On War

One idea that always seems to emerge in periods of peace and naiveté, until it is inevitably shattered by reality, is that war is no longer something which will or can be carried out. Specifically, that in a “modern” world relations are governed by new rules that suppress any impetus for making war. In his 1909 book The Grand Illusion, English writer Norman Angell posited that economic relations between the major European powers had made the possibility of a large and lasting war impossible. Five years later came the start of the first World War. 

Optimists more recently had been living in a Fukuyama-inspired post-Cold War reverie that free trade would bring peace. They were, or should have been, disabused of that notion by, among other things, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Vladimir Putin had every possible economic disincentive to not seek a war in Europe, and yet did it anyway, and continues still, despite the financial, physical, and optical battering his nation has endured. 

It seems there must be truth in the idea that forging strong economic ties can help prevent some wars. After all, maintaining good trade relations is almost certainly a strong reason why China has not yet invaded Taiwan.  And economic competition can be a healthy form of nonviolent warfare.  Perhaps wise or intelligent leadership is the difference maker here, a troubling thought given the state of world leaders today, and through history. 

Still, at its core, war is not the sole or primary province of material interest. There is some other element in the hearts of men that makes for the final push off the cliff.  We humans may or may not be inherently violent, but our history shows great propensity toward it.  Ideally, this should keep us on guard against the intellectual vanity of assuming that a peaceful status quo is more valuable to a nation than the spoils of military force.