jbg
Active Member
This sounds like a contradiction in terms but it is not.
War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.
Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, people demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to forsake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.
As David Ben-Gurion once said, "(t)here is nothing more ridiculous, or more criminal, than to fight by constitutional means against force, which is entirely unconstitutional. In our fight against Betar, it is impossible to rest content with preaching: we must set up an organized force of our own against them." Quoted in Page 71 of Ben-Gurion by Michael Bar-Zohar.
The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?
Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopeless. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.
To reiterate, the problem with Versailles was not its harshness. It's the fact that Germany was permitted to live on to fight another day. I fear we have repeated this mistake in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. We are seeing that every day.The Islamic countries of the Middle East did not want a Jewish state of Israel but as we see from the Abrahamic Accords they have learned to live with it, as a result of Israel's victories.
For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. However, we cannot let the presence of civilian facilities stop a war effort. If people are inconvenienced they will find a way to get their governments to stop the madness. In inter-war Germany the people were still chafing at the bit to get back to war. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.
War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.
Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, people demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to forsake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.
As David Ben-Gurion once said, "(t)here is nothing more ridiculous, or more criminal, than to fight by constitutional means against force, which is entirely unconstitutional. In our fight against Betar, it is impossible to rest content with preaching: we must set up an organized force of our own against them." Quoted in Page 71 of Ben-Gurion by Michael Bar-Zohar.
The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?
Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopeless. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.
To reiterate, the problem with Versailles was not its harshness. It's the fact that Germany was permitted to live on to fight another day. I fear we have repeated this mistake in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. We are seeing that every day.The Islamic countries of the Middle East did not want a Jewish state of Israel but as we see from the Abrahamic Accords they have learned to live with it, as a result of Israel's victories.
For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. However, we cannot let the presence of civilian facilities stop a war effort. If people are inconvenienced they will find a way to get their governments to stop the madness. In inter-war Germany the people were still chafing at the bit to get back to war. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.
