celebrate war... good times!
Not!
Something has really been bugging me, but I haven't been able to compose a blog-worthy (although as I type this I realize my blogworthiness standards are low) analysis. A couple weeks after reading Slaughterhouse-Five
It has often occurred to me that war is usually, if not always, NOT a smart move. Especially when one considers the human cost, the long-term cost (read: blowback) of the bad-will generated by the conflict, and the eventual resentment held by the defeated (how's that Afghanistan reconstruction going? And how are the losers of the United States Civil War faring in comparison to the winners?).
Seriously, starting an unnecessary war is just intellectually lazy. The action itself indicates that it has not been thoroughly considered. We understand this about nuclear war: No one wins, so no one starts global nuclear wars. Good for us.
I mean, the violence of warfare is about as glamorous as a multi-fatality motor vehicle accident. If high-tech civilization & society are a organisms, then war is our cancer. See what I'm saying?
OK- we all agree: war sucks. I think everyone who has seen first-hand death & violence knows that, right? Sure, military might is cool (awesome toys), but destroying lives is not. So why do we keep fighting throughout recorded history? Certainly powerful men are well versed in history. So am I naive? Or perhaps I lack a certain predatory gene or brain region?
Or am I the only sane one around here?
What if a nation took the unprecedented action of sending a ton of diplomats to live in a rogue state, rather than tons of destruction?
If we can all agree that generally humans want (1) to survive and (2) to not hurt, then why do we still fight wars? Well, someone has to start them, right? Who? Maybe the leaders who are also starters of war lean more towards the socio/psychopathic than true representation of the will of the population?
Posts
