Some Perspectives
Some of my considered perspectives on war are outlined below.
1. War is a continuation of politics through other means. So, wars are always fought to achieve political aims. These political aims can align with national aims or can be just political in nature. As long as political aims are not achieved, wars will continue. This has been true throughout human history. So, as in the time immemorial, so today, wars will always be fought for political aims and when those political aims are achieved, wars will end. Only temporarily. Till a new political aim emerges.
2. Diplomacy is the continuation of war through political means. To achieve those political aims, the preferred option is diplomacy. So, prior to war, diplomacy will try to achieve the political aims. Nations will also try to use economic levers of power to achieve those political aims. Whenever diplomatic and/or economic levers fail, nations will have to resort to military power to secure the political objective. Or change their political aims.
3. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent national interests. The annals of military history are replete with plethora of wars wherein two nations who have been earlier foes and fought each other come together to fight against a third nation. European history is a rich basket of such case studies wherein as the national interests diverged, nations chose to part ways after some time. Numerous wars in Europe are prime examples involving Britain, France, Russia, Prussia/Germany, Italy et al - sometime as allies, sometimes as foes. So, all nations will use the levers of power to secure national interests.
4. If you want peace prepare for war (Si vis pacem, para bellum). If a nation wants to defend its sovereignty, then even if it is not hegemonistic and a status-quoist power, it has to arm itself to defend against external aggression. So, all nations develop weapons and have standing armies to defend themselves from external aggression at the minimum. At the maximum, nations would like to conquer and annex more territories and lands, in pursuit of power. For both - offensive wars and defensive wars - nations need weapons, soldiers, technology, money, etc. So, even if you are peaceful by nature, violence will find you.
5. Politics + Religion + War all are intertwined, and it is a deadly concoction. These three cannot be separated permanently. Two of these three will always be involved in a war. All three are almost always in the quest for more power/followers/territory to achieve their respective aims, barring a few notable exceptions. Through only politics, one may sometimes achieve political aims; through religion one may sometimes achieve religious aim (moksha or heaven or etc); however, when they fail to achieve their aims in their respective domains, then wars are waged to achieve both these aims. Numerous wars of the crusades were not merely for only Jerusalem - religion, politics and war - all got mixed up. It continues to this day.
6. War is the imposition of your will over the enemy. So, if there is a dispute - say a land dispute wherein two or more nations/religions/sects/etc vie for the same piece of land, then either the aim is achieved diplomatically (through talks, negotiations, etc. in an amicable way) or economically (through trade deals, tariffs, agreements, economic treaties, etc.), or war (through violence) or a mix of these three. So, in each scenario, wars are being fought, either through violent means (war) or through non-violent means (diplomatic or economic means).
Examples. If we use the above perspectives and apply them to wars, one can easily understand them.
1. Mahabharata War. In Mahabharata, it was about kingdom/territory and when even Krishna's diplomatic/peace efforts failed, war happened, and Kauravas lost. Result - Pandavas gained what was righteously and rightfully theirs through war. If Duryodhan had agreed to part with five villages, prima facie, war would not have happened. Etc.
2. Crusades. Crusades were not merely for the control of Jerusalem, as per their respective religions. A deeper reading of these wars imply that it was the lust for power which was also a major contributing factor. If religion was not the outwardly motivating factor, then power arrangements between the Church and the King were the norm behind the scenes. Etc.
3. European Wars. Including Hundred Years' War, 30 years' War, Prussian Wars of Unification, First World War, Second World War, Cold War, etc. These all were fought in the name of religion, territory, sovereignty, nationalism, resources, et al. Etc.
4. Colonial Wars. Waged for pure power - through resources through annexation/conquering territories, lands, plunder, loot, etc. Coupled with the "white man's burden" of spreading Christianity. Etc.
5. Religious Wars. Spread throughout human history - either to spread Christianity, or to wage Jihad, etc. These are still continuing, in different forms. Etc.
Parting Thought: Even if you are not interested in war, war is interested in you.
E.g. Current Iran-Israel-US war - if the Straits of Hormuz are closed, oil prices may rise, consequently consumer goods' prices may go up etc. and all this will come back to the common people. Also, the stock prices may go up and/or down which will again have an impact on people who are in the market.
E.g. During the Pahalgam terrorist attack, many common people from different parts of India were killed brutally because of their religion. They may not have been interested in aspects of Jihad, they were not interested in war, yet war reached them. And after the Pahalgam attack, many people cancelled their travel plans to J&K - so it affected them also, even if they were from any part of India.
E.g. In any future Indo-Pak War or Sino-Indian War, a missile may land in India's hinterland and some common people may die, including women and children. So, even if they were not interested in war, yet, war and death reached them.
Just sharing my perspectives and insights with no malice towards anyone. Only for light reading. 🙂
www.opindia.com
