Both the state and its adversaries must beware the seduction of war — and the delusion that killing can be civil.
“It is well that war is so terrible,” General Robert Lee said in December 1867, as he looked over the carnage on the battlefields of Fredericksburg, “otherwise we would grow too fond of it.” Nineteen hundred men had been killed in five days of bitter fighting; 15,000 were injured.
Last week, the world watched the last United States troops leave Iraq — at the end of a war that, unlike the American civil war, was monumental only in its stupidity. The Iraq war will be remembered for many things: among them, the grotesque toll and the hubris and deceit which engendered it.
Iraq ought also to be remembered, however, for the illusion on which it was founded: that a century of international effort had yielded a template for civilised warfare. The new-model armies which overthrew Saddam Hussein fought with technologies claimed to minimise civilian casualties. Their troops were rigorously schooled in international humanitarian law. Even if many liberals were angered by President George Bush's lies about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, a good many backed him in the belief they were ridding the world of a despot — at little human cost.
Exposé after exposé has, however, shown the new civilised warfare is a lot like the old, barbarous warfare. Following a 2005 bombing in the Iraqi town of Haditha, U.S. troops were alleged to have killed civilians in cold blood — among them children. In 2009 alone, 33 separate allegations of torture and sexual abuse were brought against British soldiers. In one case, Iraqi prisoners were piled in a heap and subjected to electric shocks — while a soldier stood by laughing. Last year, journalist Anand Gopal revealed that western forces continued to torture suspects in field jails across the country — notwithstanding the exposure of Abu Ghraib.
Facts like these do not seem to have diminished the West's fondness for war. Iraq, the argument goes, was the wrong war fought the wrong way. Figures as disparate as Barack Obama, Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron, cheered on by large swathes of liberal opinion, have hailed the Libya campaign as an example of the right kind of war — but even though western bombs overthrew a despot at relatively little cost to life, it is unclear if the new regime will prove less murderous than its predecessor.
Legitimacy of war
Key to the problem is the idea that the legitimacy of war ought to be founded on its compliance with a way of warfare, not its political object. Programmes to subject war to law have saved millions of lives. They have also fostered the dangerous myth that warfare can serve noble causes in relatively bloodless ways. It would have been harder to defend the Libyan war if it had been clearly understood by publics that tens of thousands would die — not from high-technology western bombs, but from the militias they were dropped in support of.
In April 1863, President Abraham Lincoln — the commander in chief of General Lee's adversaries at Fredericksburg — issued General Order No. 100, laying down the human rights obligations of his troops. Even though elements of the code seem appalling today — it allowed, for example, the retaliatory execution of prisoners on the battlefield — the document elevated to law what had, until then, been a loose code of honour among fighting men.
The American civil war was the crucible in which the tactics and technologies of modern warfare were born; it is fitting that it was also the genesis of the first effort to civilise war. After the end of World War II, the world sought to put in place an ever-more stringent legal framework for warfare. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mandated that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Third Geneva Convention prohibited torturing prisoners of war. In 1987, the United Nations agreed that neither “a state of war [n]or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
For the first time in history, there was a global consensus on what kinds of warfare were legitimate. Efforts by international human rights organisations have, without doubt, used these laws to lessening tolerance for violence. Eric Hobsbawm, eminent historian, noted that 187 million people were “killed or allowed to die by human decision” from 1914-1991. Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch recently estimated that war-related violence in this century averaged 55,000 a year — half of their level in 1990-1999, and less than a third of the 180,000 per annum recorded during the Cold War, from 1950 to 1989.
It is also true, though, that this decline has been powered by the historically anomalous seven-decade long peace between the world's great powers — for which the destructive potential of nuclear weapons can take just as much credit as human enlightenment. The U.S. bombed civilians in Cambodia and Vietnam without compunction during the Cold War, killing hundreds of thousands. In Iraq or Afghanistan, with no great-power adversary backing its adversaries, it doesn't need to.
This much has also been made clear by Iraq and Afghanistan: when wars go badly, states and soldiers behave in much the same way as they have always done. “I've nearly been killed in ambushes,” Rodrigo Arias, a soldier based in Afghanistan's Kunar province, told Mr Gopal, “but the villagers don't tell us anything. But they usually know something.”
“I want to go home in one piece. If that means rounding people up, then round them up”. Mr. Arias could have been an Indian soldier in Kashmir, beating villagers during a cordon-and-search operation, or a Maoist in Malkangiri, murdering a suspected informer with a knife after a kangaroo trial.
“The language of war,” Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the architect of 9/11, observed during his interrogation, “is killing”. He was right.
In 1961, the French special forces officer, Roger Trinquier, published a meditation on his experience of France's brutal counter-insurgency campaigns in Indochina and Algeria — the kind of warfare that is typical today, rather than grand contestations between armies in a battlefield. La Guerre Moderne's shocked audiences by candidly addressing the central tactic of modern warfare, and its key tool: terror and torture.
For Lieutenant-Colonel Trinquier, the terrorists he fought were simply a kind of soldier, “like the aviator or the infantryman.” Even though the terrorist's victims might be defenceless innocents, Lieutenant-Colonel Trinquier observed, “during a period of history when the bombing of open cities is permitted, and when two Japanese cities were razed to hasten the end of the war in the Pacific, one cannot with good cause reproach him.”
This special kind of soldier, he argued, “cannot be treated as an ordinary criminal, nor like a prisoner taken on the battlefield.” “If the prisoner gives the information requested, the examination is quickly terminated; if not, specialists must force his secret from him,” he coldly concluded.
La Guerre Moderne was an anti-manifesto: a refutation of the foundational principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the years since 9/11, the onslaught on it has strengthened. Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, in a provocative 2005 book, sought to provide a defence of torture. “Given the choice between inflicting a relatively small amount of harm on a wrongdoer,” they argued, “and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of a wrongdoer.”
In 2002, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz observed that “forms of torture are widespread among nations that have signed treaties prohibiting all torture”. “The current situation,” he went on, “is unacceptable: it tolerates torture without accountability and encourages hypocritical posturing.”
Flaws in argument
Little effort is needed to see the flaws in this line of argument: every despot, after all, has claimed to be using torture for high moral ends, and there's no presumptive way of determining who a wrong-doer deserving of torture might be. The bitter fact is, however, that the legal taboo against torture, built over a century-and-a-half, has done relatively little to change how wars are fought. This isn't a reason to discard taboo — but the reality ought to compel an honest conversation about what warfare is, not only what it ought to be.
There are wars that stand on firm ethical foundations, even though the victors engaged in war crimes: among them, the great war against fascism in 1939-1945; Vietnam's anti-colonial war in 1955-1975; and, arguably, India's 1971 intervention in Bangladesh. In these cases, the price of peace was demonstrably higher than the cost of war: no sensible person could argue that the deliberate bombing of German civilians, though horrific, was too high a price to pay for the defeat of fascism.
For India, in the midst of a murderous Maoist insurgency which could run for decades across our heartland, it is ever more urgent to honestly discuss when warfare becomes inevitable — and its price becomes worth paying. Indian public discourse engages in a routine, almost reflexive, condemnation of atrocities by both insurgents and the state forces. The discussion, however, has more often than not stopped at recounting what went wrong — rarely leaving this comfortable moral firmament to examine why things have gone wrong.
There are no easy answers to these questions, but an honest national conversation would be a good beginning. Iraq demonstrates the costs of making a decision to go to war casually. India cannot afford the luxury of making mistakes.
Keywords: U.S, Iraq war, US Iraq operation, U.S. troops, Saddam Hussein, Maoist insurgency
The armament industry has become the most lucrative of businesses in today's cut-throat (literally!) competition for profiteering worldwide. In 1990, military expenditures made up a whopping 4% of world GDP. By 2006, the combined arms sales of the top 100 largest arms producing companies amounted to an estimated $315 billion. This should be ample justification for the hand-in-glove nexus between arms manufacturers, arms dealers and different governments to continue wars - even manufactured ones - throughout the globe. Mr Swami needs to update himself with justifications for these trends as well, and not just for innocent civilian casualities in his shady ends-justifies-means sort of thinking!
A long winding article narrated with countless quotes justifying the atrocities of war committed in the name of benefiting the world at large. What an irony! Starting from the American civil war, through the two World Wars and finally to the Iraq expedition, the justifications to fight vary from strong ethical reasons to more evil designs of military expansionism either direct or in proxy. Certainly punitive interventions are inevitable to set right aberrations of normal behavior to coexist - if it is within a Nation it would be a police action and if between nations it would be a justifiable war; but to encroach upon militarily on other nation's liberties to self determine, is nothing but outrageous aggression. Neither Khalid Sheikh Mohammed nor Lt.Col.Trinquier’s justification to kill or terrorize and torture is any honorable. The true lesson to learn is that the spirit of mankind cannot be subdued by killing and maiming; but only by the recognition of each other's right to coexist.
a brilliant article.
The article is very deceptive. Initially it makes a good read packed with facts and quotes but on close examination, the author contradicts himself. One hand he questions the morality behind "morally just" wars but falls just short of acknowledging that collateral damage cannot and should not be justified. Despite making efforts through consensus building to make war "civilized", none of the modern wars have been fought on those grounds. The concept of consensus buliding is defunct for wars today are fought in the name of national security when in reality they are fought for purposes ranging from disposing an old ally for oil or to merely consolidate power. In highlighting the soldier's plight who has a chance to go home, the author fails to sympathize with civilians who have to live in a country battered beyond repair. Surprisingly while several western journalists have chosen to look beyond just facts and statistics their Indian counterparts have failed to follow suit.
The Palestinian blogger Lina Al-Sharif tweeted on Armistice Day this year, ''The reason World War One isn't over yet is because we in the Middle East are still living the consequences".So much for Mr Swami's 'just', 'deserved' and 'civil wars.'
The article does not look into one critical aspect - that is the motives behind these so called "civilised wars". Nowadays, these are almost entirely driven by hegemonic designs (e.g. protection of dollar), resource capture and arms industry interests, and unfortunately cloaked under a canard of "war of civilisations". However, the moot point is will these "victors", who have undoubtedly broken international law and killed innumerable innocent citizens, will be brought to book? Will Tony Blair ever face ICC as he should? Another dimension adding complexity to the whole milieu is the use of drones and missiles (non-combat operations) wherein the killer is actually sitting in an AC room and doing his (mis)deed as if in a video game! Is this not adding to the "seduction" of war?
Mr. Swami, you have made two observations which particularly caught my attention; these are: "The legitimacy of war ought to be founded on its compliance with a way of warfare, not its political object" "No sensible person could argue that the deliberate bombing of German civilians, though horrific, was too high a price to pay for the defeat of fascism."
According to such a reasoning, if the political object of a war is akin to eliminating fascism then despite bombarding civilians a war could be termed legitimate. Such a deduction supports a way of warfare which varies according to the significance of political object sought to be achieved. Such a criteria, because of its subjectivity and ruthlessness, is sure to render international obligations moot. The frailty of the concept of international "law" and its object require that the ephemeral nature of a political object achieved by such a method is understood and the requisite amends made.
Praveen Swami's arguments, especially regarding the 'necessity' of certain wars is completely flawed, to say the least. The examples he gives of the wars that deserve to be in this category like Vietnam 1955-75, WWII etc show his lack of understanding. In fact he contradicts his own statement by saying certain wars stand on firm ethical foundations even though the victors engaged in war crimes. Killings of millions of innocent people can't be justified, whatever be the stated benefits of the war.And what are these 'morally just' wars leading to? A superpower that is drunk on its might and doesn't care two hoots while killing innocents It is this hubris, which Mr Swamy seems to somehow justify, that is leading to the downfall of the once mighty USA. Most American and Western thinkers/ analysts have already understood it.It is easy to sit in the comforts of an AC room and justify killing of innocents. He hasn't seen it up close personally. Time for Mr Swamy to smell the beans.
Mr. Swami records a blunder that 'the American civil war was... the genesis of the first effort to civilise war.' Perhaps he needs to catch up with his history studies to realize that a complete Ethics of War was already established and practiced since the rebirth of Islam in 7th century Arabia. Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and how such a war should be conducted. Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, instructed his armies with the now-historic refrain: "Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone." Mr Swamy will also do well to read the ideal Muslim conduct of war in the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187.
While gloating about the US and the West for the fondness for wars, the author ignored the following wars after the World War II without any US or Western intervention: Chinese Occupation of Manchuria (1945), Xinjiang of Turkmenistan (1949) and Tibet (1950); Laotian Civil War (1959-1975), Yemen Civil War (1962-1970); Cambodian Civil War(1967); Six Day War between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria (1967); China-Russia Border War (1969); Lebanese Civil War (1975-1991), Ogadan War between Ethiopia and Somalia (1977-1978); Third Indo-China War (1977-1991), Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (1971-1979), Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and many other wars. India is also guilty of three wars with Pakistan (1947-1948, 1965 and 1971), two wars with China (1962 and 1967), Bengaladesh War of Independence (1971) and Sri Lankan Civil War (1987-1990). The victor always justified the war, the vanquished is denounced as the reason for the war and almost all countries are guilty of wars.
This article is sensible and logical. However, Indians often react to situations with emotion, which is then amplified by media for commercial or political reasons. The hijacking of a plane to Afghanistan is now remembered for how the government surrendered. What is completely forgotten is how the relatives of the passengers reacted and how they used the media to hold the nation hostage. Many of our writers, such as Arundhati Roy and P. Sainath routinely use rhetoric and even obfuscate statistics to override logic. The agitation for Telangana is fueled by emotional appeals by political leaders who manipulate youth into even killing themselves. To overcome this emotionalism, we need balanced writing where both side of an issue are presented and the writers trust the readers to draw the right conclusion. This article is a fine example of it.
Very well written article!
Elegant prose indeed. Commendations are in order. Mr Swami's contention that the cost of war can sometimes be justified is certainly a correct one in my opinion. However the decision to wage war against one's own people, i.e. against the Maoists, is a tremendously grave one. It might prove inevitable though since the Maoists believe that they would be able to prevail militarily, as did the LTTE in Sri Lanka. Such visions of grandeur render attempts at peace through dialogue almost useless. Notwithstanding, war must be an act of last resort. Let us continue to make efforts at engendering development whilst at the same time delivering psychological blows to the Naxals which are designed to drive home the message that all that lies ahead of them, militarily, is abject defeat.
We have to understand that war and civilization are antonyms.Other wise each party claims righteousness for its side and villainy on the other side.Both factions get brutalized in the process and use torture without compunction to elicit secrets of the enemy and start violating human rights.American war against Vietnam and Iraq have been brazen acts of aggression and uncivilized.Humanity has seen world wars and other 'small' wars which claimed humans and human rights.The UNO remained ineffective in ending war. We have to learn new ways of resolving differences peacefully. The philosophy and practice of profit mongering and luxurious lifestyle has to go and social welfare and moderate( if not simple) living have to become a priority
The statement of Praveen Swami "Iraq demonstrates the costs of making a decision to go to war casually". It is well said. What was the reason US choose to go for war and why the western world whole heartedly supported it? Is it because of illusion of weapons of mass destruction? or is it because Saddam Hussein challenged western world? Is it because Saddam Hussein is a dicatator and western world was too concerned about the Human right violation at Iraq? Is it because Geroge Bush has some personal resentment over Saddam Hussain? Is it because of personal gain that US achieved to demonstarte their technology of their weapons? Is it the common perception that US was licking for oil?
The Americans have to compensate for all the losses that Iraq incurred due the war. Will the Americans learn the lessons from this war? No country men will compromise for their freedom? US can install puppet regimes; but ultimately, they will be thrown out. There is no more colonial rule.
There are two aspects to any war, the invader and the defender. The latter's responsibility in defending his country is much more than that of the invader. Just before the USA invaded Iraq in 2003, it openly stated at that it was going to simultaneously attack two members of what Bush had termed as "axis of evil" namely, Iraq and North Korea. Subsequently it would deal with the third one, Iran. Saddam Hussein took it as a big joke even though he had suffered once earlier during the 1990/91 war and did nothing to prevent the invasion, resulting in his losing his country as well as his life. By contrast, the late Kim Jong Il immediately announced equally openly that the day American troops crossed the 38th Parallel he would retaliate with a nuclear strike on South Korea. USA did a prompt volte face and offered to talk instead! North Korea thus saved its honour unlike Iraq. Iran has taken a leaf out of North Korea and will soon have a nuclear arsenal ready to meet USA head-on.
Very nice article indeed. Of course through the history every
conqueror had neat little moralistic justification for committing
aggression and atrocities. Chomsky calls American aggressive S.
American policy as "American Exceptionalism” a doctrine of US
unlike any other power has “transcendent purpose” to establish
equality in freedom in America. Japan’s emperor tried to justify his
country involvement in war as “out of our sincere desire to ensure
Japans self-preservation and stabilization of E Asia, it being far
from our thoughts either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other
nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.”
WW 2 was founded on the historical blunder of the WW 1 victors.
France, Britain and Serbia forcing most humiliating terms of
surrender on Germany by Treaty of Versailles. It was the imperial
arrogance of Britain and France which gave rise to Hitler 3rd Reich.
So much for the ethical foundation of WW2.
Turning the pages of history,we find that atrocities and deprivation of the so called 'human rights' have been the part and parcel of any WAR.The war may be inter-country or intra-country,it involves torture and suffering of the civilians and also the political prisoners.Efforts have been made by the society(UN)so that human rights are not impugned.But these things become futile when the real war is fought whose only motive is WINNING A WAR.So,the human rights association should be practical in dealing withe situations,..
"during a period of history when the bombing of open cities is permitted, and when two Japanese cities were razed to hasten the end of the war in the Pacific"
"no sensible person could argue that the deliberate bombing of German civilians, though horrific, was too high a price to pay for the defeat of fascism."
The situations, of course, were identical, and both bombings, in Germany and Japan, were perpetrated by the same side, but I highly doubt that the author, who no doubt considers himself a sensible person, would justify the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same terms. The reasons are obvious and banal.
Though the article addresses an important ethical issue (not morality of war but rather morality of conduct during and attempts to make it more "civilised"), it seems to forget that its emphasis on "moral ends" (towards its conclusion) is anti thetical to the idea it espouses, since, "high moral ends" is a subjective term. Though when defined in legal terminology i wonder how the same would be effected under humanitarian law. the argument of collateral damage needs to viewed from a plane devoid of subjectivity (necessity and proportionality may be good principles, i cannot vouch for their objectivity though). accordingly, "high moral ends" categorisation is highly subjective.
I totally agree with you, on the fact that A war is a business of killing, and that there can never be a correct way to fight it.And the fact that at times, it is but inevitable. As in the case where war had to fought to root out fascism.All the wars in the recent history were meaningless and we could have saved millions of lives.We must never let the situations with the maoists get above the critical limit, which would leave us only with the option of war.We all must volunteer for a better India. We all must work together.We must have open discussions with the maoists and bring them to the table.
Dear Editors,
can you please bring an in-depth article on "Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill - 2011". Please focus on:
1. The need for such a law
2. The reasons for bringing this law (congress vote bank politics)
3. validity of such a law (adherence to existing IPC)
4. Ordinary Hindu's conditions in a Hindu country.
Please do not neglect these please.
An elegantly written article. To be honest, this article gives a holistic view on how exactly war is happening on hypocritical reasoning with political ideology. Besides, Crisp examples of previous wars of killing, torture it brings the memoirs that are brutal to the reader to imagine, idealize the ideals behind the current wars that are happening. Praveen Swami Sir, the article is an enriching experience to read with. Thanks a lot!
A wonderfully and diligently written article. Touches all the behavioral aspects of the war heroes or war villains for that matter. In deed, human race has always been very humane towards the turmoil of helpless and innocent war-locked citizen; but before and after the war. When the war is on, coming out it in "single piece" becomes the only motto, may the cost be whatever. Right or wrong, this is real and centuries have witnessed that, however civilized we have been, a war has always remained a war. May be the religious aspect and henceforth the tolerance attained in the span of centuries or mere lack of war power due to technological and financial inferiority; attitude of Indians towards bloody battle has been very reclusive. If India can withstand this while empowering itself; it can become an example for war-lords world over. Non-violence is the child of Indian soul and we must nurture it while moving towards technological superiority.
This is one of the reason I love Hindu. I cannot think of another newspaper that would publish a sensible reasoning article like this. I almost despair when I read some of the newspapers in India as to when we are going to get some sensible well thought out news analysis piece ever.
Please Email the Editor