On the 5th of June, 1967, Syria, Jordan and Egypt invaded Israel and started what became known as the Six Day War. Six years later, on October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt invaded Israel again, beginning the Yom Kippur War which would last until October 25. On March 14, 1978, in response to a PLO terrorist attack on a bus in Haifa, Israel invaded Lebanon, occupying the southern part of the country for most of the rest of the year. On June 6, 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon again, with the purpose of destroying the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), headed by Yasir Arafat. In January 1985, Israel withdrew its forces to the Litani River, forming a so-called “security zone” that was between two and five miles deep across the south of Lebanon. Hezbollah was formed in Lebanon to fight the Israeli invasion and occupation.
Elegantly laid out, if elegant can ever be applied to the subject of the worthlessness of war - other than to reduce the human population.
From your first paragraph the ‘great game’ was running through my head. I paused to curse McNamara as I always do. I think of all the soldiers I met who left their friends and souls on the ground in Southeast Asia. I think how lucky my own soldier was that a threatened invasion of Israel disrupted his orders for Vietnam.
Is there any hope in hell things will change? Oddly perhaps the internet gives us some hope I think - the universal revulsion amongst the younger generations for government acts (I include Hamas and Hezbollah as de facto governments).
Though unless and until the industries producing the tools of war cease to produce, it will not happen.
Even more so because the religious factions stop grooming young men to kill other young men.
If by de facto governments you mean “hostile takeovers”, l am in complete agreement with your assessment.
I can understand nation fighting nation for sovereignty, l don’t understand holding your own county hostage and excellerating the body count to win the PR battle.
That’s quite a price to pay.
I wonder if killing will ever go out of fashion, or is this a marketing strategy to increase sales and spike the economy?
Government is any organized body controlling the infrastructure of a territory and issuing and enforcing laws - often abhorrent. So yes - they have been functioning in that sense.
Answering military agression is justified I believe. Provoking by disrespecting borders and treaties is suicidal. But murdering in the name of a diety perceived to be morally good, never.
Murder on a grand scale is called war. But it is still murder. And we humans have a history of affinity for it.
As long as the media portrays these events like debates, elections and wars, as sporting contests — between Us and Them — of the magnitude of the World Series and the Super Bowl, there is big money to be made all around. Think of all the people Trump outrage has made rich through media hype. It’s addictive to the general population — it’s the money for some and the blood sport and need to win for others. I feel totally manipulated in this world where it’s okay that truth and facts are distorted and maimed.
I believe war is very barbaric and somehow must be stopped! It won't happen in our lifetimes! It just kills people especially women and children! Remember the phrase from the 1960's "What if they gave a war and nobody came!"
Wars do two things: they create profit for powerful Capitalists who control all levels of government (making the rich richer) and they cull populations of young men who would over-populate a social order. If our Civil War had not ocurred and 600,000 young men lived to have families, the USA would now have the population of China and India combined. We humans have culled ourselves since ancient times - any reasons beyond species-induced population control are window dressing (territorial disputes, ideological disputes, whatever). The term "patriot" was invented to create a positive aura around an ugly fact: Humans form castes and the lower castes are cannon fodder.
All of which shows the need for rational birth control and for women to have control over their own bodies. Women don't want to produce endless sons to die on foreign soil so that some faceless plutocrat can add a few billion to his portfolio. It is barbaric in every sense.
Add easily accessible Euthanasia to that. Why do people have to live in agony until they finally die to the great relief and sadness of those who love them?
In every case a failure – of diplomacy, of communication, of respect, of understanding. And in most every case, manipulation of perception to create the “other” who must be destroyed, and use of religion to justify barbarity, for God is on our side. May humanity mature beyond this, some day.
A superb piece that should (could) make The Powers That Be think, and it arrives just as Jews celebrate the beginning of our five thousand, seven hundred and eighty-fifth year of thinking, especially in the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, about why we're here, what we should be doing here, and how we've acted in the past year. It's mordantly clear that the glory of humanity, individually and in whole, is equalled by our folly and evil. That's the sound of one man, sighing.
I remember reading somewhere at some time about leaders declaring war, and that those leaders should have to send their family members off to the war they have a hand in starting. You know, some skin in the game. I liked the idea at the time and now as age has given me the wisdom to see how senseless wars are, (and your article here really drives that home) I not only think it should be done but it should be a prerequisite for every war. I doubt things will ever change, at least in my lifetime, but I hope for my grandchildren and their children someday it might change. If it doesn't, at some point someone will do something really stupid with nuclear weapons, and well, I don't need to go any further.
Color me impressed. That was some job of pulling disparate threads together. As for "War is the great game, as the British once called it, that will never end," another way to think about it "human nature."
Question, if the answer was ever found. A CIA staffer, Sam Adams, reported that the CIA seriously underestimated the number of enemy combatants in Vietnam. Was that ever settled? With that kind of intelligence disagreement, how can any army be sure of what they’re fighting?
It was US Mil intel who intentionally underestimated the VC/NVA OoB (fighters). Doing so made it appear that the VC/NVA were being degraded aka we're winning. Back in those days there was a 4headed monster, whoever was in local command of US mil forces, the CIA, the US Ambassador, and SECDEF. Each vied to be top dog and to be the ONE the CinC trusted over the others. LBJ ended up trusting only himself.
That said, underestimating numbers, accurate to precise numbers, or overstating numbers wouldn't and didn't matter. Same holds true today. Numbers (total # in a force) are only a single metric out of dozens that make up an armed conflict.
In the post-modern era wars are 99and 44ths unwinnable. That goes to what Lucian is saying. Unless the invader stays and holds the dirt, they lost.
Note: US maintains bases in former WW2 and Korean War lands. That's one tell of winnning. Even then the term love/hate (not literal) applies.
In Ken Burns' wonderful series on the Civil War, there is one short scene, that takes place in the W. Virginia or some other mountainous state. 4 young men, two Yanks, two Rebs arrive simultaneously at the top of a small crest. They are all startled. Finally one of the Yanks says, " What are you doing here?" One of the Rebs replies, "We live here. What are YOU doing here?"
That has always stuck with me.
The eternal question when a country is invaded for no palpable reason that the citizens can comprehend.
Great thoughtful essay Lucian, you bring such an informed perspective to a subject most of us are so ill-informed about. Growing up, and learning about WWII and Hiroshima it seemed like wars in the future would be futile, as the '60s Missile Crisis proved. No one accounted for the regional conflicts of invasion though, like Vietnam, as you've described. They are indeed futile, just not for the mutual destruction reason we'd assumed. What a waste and still no way out.
Thanks for the run-down on the self-destructive nature of man's consistent inhumanity through the ages. It's intriguing that when societies develop to a certain level of a extreme unequal division between income levels of rich and poor, the need for mass human sacrifice comes into play--usually cloaked in religious garb (like the Aztecs). In fear of the vast numbers of poor uprising against them, the ruling class must exert control. It propagandizes the "others" to isolate and exterminate them. They teach their young to "sacrifice for their country" as patriots (but not as fodder for a money making war machine). US Weapons manufacture and sales brought in 90.6 billion this year. Taxpayers money to US Corps as Ukraine and Israel get the hand-me-downs..and the military gets restocked with the latest gizmos to kill by or sell off. Makes me wonder how many of those New jobs just announced are for the making of weapons for the world to keep its killing going on. How do we retool industries to beat swords into plowshares and still be a prosperous nation. Define prosperous. The answer that's blowing in the Wind.
Elegantly laid out, if elegant can ever be applied to the subject of the worthlessness of war - other than to reduce the human population.
From your first paragraph the ‘great game’ was running through my head. I paused to curse McNamara as I always do. I think of all the soldiers I met who left their friends and souls on the ground in Southeast Asia. I think how lucky my own soldier was that a threatened invasion of Israel disrupted his orders for Vietnam.
Is there any hope in hell things will change? Oddly perhaps the internet gives us some hope I think - the universal revulsion amongst the younger generations for government acts (I include Hamas and Hezbollah as de facto governments).
Though unless and until the industries producing the tools of war cease to produce, it will not happen.
Even more so because the religious factions stop grooming young men to kill other young men.
If by de facto governments you mean “hostile takeovers”, l am in complete agreement with your assessment.
I can understand nation fighting nation for sovereignty, l don’t understand holding your own county hostage and excellerating the body count to win the PR battle.
That’s quite a price to pay.
I wonder if killing will ever go out of fashion, or is this a marketing strategy to increase sales and spike the economy?
Government is any organized body controlling the infrastructure of a territory and issuing and enforcing laws - often abhorrent. So yes - they have been functioning in that sense.
Answering military agression is justified I believe. Provoking by disrespecting borders and treaties is suicidal. But murdering in the name of a diety perceived to be morally good, never.
Murder on a grand scale is called war. But it is still murder. And we humans have a history of affinity for it.
As long as the media portrays these events like debates, elections and wars, as sporting contests — between Us and Them — of the magnitude of the World Series and the Super Bowl, there is big money to be made all around. Think of all the people Trump outrage has made rich through media hype. It’s addictive to the general population — it’s the money for some and the blood sport and need to win for others. I feel totally manipulated in this world where it’s okay that truth and facts are distorted and maimed.
Excellent thinking and excellent writing, Lucian. Sorry the whole world can't read what you write. But don't stop now...
A solemn amen to this.
I believe war is very barbaric and somehow must be stopped! It won't happen in our lifetimes! It just kills people especially women and children! Remember the phrase from the 1960's "What if they gave a war and nobody came!"
Wars do two things: they create profit for powerful Capitalists who control all levels of government (making the rich richer) and they cull populations of young men who would over-populate a social order. If our Civil War had not ocurred and 600,000 young men lived to have families, the USA would now have the population of China and India combined. We humans have culled ourselves since ancient times - any reasons beyond species-induced population control are window dressing (territorial disputes, ideological disputes, whatever). The term "patriot" was invented to create a positive aura around an ugly fact: Humans form castes and the lower castes are cannon fodder.
All of which shows the need for rational birth control and for women to have control over their own bodies. Women don't want to produce endless sons to die on foreign soil so that some faceless plutocrat can add a few billion to his portfolio. It is barbaric in every sense.
Add easily accessible Euthanasia to that. Why do people have to live in agony until they finally die to the great relief and sadness of those who love them?
Thanks for laying out the stark truth.
In every case a failure – of diplomacy, of communication, of respect, of understanding. And in most every case, manipulation of perception to create the “other” who must be destroyed, and use of religion to justify barbarity, for God is on our side. May humanity mature beyond this, some day.
Thank you, Lucian.
A superb piece that should (could) make The Powers That Be think, and it arrives just as Jews celebrate the beginning of our five thousand, seven hundred and eighty-fifth year of thinking, especially in the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, about why we're here, what we should be doing here, and how we've acted in the past year. It's mordantly clear that the glory of humanity, individually and in whole, is equalled by our folly and evil. That's the sound of one man, sighing.
I remember reading somewhere at some time about leaders declaring war, and that those leaders should have to send their family members off to the war they have a hand in starting. You know, some skin in the game. I liked the idea at the time and now as age has given me the wisdom to see how senseless wars are, (and your article here really drives that home) I not only think it should be done but it should be a prerequisite for every war. I doubt things will ever change, at least in my lifetime, but I hope for my grandchildren and their children someday it might change. If it doesn't, at some point someone will do something really stupid with nuclear weapons, and well, I don't need to go any further.
I recommend listening to Moody Blues album “To Our Children’s Children’s Children “.
But then again, I recommend that album to everyone at all times. Unfortunately, it’s a little clumsy to say.
In WWII, several of Roosevelt's sons served, and in Vietnam, Johnson sent both of his sons-in-law.
I'll go you one better. I think the opposing leaders who declare war should go, themselves, to duke it out.
Color me impressed. That was some job of pulling disparate threads together. As for "War is the great game, as the British once called it, that will never end," another way to think about it "human nature."
Alas.
Invasions…well, they’re not what they’re stacked up to be.
If you'll permit a correction, the phrase is "cracked up to be."
Question, if the answer was ever found. A CIA staffer, Sam Adams, reported that the CIA seriously underestimated the number of enemy combatants in Vietnam. Was that ever settled? With that kind of intelligence disagreement, how can any army be sure of what they’re fighting?
It was US Mil intel who intentionally underestimated the VC/NVA OoB (fighters). Doing so made it appear that the VC/NVA were being degraded aka we're winning. Back in those days there was a 4headed monster, whoever was in local command of US mil forces, the CIA, the US Ambassador, and SECDEF. Each vied to be top dog and to be the ONE the CinC trusted over the others. LBJ ended up trusting only himself.
That said, underestimating numbers, accurate to precise numbers, or overstating numbers wouldn't and didn't matter. Same holds true today. Numbers (total # in a force) are only a single metric out of dozens that make up an armed conflict.
In the post-modern era wars are 99and 44ths unwinnable. That goes to what Lucian is saying. Unless the invader stays and holds the dirt, they lost.
Note: US maintains bases in former WW2 and Korean War lands. That's one tell of winnning. Even then the term love/hate (not literal) applies.
In Ken Burns' wonderful series on the Civil War, there is one short scene, that takes place in the W. Virginia or some other mountainous state. 4 young men, two Yanks, two Rebs arrive simultaneously at the top of a small crest. They are all startled. Finally one of the Yanks says, " What are you doing here?" One of the Rebs replies, "We live here. What are YOU doing here?"
That has always stuck with me.
The eternal question when a country is invaded for no palpable reason that the citizens can comprehend.
Invaded to end slavery. They failed
I know the answer. Please remember communications were just a wee bit different back then. It is the sentiment I remember.
A friend reminded to me the other day, that we, the Allies won WWII. Since then no one has.
Thank you,Lucian, for your clarity on this issue.
Great thoughtful essay Lucian, you bring such an informed perspective to a subject most of us are so ill-informed about. Growing up, and learning about WWII and Hiroshima it seemed like wars in the future would be futile, as the '60s Missile Crisis proved. No one accounted for the regional conflicts of invasion though, like Vietnam, as you've described. They are indeed futile, just not for the mutual destruction reason we'd assumed. What a waste and still no way out.
Someone probably accounted for it
Like the song says, "War What is it Good For, Absolutely Nothing!" with the possible exception of WW II.
Yes, I can support a defensive war, when your country has been attacked, as we see in Ukraine.
Yes. agree on that.
👍👍
Thanks for the run-down on the self-destructive nature of man's consistent inhumanity through the ages. It's intriguing that when societies develop to a certain level of a extreme unequal division between income levels of rich and poor, the need for mass human sacrifice comes into play--usually cloaked in religious garb (like the Aztecs). In fear of the vast numbers of poor uprising against them, the ruling class must exert control. It propagandizes the "others" to isolate and exterminate them. They teach their young to "sacrifice for their country" as patriots (but not as fodder for a money making war machine). US Weapons manufacture and sales brought in 90.6 billion this year. Taxpayers money to US Corps as Ukraine and Israel get the hand-me-downs..and the military gets restocked with the latest gizmos to kill by or sell off. Makes me wonder how many of those New jobs just announced are for the making of weapons for the world to keep its killing going on. How do we retool industries to beat swords into plowshares and still be a prosperous nation. Define prosperous. The answer that's blowing in the Wind.