Originally posted by: krystal_watzHades: What you wrote about "war being a means to peace" applies only to "battles" in a secluded ground or a no-man's-land along the border(Indo-Pak wars for e.g.). Not WAR in the all-enveloping-destruction sense it is used in and seen today.
Why does war in the all-enveloping sense exist today? Because we have decried war as a means to resolve conflict.
A few centuries ago if X and Y had a conflict they would battle it out. Allies would pick sides and join in. But ultimately one side would emerge decisively victorious and establish stability until the next conflict.
Today X and Y have a conflict and skirmish, but then the UN comes and establishes cease fire. Dissidents in X and/or Y set up fringe organizations to continue the conflict. Z thinks they need to setup camp in the conflict zone because X and Y cannot be trusted to be big kids. Meanwhile A and B sympathize with X leading to tensions with C and D who sympathize with Y. E tries to play peacemaker and settle things but miscommunications put E in deeper than they expected. Somehow by this time F and G are also involved and before we know it we have this clusterfcuk of destruction around us - terrorist groups, military occupations, deposed dictators, installed dictators and the whole nine yards.
comment:
p_commentcount