nations all of the time, and sometimes the only way to settle them is to duke it out on the battlefield. A game of rock paper scissors cannot and should not be the deciding factor in a conflict. I know its cliche, but its a dog eat dog world in which only the strong can survive. Isnt that the way it should be?
I agree with parts of what Paul posted and part of what Sam said. I agree with Paul, that we should study past conflict in attempt to hopefully gain some insight on the outcomes of war. And maybe, this can help us avoid SOME conflicts. I don't think war is completely avoidable. I don't think this is what your saying exactly, but we can't expect that just by looking to our history that we can prevent future conflict. In this regard, I agree with Sam. Although I do not agree with this biological phrase in terms of war, it is "survival of the fittest." This is not how it should be, but of course, that is how it is. Further, I think mutual conflict with killing, including Iraq, is war. I think there may be advantages and disadvantages to naming something a "war." And, it does not matter the size of the groups or countries fighting, I think it is still war. And terrorism, committed by a single group or country, is not war.
I disagree that studying war will necessarily bring an end to it. No matter what events contribute to the causation of a war, the root reason is human nature. Although it is possible, it is extremely unlikely that through understanding the consequences of our nature, we will reform our actions. Therefore, even though we may understand WHY we wage war, we will never discover HOW to stop.
I think I'll go out on a limb here and say sometimes studying war leads to more war. Sure, studying Vietnam or Iraq will likely lead to less war, but what about studying the Revolutionary War, or World War II? Fighting for freedom, fighting against tyranny and hate, those seem to be good reasons to wage war. I think we should study war, but I don't think our ultimate goal should be to avoid it in all cases. I think our ultimate goal should be to avoid it when there's good reason to do so.
I agree completely with what you are saying about learing from our past mistakes. The fact is that why learn what a army did wrong, but learn why they were fighting in the first place and how could this conflict never repeat itself. I believe that if any country could avoid a war they would in a heart beat. If we can save the lives of our people in a peaceful matter then lets do it. Finally if we break down "war" and see what it truly means then we as a country will have a better understand on why we are fighting or in the future will fight.
I agree and disagree with some of the things written in this passage. First off, I believe that a clear issue might not always be the case. War on Terror - Terror meaning violence? A war against violence? - eh not make sense. Even in the Iliad - war against the Trojans because of Helen? Pride? Land? just because it's a garunteed victory because Troy is destined to fall?
Secondly, yes we need to learn how to wage peace. I think it all starts with bridging cultural values, but not changing them. I believe that this can be achieved. There have been multiple successful wages of peace without war, especially in the 1900s.
Going back to the beginning - just to leave it out there - what about the media calling the strive to cure cancer "the war on cancer?"
Paul Wall, why we study war seems to be an eseential question in this class. We've already mentioned it in class and your blog further attempts to find an answer to it. I tend to agree with you when you say, "we study war to learn from our mistakes." If not, then studying skirmishes and battles would be for pure enjoyment and nothing else. More importantly,as you say, we must understand the sources of war. By understanding what causes war, we can prevent a similar situation in the future, or so we hope.
Post a Comment