The Death of Militaristic Nationalism

So the other night I was sitting in the dark, drinking my whiskey, rocking out to some Lynyrd Skynyrd, and just generally letting the thoughts bounce around my head, when something struck me-

In the past two-hundred years, I can’t think of a single inter-state war that accomplished anything.

On and off, I’ve been brushing up on my history with the Khan Academy – a site hosting professional University lectures, which I highly recommend (though, like University itself, you should take them with a grain of salt).  I’ve been going through the lectures on the French Revolution, and that’s what triggered it.

Napoleon invaded all the way to Russia – but today, the borders of France are largely the same as they were before he took power.  Hitler did the same thing, with the same result.  WWI was a sadistic joke, Korea accomplished nothing, neither did Vietnam, and as for our adventures in Afghanistan…

It seems that Obama is negotiating with our Arch Enemies the Taliban.

While it’s obvious that these wars have affected the world (even effected the world) – American hegemony & Canadian independence from WWII, for exaple, or the spread of Republican ideals from Napoleon, leading to the unification of the Prussian city-states – it would be hard to argue that these results were Intentions and Goals of the belligerents.

The Utility of War is supposed to be that it enriches the victorous party.  That’s how it worked for Alexander.  That’s how it worked for Rome.  That’s how it works for chimpanzees, cavemen, and gang-bangers in LA.  You acquire territory and resources when you win.

Up until the 18th century, that is; then, all of a sudden, all you get from war is death, destruction, and a tumble of the dice as to which country comes out on top.  Borders don’t change; and there’s no profit to be had.

The Utility of War seem to have vanished.  Why?

One possible explanation is that the Atom Bomb prevents us from waging Total War; that is to say, are we pulling our punches, engaging in Police Actions rather than a Proper War.  Could it be this lack of Will to Power which is preventing conflict from ending decisively?

No, that’s not it – the Atom Bomb is a recent development.  Prior to its development, both the Allies and the Axis were engaged in Total War; they might not have been salting the earth & slaughtering the women and children, but neither were the Romans during most of the conflicts – Carthage was the exception.  The explicit aims of the Axis were to dominate eastern Europe and southern China – to take them over, destroy the local government, and ultimately absorb them.

This was also Napoleon’s goal, and neither did his methods Bar any Holds.

We’ve tried Total War, prior to the Atom Bomb, and it didn’t work.

Second idea – could it be that the Peace of Westphalia, in establishing specific national boundaries, ‘matured’ the relations between countries?  Did the development of nationalism made populations too unruly to conquer?

Again, no – we go back to Alexander, or Ghengis Khan, and find them in a similar situation.  While you can argue that they didn’t have to deal with The State as we know it today, they did have regions with a dominant religion, culture, and political class – close enough for Government Work.  Alexander took over the Persian Empire, parts of India, and the Egyptians.  Ghengis Khan took over pretty-much everyone.  These weren’t groups of European serfs, who cared not a whif who they paid their taxes to – these were ethnically homogenous groups chafing under the rule of foreign conquerers.

And it worked.

Both the Khans and Alexander’s empires eventually fractured – the Cult of Personality had been the glue holding them together – but note I said fractured, not crumbled.  The political establishment they put in place lasted for centuries, the landscape had been transformed, there was no reversion to the prior governments.

Thanks to Alexander, Cleopatra was white.

No, it can’t be matured relations or nationalism that’s rendering war impotent – the Druids were chock full of that, but it didn’t stop them from learning Latin.

So, a third possibility then – technology.  As the old saying goes, God made all men, but Samuel Colt made them all equal.

This one grabs some traction with me.  It would certainly explain why – after ten years, and with the most highly trained militaries in the world – a bunch of fourteen year old kids with forty year old AKs are fighting us to a draw in the Middle East.

This brings up anther corollary – while war has been a Dead Duck for the past two hundred years, revolution has gone through a different pattern.  During the 1800s revolution was about causing so much grief to the imperial power, that they’d let the client state go.  This is what the Americans did – this is what the Hatians did, and almost succeeded.  This is what the Boers tried, and failed, because Britain was able to bring enough Force to Bear to shut the blighters down.

No revolutionary army could withstand the force of a professional, 19th century military – though sometimes they could create enough pain to suceed in their goals.

By the time the twentieth century came around, this had started to change; the proliferation of firearms meant that pretty much any revolution would succeed.  Look at the spread of Communism, or more lately Democracy in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, these modern revolutionaries tend to be invariably Evil.  I trust I don’t have to remind you, gentle reader, of the sheer ammount of torturous death that Communism gave to us – or the psychotic policies that Hitler’s coup brought to the world – and as for the Arab Spring, well, Muslim Brotherhood sums up my argument.  Only the Left can run a revolution.

The Shahs that actually run Iran (rather than the idiot mouth piece people seem to think is running the place) are generally smart enough not to start a war with Israel or the United States.  What do you think would happen if a proper Democracy were running that place?  All I’m saying is that you might want to stock up on Potatssium Iodide pills.

So this seems to be the stage of history we’re at: militaries are utterly pointless.  They don’t accomplish what they’re supposed to accomplish for the country – though they might very well accomplish what Certain Individuals want them to accomplish… but as far as you or I are concerened, they just Eat People.  This is because of the Empowerment of the Individual through Superior Firepower – but, just like Democracy, the Individual is only powerful when the Mentality of the Mob takes over.  An armed citizenry will certainly reduce criminal activity on behalf of criminals, but it will not reduce the criminal activity of the government – it could replace it and grow it, but it would not shrink it.

Meanwhile, Obama is preparing for a War with Iran.

Interesting Times Indeed.