Are Wars Really So Beneficial?
One is not talking about the victims, of course. For those who die; those who are left crippled; those who are left with deep trauma and a sense of grievous loss wars are not beneficial. They are terrible. But are they beneficial for the victors? This is a question which strategists do not pause to answer because they talk in terms of hegemony, control and their ultimate criterion is the assertion of power itself.
Let us take these criteria and then see how beneficial wars---and one means wars of aggression---might be. One is not talking about the past when nationalism had not entered the worldview of ordinary people. Presumably if you went and conquered a country and managed to kill off or enslave most of its inhabitants you got a lot of wealth and a virgin land to settle in. This is what happened when the Aryans conquered India; the Anglo-Saxon whites conquered North America; the Arabs conquered North Africa and moved into the Tigris-Euphrates valley; the Spaniards conquered the South American continent and the British settled down in Australia and New Zealand. Much about some of these conquests is not known. Perhaps in some areas there was gradual intermingling through peaceful marriages rather than brutal extermination. In some, so we read, there was extermination and the natives live as museum relics in reservations. However, whatever the moral status of such wars might be, it is obvious that they were materially very useful for the victors. And if the colonial settlement had been through marriages and intermingling they were not so bad for the victims either.
But now look at the conquest of countries where some feeling, tribal, religious or national, could create a sense of community. In South Africa, where the Africans formed a majority, they did combine to resist white rule despite being divided into tribes. The whites were brutal for long years---incarcerating Nelson Mandela and losing the respect of the world in the process---but had to concede defeat in the end. Now they live in perpetual fear of possible revenge. In India, where the Muslim conquerors were like other adventurers in a land of divided princedoms, the Hindus and the Muslims later developed separate identities. The Hindus seemed about to triumph when the British were about to leave. This alarmed the Muslims who sought refuge in a separate state. Now India and Pakistan live in perpetual fear of a nuclear holocaust. And, ironically, Muslims in India live in fear of riots while the Hindus in Pakistan face reprisals in bouts of nationalist or religious frenzy as in the retaliation for the demolition of the Babri Masque. In all the ex-colonies of the West, as identities were created, Western military might was rolled back. In short, in all cases conquests did not lead to only benefits for the conquerors. They led to loss of moral credibility and a state of tension which has resulted in much pain on all sides and can lead to more pain later.
The classic case of colonization resulting in more losses than benefits is that of Israel. In 1948 Arab sense of identity was far too developed to accept the alien Jews from Europe as genuine citizens of Palestine. In any case they lost their home and hearth and the battle for space goes on to this day. Perhaps most Palestinians would have buried the hatchet had Israel not been expansionist. But the more battles Israel fights the more insecure it gets. So, what is the benefit of its victories even in the amoral calculations of strategists?
Now let us take the example of modern wars on nations with a developed sense of
distinct ‘national’ or ideological identity. Vietnam and Afghanistan provide us good examples of these. Both had a sense of identity and both resisted foreign invaders. Vietnam resisted so persistently that it drove the Americans out. Afghanistan resisted, albeit with the help of the United States, to drive out the Russians. America lost prestige; lives; money and power. The Russians lost all these and more---an empire which might have been going on to this day (not a welcome idea though!). Moreover, because the Afghans used Islam as a symbol of identity, Islamic militant movements were strengthened. As America remains aggressive in foreign policy it is threatened by events like that of Nine Eleven---certainly a great loss and not a gain!
And now coming to the war in Iraq. In my view the United States is more like a besieged giant now than it ever was since Vietnam. Of course it has occupied Iraq with little loss of life but look at its other losses. First, it has lost moral prestige. This is certainly not the only time America has attacked another country but this war has been fought in the full glare of the media. Important European allies opposed the war. People everywhere in the world flocked in the streets to raise their voice for peace. The United Nations opposed the war. And despite all these pressures the American government went to war. This is a loss in moral standing such as America will take a long time to recover from.
Secondly, the population of Iraq might have hated Saddam --- who would not given his record---but they do not like Americans on their streets either. After all, all the deaths and the relentless bombings they lived through cannot but be a painful memory. Moreover, there is a vacuum in which the people see themselves as losers. This can lead to demonstrations turning ugly and the Americans getting bogged down in a Vietnam-like situation. Or else it will mean administering the country for a long time which means added responsibility. It also means being blamed for whatever goes wrong.
Thirdly, no matter what American hawks say about invincible American power. Actually what the war demonstrates is that while you may win a war you cannot win the peace so easily. A set of new players will always arise to confound your calculations. The rest of the Middle East will not be carved out as America wishes no matter what American decision-makers feel. This actually is a loss in American power rather than a gain. Power is at its most effective as long as people take it for granted. Once you display it people know the worse you can do and then, in desperation, find more and more unconventional ways to defeat you.
America’s real rationale for defeating regimes like Saddam and the Taliban are that terrorists hide there. But the point is that terrorists are created precisely because America use its power so openly. And once they are created, they will find places to hide. Even if American stooges rule the capitals of the Arab world there will be fringes where the terrorists will hide. America’s creation of near-anarchy and much resentment in Iraq increases the chances of the breeding of anarchists. Is this a loss or a gain?
And is oil enough of a gain to compensate America for all these losses? I do not have the empirical data for doing the sums. I also do not know how rich the munition makers will become after the Pentagon places more orders for all the weapons used in Iraq. But however rich business empires do become, I doubt very much that it will add to the safety, security or even material well being of the people of the United States and the world in general. On the whole, I think, the people will have to pay for the war through taxes even if business mops up the profits and some of it does trickle down to some of the people later.
In short, even if we leave the human losses aside (and for me they count most), I doubt whether modern warn are really beneficial even for the victors!