War a profitless venture but inevitable

[Guest guest]

War is, essentailly, a profitless venture but still inevitable

October 25, 2000

By Lieutenant Colonel Thakur Kuldip S Ludra (Retd.)

 

 

As we study history we find one human activity that keeps on

repeating itself and that is War. This, essentially an exclusive

human activity, has been recurring time and again. The twentieth

century, like in all other spheres, has seen a sharp increase in

wars, both in terms of intensity, resulting in devastation, as well

as improvement in technology, again resulting in still greater

destruction. This century has also seen warfare shifting from a uni-

dimensional mode to a three dimensional one. Today, war is fought not

only on the surface of land or water but also under water as well as

in the air. The trends are moving it into the outer space as well as

into cyber space also. The weaponry has achieved a pin-point accuracy

and at the same time achieved a devastating capability of destruction

of a megapolis with a single bomb. So much so that the very

civilisation is under threat.

 

The philosophy about war has also undergone an almost complete

reversal. From the inevitability of war, as envisaged in the

Malthusian Concepts and Robbins' Imperatives, and besides it being

considered the noblest of all human activities and essential for

human progress as propounded by anarchists like Nietzsche, today it

is, generally looked upon with horror and considered an evil---

though sometimes a necessary evil.

 

However, unfortunately while technology has improved and the

philosophy behind the conduct of war has been polished and honed,

nobody it seems has given a real thought as to why wars are being

fought. It is only when we understand the `why' can we find the

`means' to avoid this highly destructive activity. What really

compels the Homo Sapien species to indulge in this mass homicidal-cum-

suicidal activity? Is it just the `Lemming Syndrome' as envisaged in

Malthus, or is there something deeper?

 

History books have taught us that the First World War was caused by

the assasination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand and in a variation of

Dominoes, the other nations came tumbling into the arena. We have

also become used to the term that Europe was a powder-keg which

exploded as a result of a few bullets, fired from a revolver by

Gravilo Princep. I am however, sure that mankind was never that

immature.

 

In his introduction to the book `Wars of Twentieth Century' S L Meyer

the editor has spelt out the following:-

 

(A) Germany was surpassing Britain, the then Super Power, in

industrial strength.

 

(B) Germany was feeling the pinch of lack of markets and sources of

supply of raw material, which were being controlled by Britain and

France, and to a lesser degree by the Dutch.

 

In other words, the main cause of all the tension between the

European powers was economics. Even today the cause of all the

tension between the countries is the control over various sources of

raw material, particularly water and petroleum. It would be pertinent

to drive home the point that German collapse in the First World War,

even when its tactical victories over Russia, resulting in a

favourable strategic situation of a single front war, was not as a

result of any strategic or even a tactical debacle. It was, speaking

bluntly, caused by sheer economic exhaustion. It just did not have

the wherewithal to continue to fight.

 

Of course, the Second World war was caused by the gross economic

inequities perpetrated by the Allies on Germany. Germany had no other

option but to go to war, once she had recovered economically. Japan

also had to enter the war, if for nothing else, just to survive. The

Americans were throttling her very existence with their embargo on

all metal including scrap and petroleum products. But did we learn

anything from that immense genocidal holacaust. United States is

still doing the same to Iraq.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that no one has learnt any lesson from

these two horrendous events and the world plunged, once again, into a

series of inter-linked wars, keeping the world tension bound for the

next forty six years. It was then that a momentous event took place,

which could be earth shattering, if the concept is understood and as

a result catches on. Russia, or rather the erstwhile Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics capitulated to the United States of America,

without either of them firing a single shot at each other. That The

United States of America has understood the importance of economic

warfare is obvious from the way she is targeting Iraq's economy. The

aim being to slowly but surely starve the country and the people and

grind them into submission.

 

It must be remembered that the war is invariably caused by the clash

of interests and the interests of nations is invariably spelt out in

economic terms. It is the responsibility of every country to spell

out their interests and thereafter work out their Policy Imperatives

to project and protect their interests.

 

In the international sphere and the fora of the world, every nation

has two principal instruments to project and protect their interests.

They are diplomacy and war. These two complement and often supplement

each other. Under normal circumstances, the employment of the armed

forces would imply the failure of the diplomatic alternative. Though

sometimes the armed forces and the threat of their use is made as a

diplomatic implement. The gun boat diplomacy indulged in by the

western powers during the nineteenth century, in the Far East is a

classic example. So is the fact of the use of air force against

Yugoslavia both in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Kosovo, by the

United States of America.

 

In actuality, diplomacy, normally precedes and follows the armed

intervention, to fulfil the policy imperatives of the nation. As

such, it would be only fair to state that diplomacy, in the endeavour

of a nation, to safe guard its interests and fulfil its policy

imperatives, is of paramount importance and the predominant

instrument. The use of armed forces and resorting to war, is the last

resort which has often been found counter-productive. A sort of a

Bhramastra. If let loose it cannot be recalled and has a tendency to

recoil on the initiator himself. More so when nation's interests are

spelt out in economic terms. In the final analysis War is an

extremely uneconomic venture. The best example is that of Great

Britain which after the Second War lost its right to call itself

Great Britain and had been cut to size of just Britain!