↓
 
Home » Do people understand war anymore?

Do people understand war anymore?

The New Neo Posted on by

I think many many people these days do not understand what war is. The terrible nature of war itself has combined with modern “smart” weapons and humanitarian impulses to dampen the resolve of many people in Western nations, even against the most vicious and destructive of enemies.

The two world wars of the 20th century caused an enormous amount of suffering and carnage and were fought for the most part by and in developed Western nations. Those wars were characterized by imprecise bombing that killed many civilians, and then the use of two atomic weapons to end the war. Then, by the time of the Gulf War, technology had advanced to the point where we began to be able to bomb more precisely, and that ability has only increased since then to the point of being able to destroy a single building without damaging adjacent ones.

So people – especially young people – have become accustomed to the idea that a war can be waged by only killing the bad guys, and even as few of them as possible. Such a thing, however, is not possible.

The situation has the unintended effect of allowing terrorists to win wars by their tactic of putting civilians in harms’ way. The Palestinians’ entire war strategy rests on this, and most of the West cooperates. Thus, the unrealistic expectations held by so many modern Westerners about war end up enabling evil to flourish.

Commenter “Shadow” writes:

I’m reminded of this piece by Daniel Greenfield that I read over a decade ago and never forgot. https://www.danielgreenfield.org/2012/11/war-is-answer.html

Israel kicked the can down the road for too long. Its fear of killing civilians emboldened terrorists to use human shields, and prolonged the conflict because it could never get enough of the bad guys. It should have been over years ago. Now people on both sides are suffering today. You cannot fight a war kindly. You perhaps cannot even fight a war morally in any normal sense of the world – even the Allies did terrible things. War demands the sacrifice of the individual for the greater good. There is no way around it.

“The plan for perpetual peace is really a plan for perpetual war.”

“The humanitarian impulse makes the anti-humanitarian impulse inevitable. The more precisely we try to kill terrorists, the more ingeniously the terrorists blend into the civilian population and employ human shields. The more we try not to kill civilians, the more civilians we are forced to kill. That is the equal and opposite reaction of the humanitarian formula.”

If Israel had heeded this warning years ago, the UN would have been angry, of course, but Israel wouldn’t be in the position it’s in now.

And academia and the internet spread the stupidity around. Widespread historical ignorance does its part, too.

Comments

Do people understand war anymore? — 68 Comments

  2. Yes, I believe that Israel needs to just accept the world’s disapproval (the usual suspects are going to hate them anyway, regardless of their actions) and dismantle Hamas once and for all. Assuming that can be done, and I’m not confident that it can – Hamas, maybe, but there will be others sprouting up to take their place.

  4. The U.S. (under the Biden admin) and the E.U. are intimidated by the Islamists.

    Israel is ready and willing to fight and win.

  5. “academia and the internet spread the stupidity around. Widespread historical ignorance does its part, too.”

    B- – – But we are said to have the best educated young people ever. Let’s replace “educated” with “indocrinated”.

  6. I don’t think it’s well-known today, but not only did the Allies bomb Germany heavily during WWII, they also bombed occupied France..a country that had recently been an ally and would be an ally again. The purpose was to destroy German military production happening in France, and also to destroy the transportation infrastructure. During the run-up to the Normandy Invasion, there was an intensive bombing effort intended to convert the relevant portion of France into a ‘railway desert’, greatly inhibiting the movement of troops and supplies.

    More than 50,000 French civilians were killed.

  7. No, no we absolutely do not. Moreover, we have not for a long time. We excel in winning combat encounters, but combat encounters are to a war what a book is to a library, and that’s being generous. I fear we have spent too much time and effort hobbling ourselves trying to win hearts and minds, lawyering ourselves out the wazoo, and trying to experiment on new or hip theories we have been deprived of victory in most conflicts we have fought in the past half century. It is telling that Iraq is perhaps one of the most clearcut and positive outcomes we’ve had, and that is not a good sign given what has actually happened in Iraq.

  8. sherman said ‘war is hell’ but sometimes necessary, the strategic bombing survey, that mcnamara, nitze and other players were a part of, told us that mass bombing increased the enemies resolve, but counterinsurgency is something else entirely, that’s what israel is engaged in, trying more of the galula approach as opposed to auressesse the velvet glove vs hammer strategies derived from french instructors

    in those instances Asymetrical warfare wore us, and later israel’s will down over 18 years in lebanon, our will in Afghanistan over 20 years, how did the Taliban commander put, ‘you have the watches, we have the time’

    the Russians had quite a time of it, in Chechnya for the better part of a decade, until they had durable proxies,in the zapad and soyuz units and that oaf kadyrov, now the Russian way of war the zachistka, is what the Algerians Syrians and largely Egyptian militaries were trained in, that was why the lectures for the Algerian emissary must have wrung hollow to the Syrians,

  9. and the syrians have largely succeeded in that endeavour, despite the proxy militias from turkey (whose movements was somewhat suppressed by the recent quake on the border) qatar and the kingdom, the saud and iranian proxy war in yemen, had some success, until the delisting of the houthis from the watchlist, and the pressure on the kingdom and we see the results,

    take lebanon, friedman, who was the lead chronicler, got the story mostly wrong from the get go, (I know of this because Michael Widlanski, a one time Times stringer, that

    has the receipts on friedman, pillar et al)
    and he and robin wright, and a few others missed what was actually going on, Robert Fisk expanded his category error to an immense volume, name escapes me know, on the academic side, the number of figures
    with any real understanding are few and far between, the late Bernard Lewis, was one of these, John Cole had some insights then he utterly lost his mind,

    So we won the initial round in Iraq, because the main body of Iraqi troops stood down, then it can charitably said we did many things that made us an adversary, how far debaathification had a role in this, is unclear, but the collapse of social stability did not make things easier for us, nor our choice of proxies on the ground, who had different objectives than ours

    btw there is a typo in the thread title

  11. well thats evergreen, so this miasma of narrative seems to congeal on everything, like the bio of khalid meshaal, by a sydney herald reporter name escapes me, almost everything written about Arafat, with the exception of the Romanian DIE defector rather illuminating insight,

    meshaal apparently is the son of those militia fighters from 1936

  12. Mcgough is the hagiographer, he didn’t cite that particular fact, that ties him back long before the state of israel was founded, of course the story of the shah’s decline and fall, was misrepresented often by the partisans of mossadecq who planted this black legend upon him, a small irony the shah angered the same two power blocks he shouldn’t have,

    I have noted nearly every byline that fell for the Baptist hospital hoax, notably in the journal, goes on their category error every day, just like apparently deir yassin and plan dalet, serves as the crux of the case for the Nakbah, the Catastrophe, Le Carre and
    St James are two novelists who made it paramount to the story lines

    I noted that Uris did not ignore it in his follow up volume, the Haj,

  13. Assuming Israel can and does destroy Hamas, in time it will be Hezbollah’s turn. Should Israel destroy Hezbollah, it will become Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s turn. If Israel destroys the Guard, it will be the Muslim Brotherhood’s turn. If Israel destroys the Brotherhood, it will be the Palestinian’s turn again. Islam has and will continue to ‘rinse and repeat’ ad infinitum. A refusal to identify the source of a murderous hate ensures war to exhaustion. You deter an enemy by attaching to their actions what for them is intolerable consequence.

  14. hezbollah is a much bigger obstacle, which our government funds the lebanese armed forces, as a virtual proxy army, of course the oil revenue we allowed iran to access, as well as funds from the iran deal, keep them well stocked,
    the Brotherhood is largely the trunk of the global Sunni islamists from Morocco to the islands of Indonesia, and their affiliates in Europe and America,

    of course with Iraq, we had our own bout of ‘atrocity reporting’ like haditha, which led to other actions like in Mahmudiyah, part of the triangle of death, the stories of Scott Beauchamp that were unverifiable,

  15. If people don’t understand war today it us because they actively don’t want to face the basics:

    1) Hamashites posted videos of rape, pillage, torture, barbarism they gleefully inflicted soldiers, civilians, young and old. That is warfare at its worst as practiced for millenia.

    2) There are abundant helmet cam videos from the Russian war on Ukraine from the infantrymsn’s POV that show fighting against another army, not insurgents.

    3) There are videos cluelesslessly release by the Russians showing murder of unarmed Ukrainian soldiers by Russian soldiers.

    4) There are videos of Ukrainian drones dropping ordnance on Russian soldiers, combat footage, of Ukrainian tanks “clearing” trenches, occupied by Russian soldiers, by running over the trench then pivoting in place to collapse it. That isn’t a new method.

    5) There are videos of Russian execution civilians near Kiev and from the aftermath of atrocities committed in Bucha.

    The Nazis didn’t have helmet cans nor did the Soviet soldiers when the USSR advanced to Berlin. Nor did any armies before nowadays.

    Today if people don’t “understand” that War is Hell, there may be more than ignorance involved.

    YouTube and our insect overlords actively cunsor release of combat footage from Ukraine not sure if they censor Hamashite footage, since the Hamashites struggle is against the evil aggressor. (sarc and comptempt x11)

  16. well sometimes it’s not some peoples faults, consider the 20 years we supposedly stood up the Afghan military, they collapsed over a weekend, about 2/3 through the intervention, there was an actual atrocity in Pangwai, I guess I was surrprised it took so long, so how true were the assessments that milley austin et al, had given us, that has been the signature experience of the American fighting man for a generation, at the end the afghan govt seem to hold the same territory they started with in 2002 I couldn’t why we retreated from hard fought locations like the Korengal valley, as if all the sacrifice had been for nought,

    of course with Iraq, we had Abu Ghraib that the Times pounded into our eyeballs for forty days straight, as if that was the be all and end of our involvements there, add to that the white phosphorus and other ephemera of supposed wrongdoing,

    With Israel there are suggestions they have made great progress, however one has to wade through this miasma of incoherence, that almost every publication seems to exude, so it’s not improbable that communities that aren’t disposed to israel’s cause, would be more so,

  17. But if you were Israel, what would you do?

    I believe Israel understands war, but they are between the rock and the other, harder place. Israel is a tiny country and the Jews are a tiny people, however much they punch above their weight.

    If the world decides Israel shouldn’t exist, all Israel has is the threat to turn a number of major cities to glass.

    Who wants to go there? Not Israel.

  18. “If the world decides Israel shouldn’t exist, all Israel has is the threat to turn a number of major cities to glass.”

    To its credit Israel does not want to go there but convincing its enemies that if pushed hard enough, it will go there is essential. It should let its Islamic enemies know that the “Samson Option” does exist. So the day that Tel Aviv ceases to exist is the day that Mecca, the City of Qom, Tehran and every major Muslim nation’s capital will cease to exist. That those city’s survival rests upon Israel’s survival.

  19. huxley:

    If there is enough hatred around the world against Israel and Jews, the world has the power to finish the Holocaust that Hitler began. Israel would only have the Samson Option to counter it.

    Current anti-Israel propaganda has taken us closer to such a horrific event.

  20. Dealing with some of the “ignorant”;Being ignorant makes them a Very Good Person.
    If they know that stuff, they’ll have to agree that we’re okay. Which would be Bad.

  21. Geoffrey Britain, neo:

    I’m trying to put myself into the minds of Israeli leaders and understand their seemingly constant erring on the Better Angels of Islamic Nature.

    I give Israelis a lot of slack. Some of that mistake is knee-jerk leftism and pacifism, I suppose, but I do believe they are trying to find a better, moral way out of their horrifying dilemma.

  22. Neo, No.
    Huxley, it has occurred to me frequently that at some point Israel needs to say, in effect: “We have weapons that we have refrained from using because we did not need to use them. But, the world needs to understand, and act accordingly, that Israel will not die alone. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem will not die alone”.

    Back in the day some people made light of the concept of MAD, (mutually assured destruction), but the concept, and the threat it implied, deterred an untold number of aggressions, not to mention a nuclear war.

  23. “Do people understand war anymore?” A salient question.

    Who doesn’t ‘get the message?’ And why not?

  24. Re: Mutually Assured Destruction

    Oldflyer:

    I’m with you on MAD. Who knew it would work as well as it has?

    Though if it stops working, at any minute of any day, who will be surprised?

    I have no answers.

  25. This discussion has mostly been about people understanding or not understanding the nature of war.

    I think a lot of people don’t even have a clue about the tactical side of things, either.

    Note the number of people who have declared Tanks obsolete because of top attacking AT weapons.

    Guess what, those top attacking AT weapons can defeat everything less than a tank, also. Except you do not necessarily need top attacking AT for lesser vehicles

    Those people do not seem to realize that tank systems are being developed and fielded that counter top attacking weapons.

    But the biggest thing they do not seem to realize is a tank still has superior frontal and side armor against not only small arms and heavy machine guns but also even light cannon.
    Those top attacking AT weapons can defeat everything less heavily armored than a tank. But the tank still has greater frontal and side armor than the lighter vehicles.

  26. I understand war. I think turtler also expopress it well. Having trained forbitbija have no desire to engage

  28. The plan for perpetual peace is really a plan for perpetual war.

    I had never heard that quote, but it’s a damn good one.

    And I second physicsguy. Sherman was in fact one of the great geniuses of his time.

  29. Jon baker-you are absolutely correct about tanks. Though while the standard antagonist to a tank is another tank (or two), anti-tank weapons have a huge economic factor. How many Javelin units and missiles can you get for the price of a Russian tank? If weapons technology reaches the point where tanks are not needed to counter other tanks it may be seen that a military that has tanks plans to invade another country. But with the world as it is, armor will get better then anti-armor will get better then armor will get better and so on and so on.
    Smaller countries may want to drop Armor and concentrate on anti-armor, mostly so they can say, “See! We’re peaceful! But those guys have tanks! They want to invade us! Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!”

  31. A few random thoughts occur. First, that Kipling was a genius. See, “Gods of the Copybook Headings.” Second, “Si vi pacem, para bellum.” Third, and most ominously, that things are lining up quite nicely for fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. See, Ezekiel: 38-39 and Revelation, 6-20. Let him who has ears, hear.

  33. I think part of the answer to NEO’s question is that we don’t understand war because we don’t understand why we go to war anymore. WWII was the last declared war. War should have a clear objective, which we had in WWII. Hitler and the Axis allies had to be stopped. We had moral and practical rationale for that objective.

    Now we have endless wars with no clear objectives, and certainly no moral or practical rationale for participation and sacrifice. We’re hard-pressed to make a case for US national interest by meddling in other nations’ squabbles. We don’t understand war because often there is no compelling reason to be at war in the first place.

  35. Seeing as qatar is one of the bases of leadership as putin found out in 2004 where he was even more direct then netanyahu was with meshaal

  36. Windbag:

    In retrospect, people have tried to make case that assertive action, including military force, would have prevented this or that major war at far less cost.

    Of course, this presumes that a number of hypothetical items go as presumed, usually not the way to bet.

    On the other hand, if it works, proving that which did not happen would have happened save for thus and such an early preventive effort is impossible.

    In many cases of alternative history, the presumption is that the individual in question would act rationally when he is, or will be shown to be, irrational.

    All of which said, the impulse to head off trouble is understandable.

  37. He blew up yandarbichev with grenades

    Thats why any statement from moskva is ironic on these matters they make a desert and call it piece

  40. I don’t think Hamas ever had what you’d call a ‘strategy’, unless there were co-ordinate campaigns planned which Iran and Hezbollah never implemented. It’s what Martin Peretz described 40 years ago in a review of a play, “A crazed Arab to be sure, but crazed in the particular ways of his culture. He is intoxicated by language, cannot discern fantasy from reality, and assuages himself with a momentarily satisfying but ultimately ineffectual act of bloodlust”.

  41. too bad peretz sold out the New Republic, to some rather wretched folk,

    i imagine what transpired on October 7th, was closest to what they describe as ‘the valley of the shadow of death’ in some aspects it was like the bataclan assault which was islamic state’s big coming out party, charlie hebdo, was just the preview,

  42. I’ll sttarve on an island all alone for forty years. That isn’t hell. Hell is worse. I’ve never tried for more than fiive
    .

  45. Two is all I could put together so far. I want to pretend five but I wasn’t together for that long

  46. Art Deco
    “… He is intoxicated by language, cannot discern fantasy from reality, and assuages himself with a momentarily satisfying but ultimately ineffectual act of bloodlust”.
    I don’t disagree, but unfortunately this description isn’t limited to any one particular group, it applies equally well to fanatics of all types.

  47. meshaal is an engineer by training, he’s methodical, he probably delegated parts of al Aqsa flood to parties most who have gone to meet their maker, he has an objective, unlike Yassin and Rantisi, he’s concerned with not being seen as much,

  48. Reading Triumph Forsaken by Mark Moyar, almost finished ( I think from a recommendation here) Lots of takeaways from it, but one is both Kennedy and Johnson both were afraid politically to go full out on the North Vietnam.
    Wars cannot be won with half hearted decisions.

  49. Kennedy was opposed to colonial linked quagmires see algeria, that he opposed as early as 1957, and Johnson well had objections to any major intervention going back to Dien Bien Phu, as the Soviet archives showed, the modest counter insurgency exercise undertaken by Diem had shown promise, but the Kennedy’s read the book backwards, and with Halberstams intervention, had intervened to get rid of Diem,

  50. Kennedy was idiot an idiot. He should have been court martialEd. Sometimes losing a boat is unavailable but sweet Jesus there is no way a we’ll skippered USN small boat should have been ran down. Now adk me about Farsi island. I know enough to know enough how to avoid Farsi island. Unless I’m looking for trouble

  54. There are types of wars. All–out aggressive wars were the norm between tribes, cities, and nations up until the end of WWII. These were considered to be “normal,” and the victors enjoyed the spoils – land, resources, slaves, etc.

    The world recognized after WWII that all-out war was a threat to all humanity considering the development of nuclear weapons.

    The UN was born to try to allow nations to settle their differences with diplomacy. The USSR and Red China had no intention of letting the UN stand in their way. They decided the way to expand their influence and territory was through civil wars of revolution. (Korea, Vietnam., Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc. as examples.) Thus, the limited war was born.

    Limited wars are fought using less than full military power for limited goals- usually a negotiated settlement of some sort, and the desire to not widen the war. Every war we have fought since 1948 has been a limited war. And, while we’ve never been defeated in combat, these limited wars have mostly been unsuccessful in accomplishing the desired outcomes. (Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan are some examples.)

    The third type of war that has been common for a long time is the guerrilla war. This is the warfare of choice for people who don’t have much combat power. Sneak attacks, terrorist operations, hidden bombs, sabotage, and more are their preferred tactics. If they have staying power, they can wear down their enemies and achieve a desired outcome. (Red China, Afghanistan, Kenya, and Cuba are some examples.)

    Technology has allowed the development of “smart weapons.” These are very precise and allow the users to hit a target without sending waves of bombers, tanks, or troops. However, they’re also very expensive and the supply chain is not geared up for mass production at this time. These weapons have made it very difficult for Russia or Ukraine to gain the upper hand in their war. I believe new tactics must be developed to overcome this issue.

    The other aspect of war that we are seeing in action today is propaganda. With the advent of the internet and social media, propaganda has become more effective than it’s ever been. Hamas/Iran/the Muslim Brotherhood are using it very effectively against Israel.

    People today don’t understand war because right now it’s mostly something that happens “over there.” There’s scant true coverage of the details of the wars. Public opinion is mostly driven by media and internet propaganda. As a result, many people think Israel should wage limited war on Hamas. What they don’t understand is that the war in Gaza is a part of a much bigger picture – a clash of two governing philosophies.

    The world is divided into two opposing governing philosophies – Western democracy and the nations and/or factions that want/practice tyrannical, despotic, theocratic, undemocratic government.

    It has become more necessary than ever for the democratic nations of the world to stand together against the aggressive non-democratic nations. IMO, only if the democracies build and maintain superior military strength and the will to use it can they prevent another world war.

  55. Related…sort of…
    Aw heck, why not believe Hamas, anyway?
    I mean they ARE being victimized…OK, by themselves, but so what?
    Besides Zionists NEED to be destroyed no matter what.
    So it doesn’t matter at all that Hamas lies.
    I mean, what other weapons do they have?

    “There’s Total Media Silence As Hamas Admits They Inflated The Alleged Palestinian Death Toll”—
    https://blazingcatfur.ca/2024/04/12/theres-total-media-silence-as-hamas-admits-they-inflated-the-alleged-palestinian-death-toll/

  56. I wanted to be clear. when the Mariners trainede Me for war they trained for bloody combat. My father was a Coast Guardsman in WWII. Coasties manned the tropp ships delliliverig mento the Beach. And bringing their carcasses back. I have no delusions about war. It’s why stranded I’m first aid so I could render aid to the wounded

  57. I know it’ll be the most crippling thing I’ll ever do. I’m already 70 Percent disabled just trying to be a SEAL

  61. I can swim though. My heart breaks reading about the Merchantman of WWII

  66. Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove

  67. Thanks for the feedback. My words were poorly chosen because the question is wrong. The real question isn’t whether people understand war. It’s whether people in what was once the Christian West have a survival instinct at all. Sadly the answer is no. People in the West deliberately misunderstand the reasons for the Arab Israeli conflict are too terrifying for most people to face. It’s not about land or some non existent occupation. Even the idea that there is such a thing as a Palestinian nation is an obvious fraud. When I was born in 1962 there was no such thing as a Palestinian; they hadn’t been invented yet. They were invented for one reason only. To destroy Israel. When they serve that purpose they won’t be needed. Hell Hamas routinely kills their own people even when they aren’t in active conflict with Israel. When they are they gleefully uses them as human shields. Sacrificial lambs. And the people of Gaza voted for this knowing full well what that would mean. The problem is Islam and there is no negotiation possible. But the West refuses to understand that. They hope against all common sense and 1400 years of history they can buy them off. How does it make sense to think we can buy the Iranians off when they openly state they’d sacrifice tens of millions of their own people in a nuclear war to bring back the 12th Imam, the Mahdi? But sure. Instead imagine this can be solved with good paying jobs and better maternal health care. That’s a death wish, not a survival instinct. The West hates Israel because they have a survival instinct.

  68. I’m sorrySteve57,
    It is denial. On December 7th, 1941 local Philippine time, the day before the war started, the fighter commanders told their pilots that war was days or perhaps hours away and they were not necessarily a suicide squadron and still some pilots insisted there would be no war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑