The Crime of War

On a morning news program, a “retired NATO Commander” was interviewed as an “expert” on Russian military tactics. He spoke of the abject failure of Russian forces in achieving their overall military objectives, “The incompetence of the Russians has surpassed anything that I would have ever expected.” In replying to a question regarding Putin’s response, should he be (literally or figuratively) pushed into a corner, the expert said, “Putin could start carpet bombing Ukraine thereby making life there untenable.”

He went on to note emphatically that such actions would be a “War Crime.” In what is perhaps the biggest irony of human history: War itself is generally not deemed a “war crime.” It is also ironical that a “legal,” more “humane,” and restrained war can give rise to a perpetual and incessant state of war, which can be, in the long run, more damaging and horrific than a quicker more decisive battle.

Of his preference for “Total War,” General Sherman said in various contexts:

War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. … War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

If one chooses to engage in war, presumably as an act of self-defense, are absolute victory and unconditional surrender not to be preferred over a perpetual state of war?

Sherman also said with reference to his role in the Civil War:

I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war.

A perpetual state of war defined and reshaped the European continent for millennia. It led to not one but two (2) World Wars in the first half of the 20th Century. In recent months, the dormant conflicts in Europe have become active, and those festering conflicts threaten to explode, thereby spreading harm, loss, and devastation across the continent once again.

The Middle East has been engaged in religious civil wars for nearly 1,500 years. Those incessant fitnas define the Shia/Sunni distinction within Islam, and those factions show no signs of meaningful unity or interest in a lasting peace. If they cannot have internal reconciliation and peace, should those considered ‘infidels’ have hope for productive coexistence and lasting peace?

Which is ultimately better in terms of less harm, loss, and destruction: defeat and reconciliation or a perpetual state of war?

No battle losses have been greater than those suffered by Americans in the Civil War. Brother fought against brother, but the nation reconciled and became stronger after war. That strength arose not because of the war, but from the commitment to join forces, even if reluctantly, and to focus on advancing mutual benefit.

The U.S.A. won its independence from Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, and as a fledgling nation, America fought a second war against that former world super power in 1812. Nevertheless, our nations today are said to have a “special relationship,” because they have come to emphasize their commonalities and mutual benefit. Having learned from the failures of WWI, the U.S. actively rebuilt and promoted redevelopment in both Germany and Japan post WWII (as opposed to imposing punishment and seeking reparations), and having done so, those nations became productive members of the world community and can also be counted as allies today.

War should be avoided by any reasonable means, but if one finds himself in battle, the objective should be to win. In the face of a truly existential threat, a stalemate or delicate truce is merely an opportunity for one’s foes to regroup and to return at some future time. It is likely that they will return better equipped and in greater numbers, perhaps at a time when our capabilities might not be as strong and our willingness to defend ourselves might not be as steadfast.