War as "necessary evil"

[willpax]

I hope it isn't too late to move this thread to a slightly different track, closer to the original thread. . .

I think it would be fun to imagine the possibilities of a world where war was considered evil. The first question to tackle is from whence this idea originates, and how widespread the authority of this idea is. Then, we would need to think of what institutions and supporting practices perpetuate the idea, and what manner of internal resistance to the idea exists.


As a concrete example: rich, prosperous, just and merciful people A has learned of a threat somewhere near its borders from powerful, aggressive, and unjust people B. As would probably be standard practice when crisis looms, the clerics of people A commune with their just and merciful deities, who let it be known in no uncertain terms that this war will be evil. (If this idea bothers you, just think that, for a god, the afterlife is a certainty and more important, and that gods always take the long view. Those aspects of gods are part of what makes them so terrifying to people).

The dramatic and political possibilities in this war are fascinating. What do the priests do? How do they interpret such a message? If they preach a message of submission, the political rulers could choose to ignore them; if they preach what would seem logical and popular, they are contradicting the will of the deity.

If people learn of this message, they may still react differently. Some will reject the god who would not tell them what they wanted to hear; some would respond stoically and resolve on defending their land without the blessing of their god; some would strive to follow the will of the god even though it looked like self destruction to do so.

Sounds like a rich role playing environment to me.

 

[Altalazar]

Just because war is evil and you shouldn't have a war doesn't mean you can't mow down invaders with machine guns when they try and rape your family. That isn't war, it is simple defense of your home. Doesn't mean you can't put out land mines either, or blow up bridges and tunnels.

Look at Switzerland - THERE is the way to be a pacifist nation. Armed to the teeth, ready for war at any minute, and yet they STAY OUT of ALL war ALL the time.

 

[barsoomcore]

willpax: cool. One thing I've discovered running Barsoom is how frustrating it can be for players dealing with people who take the long view. Such a point of view can seem tremendously ruthless, even if the goal is ultimately compassionate.

Rich role-playing indeed -- and the suggestion that if you don't like what your god is telling you, you can just get a new one is pretty fun, too. Makes sense in a D&D environment, and puts a funny spin on gods -- if their power is derived to some degree from the number of worshippers they have, do they have to worry about being popular and therefore saying what people want to hear rather than the truth? Politicians with divine powers -- if that doesn't scare you, nothing will, I reckon.

 

[Kesh]

xenoflare: Excellent quotation. Thanks.

Barsoomcore: I have to say, you've got a good point. Seems the word 'war' is what has many people hung up here... it's really semantics.

Consider this folks: Country A sends a military division into Country B to claim a strategic location. Country B chooses not to retaliate, allowing the land to be annexed by Country A.

Country A has committed an 'act of war'. Now, here's where the two schools of thought seem to diverge:

1) Since it committed an act of war, Country A has begun a war. Since Country B chose not to retaliate/defend itself, it essentially lost. Therefore, a war was conducted in a very short span, with Country A the victor.

2) Despite violating their territory, Country B did not respond to Country A's actions. Therefore, no war actually took place. Had Country B responded with violence, a war would have begun.

Barsoomcore is simply pointing out that #2 is a valid interpretation of events. If the defender does not respond to aggression, it can be considered that no war ever took place; however, if they do respond, that is the crossing point where a war actually begins.

Thoughts?

 

[barsoomcore]

Kesh: I am sending a squad of Mutant Ninja Duck-Billed Platypuses to extract your brain and bring it to my Secret Laboratory. Let me know if 6:00 PM is good for you.

That was very well put indeed, and thank you for illuminating the point of divergence so well.

 

[Kesh]

6-ish is fine with me.

Glad it works for you, barsoomcore. Seems to be my specialty... finding a good middle ground in a debate to clarify both sides. Shoulda been a mediator.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Describe how people in-game determine "good" and "evil," please. And resorting to the fact that these concepts are arguably concrete in D&D is rather weak, since the game doesn't actually require that good and evil be known to state or private actors.

I feel good and evil are arguably concrete in the real world. As far as people in game, they determine good and evil in the same manner we do. Good is those things we know in our heart to be good. They are not all listable, but they are fairly simple to determine. For example, protecting a child from being harmed by a person seeking to hurt them is a good act, whether or not that child is later found to be a demon. Murdering another person to take their common possessions is an evil act even if good should come of it later. If societies encourage such things, then they are in general good and evil. Very easy to determine IMO.

So diplomacy, in that case, should not even be tried, hmm?

No. The Empire of Thay has existed for numerous years as a bastion of evil, which means that diplomacy has failed. It is logical to assume that those enslaved have already protested peacefully or tried other diplomatic means to persuade the rulers of Thay to change. It has not availed them.

Want to know why? Diplomacy can only be successful if there are other mitigating factors to support it such as military or economic power. Diplomacy by itself will fail 99% of the time if the country has no leverage for negotiation. We can assume that the slaves of Thay have little to no leverage to negotiate a peaceful change within the society, even a peaceful protest will result in the extermination of a large number of them and their subsequent return to service as undead.

If I knew that I would have a reasonable chance of success if I DID try persuasion against Thay, shouldn't I do it?

Yes. If that reasonable chance is exhausted, you had better have the will to back up your diplomatic requests or you will be viewed as weak and easily appeased. Eventually you will seem false to your own people as well as those you tried to help.

Your argument suggests that Cormyr should just go and kill people and have done with it. My point, which I think IS reflected in the first post, is that violence can be seen as "evil" as opposed to "good." It can be transformed into a non-evil (I hesitate to say "good") act by context, whether that context is casus belli, self-defense, or some other cause that less pacifist types than myself might find valid. However, adding context doesn't make violence "good"; it merely justifies it, which is something else entirely. I would hope, in the Cormyr context, that Azoun would at least have some reservations over going to war with Cormyr. As an example of a good act, I might cite giving money to orphans, healing the sick, or making someone you love feel better; I doubt most people have serious qualms over those sorts of deeds, whereas I hope they do over killing people. The fact that those people are "evil" and the tools of a repressive, hostile government may justify the killing, but I don't think they magically make the act "good" sui generis.

My argument suggests that apathy is worse than war. War can be good, not necessarily the killing part, but the justification and the end result as well as many of the inbetweens.

I believe any sane person has reservations about going to war. The human cost is high as is the financial and envioronmental cost. A good person or group of people will be willing to make the sacrifice if the cause is just and good. For example, if Cormyr decides to go to war against Thay for no other reason than to free their slaves and topple their evil empire, that is a great sacrifice on the part of Cormyr for a just and good cause. The Cormyrean's are engaging in a good act for another group of people with very little chance of personal benefit, an altruistic act. I see that as a good war.

 

[Elaer]

Just figured I would add something that might help give this argument a framework... get ready for a long rambling post.

What has been debated so far is a state called total war: two or more societies engaged in a conflict where all resources available are dedicated to the destruction of the opposition. Some (myself included) would argue that this state has never existed: a society has never been so completely consumed by war that all other activities in that society have ceased (no education, no art, no recreation that was not directly related to morale). A counter argument is that it has existed historically when ancient nations used to burn opposing city states to the ground, but in order for that to be a "total war" all vestiges of society would have to be erased: no slaves taken, no lives spared, no books left unburnt or buildings left standing. The Trojan War might be an example of this, as nothing was left of it except for ruins and a poem, but even then there were survivors. A better example would be in fiction, such as Tolkien's War of the Ring, as both sides were intent on completely destroying the other for survival.

Modern military thought, however, views war as a spectrum, with martial conflicts such as total war being one extreme, and military operations other than war (MOOTW) on the other end. For example (and this is an American perspective), the military conflict in Iraq is not as intense as World War II, which was not as intense as the Civil War (the intensity determined by the national interests at stake). At varying points in the spectrum, different martial actions are justified. For example, nuclear war may have been justified during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and were likely justified during WWII (not to open that can of worms), but would not be in Iraq. This most directly relates to the proportional aspect of Just War Theory, but all aspects (such as Just Cause) figure into this.

However, I would argue that it is sophistry (to use that elusive word) to argue that the principles of justification change along the spectrum. The "defender starts the war by resisting" must be examined at all points: if the defender is right to resist it's own destruction, then it must follow that there are similar conditions where it might be right to resist the seizing of national assets, the posture of others to threaten its national assets, the destruction (or seizure or posture to threaten) of its allies, or the aiding of enemy states while doing the same. Each one of would require its own justification, but each can also be argued along the lines of resistance (own which this thread seems stuck).

To put it another way: the aggressor/defender arguement breaks down at a fundemental level, because who starts it doesn't mean someone is right or wrong. People get rubbed the wrong way by saying an invaded nation causes war by resisting, but really what is upsetting to the palette is the thought that self-defense does not justify war (which is what such a statement infers, not logically but rhetorically). But because we have created a division that refers to causality, and not justification, we get sidetracked from the main argument. The question is not who causes war, but whether or not a specific side is justified in going to war.

An aggressor can be justified, and a defender may not be. For example, if we agree that the United States was justified in the American Revolution (I know we may not agree, but assume that the U.S. was justified), then we have an example of a justified aggressor, since we started the war. If we agree that the American South had no right to secede from the Union for the reasons they did (again, even if you disagree, understand that I'm using it as an example), then we have an example of an unjustified defender.

Further, just as justification is not related to causality, it is not related to who you are fighting. If a national interest is worth killing Iraqis, then it is also worth killing Frenchmen or Somalis or Canadians, should they be our opponent.

Finally, and this is not a justification issue, but more a practical theory of war, remember "that war is an extension of politics with other means." Failures of diplomacy do not justify war, nor is diplomacy a necessity for justification. There are many facets of national power, and martial is just one of them. By the way... although military and economic power usually supports diplomatic, it is not a necessity.

(An interesting note: diplomacy does not need to be supported all in certain situations. France after the Napoleonic Wars is a good example: the lasting effects of Waterloo was relatively minor (as opposed to Germany after WWI) because of the skill of their diplomats.)