Unless we get a wireless connection at our hotel this weekend, this will probably be my last post until I get back from IkkiCon. So, everyone have a great weekend and indulge my returning to a less frivolous subject...
In the movie, 'Crimson Tide', LCDR Hunter (Denzel Washington's character) comments that 'in the nuclear world, the real enemy is war itself'. This comes at a point in the movie where the ship's officers are also discussing Von Clausewitz and his maxim that war is the continuation of politics through other means. In times past, and perhaps even the recent past, these maxims were appropriate, though I think Hunter's assessment is the truest for the post-nuclear, ideological world. As someone who has read Karl von Clausewitz, his work, while still quoted by military historians far and wide, is dated, more appropriate for the 18th and 19th century, when war was a little more personal. By time the horrors of the 20th century permeated our consciousness, the idea of personal war was more or less laughable; however, the nature of war has changed once more.
To me, war has become less the instrument of politics and more the instrument of ideology. Now, some may lump ideology into politics, and that is well, but more and more war has transcended the idea of borders into what we see today. Perhaps it is the overwhelming images of suicide bombers and insurgencies that makes me see it as such, but I doubt it. Until the 1970's war was fought more or less within the borders of the nations that were fighting the war. Now, it can be fought anywhere an idea is threatened or maintained.
What, then, does this mean for the future? Perhaps the maxim should now be, 'war is the continuation of ideology through other means' since politics cannot completely contain (and we have seen that far too often) ideas, for good or ill. So, maybe the new face of the enemy is not war itself, but the idea that war can shape ideology and push traditional politics and methodology of war aside. Clearly, this is evident in many of the current crises around the globe, and will likely continue to remain so until something replaces the wars of ideas.
I am really not so sure how much sense I make, but simply some random thoughts I had today about the nature of war and I wanted to put them to page in case I lost them. I am not so much treating this as theory so much as a musing on the subject.
C.
31 January 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hope you're having a good time at IkkiCOn.
All i can say about war is that, if women ruled the earth... we'd probably have more wars :P
This was an articulate and cutting statement about war...especially this one. An ideological war is a frightening one. It has no true victory terms and can only end when one side bows out or the other side is dead.
Have a great weekend ;)
Yay, wireless access :)
IkkiCon has been decent so far. Not as good as it could be, but certainly better than it might have been. Some interesting folks there, plus some odd conflicts about table space and spacing in general, but otherwise minor. It's nice to be back on the con circuit again after a little layoff.
rav'n: thanks, and one never knows... After how much men have screwed up things, I am more than willing to let women give it a shot :)
stewart: that has been my conundrum when it comes to war. Ideology vs. political means... and I think it can only get worse.
mistress: I will try, thanks :)
I think both are true. IMO you're absolutely right that there is a war being fought by grabbing at our thoughts and so called "freedoms". The best way to keep a whole nation under control is to paralyse them with fear and propaganda. Is that happening now? yeah - on many levels and on all sides, but that's also nothing new. Any war has it's propaganda (aka - keeping the public stupid).
I think though the war *is* still personal. It just happens to be not so personal to the bigger 1st world countries that are watching it unfold on the tele. There are people who actually ARE living it and fighting it and dealing with the horrors of it. They just happen to be somewhere else, far far away that no one has to really think about them very much if they don't want to.
You make a great point about the new personability of war... I think the best example of impersonal war was in Kosovo when we didn't send in any ground troops. I was thinking of that some in this post, but in a war of ideology, everything can be upfront and personal... indeed the nature of ideological war must be personal for it to succeed.
One of the other changes in today's world is that it's oftentimes private groups/individuals starting wars instead of nations. You can't tell who you have to protect yourself from.
that is true enough... privatized war, the wave of the future...
Post a Comment