Summary

The provided text discusses the inherent contradictions and moral dilemmas of war, questioning the acceptability of mass murder and war crimes while acknowledging the necessity of self-defense against aggression.

Abstract

The article "War and War Crimes" delves into the paradoxical nature of war, where acts of mass murder and atrocities are condemned as war crimes when committed by the enemy, yet often excused as "collateral damage" when perpetrated by one's own side. It highlights the propaganda used to demonize opponents and the recruitment tactics that exploit this narrative. The truth about the dehumanizing impact of war is revealed through personal accounts, such as Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front." While acknowledging the existence of power-hungry individuals who necessitate a forceful response, the text argues for the incorporation of humanity into warfare practices, as seen in the Geneva Conventions. However, the complexity of modern asymmetric warfare often blurs the distinction between combatants and civilians. The article reflects on the concept of a just war and whether a moral war is possible, given the intrinsic brutality of conflict. It also examines the philosophical underpinnings of power and the common good, questioning whether the concentration of power can truly serve the interests of all. Ultimately, the text suggests that nonviolent resistance, as advocated by Mahatma Gandhi, may offer a path toward resolving conflicts without resorting to the evils of war.

Opinions

War crimes are selectively acknowledged, depending on whether they are committed by one's own side or the enemy.
Propaganda and recruitment tactics often rely on demonizing the enemy to garner support for war efforts.
The true nature of war, with its capacity to dehumanize, is evidenced by personal accounts from those who have experienced it.
Despite the necessity of defending against aggression, the article's author is not a pacifist but recognizes the need for force against those who cannot be reasoned with.
The Geneva Conventions represent an attempt to instill humanity into warfare, but their relevance is challenged by the realities of modern asymmetric conflicts.
The concept of a just war is debated, with skepticism about the possibility of a truly moral war given the inherent violence and brutality.
The article critiques the use of power for the common good, questioning whether power can be wielded beneficently for all of humanity.
Nonviolent resistance, or satyagraha, is proposed as a preferable alternative to war for resolving conflicts and promoting coexistence among diverse worldviews.
The author concludes that mass murder and the evils of war are never acceptable and challenges society to find ways to eliminate war.

War and War Crimes

When is mass murder acceptable?

Yet another war commences somewhere on this planet and soon there is talk of war crimes. Such talk is effective propaganda, and the combatants on both sides are quick to make good use of it. Women are raped, children are slaughtered, hospitals are bombed, and prisoners are tortured. Clearly the enemy is a bunch of evildoers, and onlookers should be outraged by such inhumanity.

Buzz about the enemy’s war crimes is a good way to garner support from potential allies. It is also a good recruitment tool. How much easier it to get young people to sign up for war once the enemy has been demonized. Recruitment posters from early 20th century wars illustrate this. They were highly effective. Today television and the internet are the way such messages are delivered.

On the other hand, when our side engages in anything unsavory during war, we say: “Oops! That was a terrible mistake. It won’t happen again.” Or it is shrugged off by politicians and professionals of war as collateral damage. A dozen civilians are killed when a drone launched from a thousand miles away takes out a known terrorist leader. Oh well…

War and Humanity

The truth about war comes out eventually through accounts written by those who have been subjected to its horrors. Erich Maria Remarque’s novel about life in the trenches during World War One, All Quite on the Western Front, reveals the dehumanizing effects of war upon all those involved. That’s precisely why the Nazis burned that book and books like it during their rise to power in Germany in the 1930s. Antiwar writing of any sort is bad for the business of war. And nothing is more antiwar than the truth about what actually happens when regular people are given free license to kill other people.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a pacifist. Unlike peaceniks who dream of humankind living in some kind of utopian harmony, I realize there are power-hungry demons among us who see war as the most effective way to impose their religion, ideology, or way of life upon others, or simply enslave them. We cannot dismantle concentration camps or stop the war mongers by reasoning with them, and their ears are deaf to compassion. No, when they resort to brute force, we must meet them with brute force whether we want to or not. And that is the ultimate tragedy of the human condition — the prison of heartlessness and unreason from which we supposedly intelligent creatures cannot escape.

Since we cannot eliminate war, the compassionate among us have tried to instill as much humanity as possible into the practice of war. The Geneva Conventions were an attempt to do just that. The first Geneva convention in 1864 sought the humane treatment of the sick and wounded on the battlefield — to allow noncombatants to attend to them once a battle has been fought. Later conventions addressed the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians.

All this is largely irrelevant since most wars being fought today do not take place between the regular military forces of one nation state and another. Most wars these days are asymmetric. That is, the State (or States) is at war with militant political entities within its borders or beyond them, deeply embedded in civilian populations. In such cases, the line between combatant and non-combatant blur.

Moral War

When exactly is a war crime taking place and when is a war just a war? As the writer Bernard-Henri Levy ruminated in War, Evil, and the End of History:

Everything we had suspected about the most inhuman within the human… That, in fact, is the truth of war.

The psychologist James Hillman also believed this, as do most of us who don’t buy into the propaganda of war. In his book, A Terrible Love of War, he put it right out there:

Inhumanity is all too human.

Then Hillman broke it down for us, going on to say:

“Inhuman” is a normative term setting standards for what human beings should not do and should not be.

Normative, indeed. In other words, subject to ethical or moral standards. Oh sure, an argument can be made for a just war – a purely defensive one, for example, fought for survival — but is there such a thing as a moral war? Crusaders and jihadists insist that there is, as do all those advocates of social ideologies who are hellbent upon replacing an existing social order with a better one. But war itself is always a dirty business, replete with war crimes. Always.

Power and the Common Good

The 17th century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes had a low opinion of human nature. In Leviathan he wrote:

During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.

This was his justification for a strong authoritarian state, and politicians of varying ideologies have tacitly agreed with him. Marxists, for example, insist upon a dictatorship of the proletariat until their communist ideal can be achieved. The dictatorship is a temporary arrangement, or so we are told. Yeah, right. Good luck dismantling that once it’s in place.

The Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz had an even more disturbing opinion of human nature, and how social-political entities interact with each other. In his landmark work On War, he wrote:

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

This is war and politics stripped bare of all propaganda, of all its idealistic blather. This is Realpolitik – power as it is ultimately achieved by force of arms or the threat of it. But is this a practical way of interacting with each other? Is this really the best that we, Homo sapiens, can do?

Ideally, the State is a concentration of power for the common good. “We the People…” the US Constitution begins, and the intention is crystal clear. But the common good isn’t easy to achieve, nor is it self-evident. As Bertrand de Jouvenel wrote in his book On Power:

As soon as Power is conceived as being exclusively the agent of the common good, it must form a clear picture for itself of what this common good is.

Now that’s a challenge. Is the common good that which is good for a particular tribe, nation, or confederation of states, or is it what’s good for humanity as a whole? More importantly, does it even make sense to utter words like “common good” and “power” in the same breath?

Believe, Obey, Fight

Credere, obbediere, combattere was the slogan Benito Mussolini, the leader of the National Fascist Party, used to mobilize the Italian people for conflict during World War Two. Believe, obey, fight. There was a certain genius in this. Don’t think. Don’t question anything. Just follow these three words. All war depends upon it. One would be hard-pressed to find any socio-political -Ism that isn’t driven by this credo or something similar. So why do we even talk about war crimes? Do such things even matter? Doesn’t the end justify the means? How are righteous people going to create a heaven on earth if they fret over who gets hurt in the process?

The Problem of War

Though I am not a pacifist, I am inclined to agree with the 20th century spiritual and political leader Mohandas Gandhi who advocated satyagraha — a determined yet nonviolent resistance to evil. This, I believe, is the best course of action. Whenever it’s possible, that is. Gandhi was wise enough to realize that human beings hold different, often opposing worldviews. But that doesn’t justify war. He once mused:

Differences of opinion should never mean hostility. If they did, my wife and I should be sworn enemies of one another.

Gandhi argued for a golden rule of mutual toleration since we all see Truth from a different angle. I concur. That seems to be the only way for eight billion people of widely varying worldviews to effectively live together on this crowded planet of ours.

So then, back to that searing question: Since mass murder and all the evils accompanying it are inevitable in every war, when is it acceptable? The answer is obvious: it never is. That said, how are we to eliminate it? How do we solve the all-too-human problem of war? Satyagraha is a good place to start, no doubt, but we must go beyond that. We must figure out how to concentrate power for the common good in such a way that does more good than harm for humankind as a whole. That’s not going to be easy.