A Philosophy of War and Conflict

[Leonardo17]

This thread is not going to be a form of toxic masculinity but it still has to do about being a male individual because as a general rule, we get to face and accept the rule of the strongest at a very early age. Before we become adults, as young male individuals we usually have to choose between:

a) Being smart (and avoiding open conflicts as most girls do)

b) Being egocentric and returning home with a black eye or worse at one point or another.

 

- But even in the school yard or whatever neighborhood you are in there are some rules. I’ve never seen 2 or more guys taking on one guy. I’ve also rarely seen a 10th grader taking on a 9th grader. This is considered cowardly for the 10 graders and stupid if it’s the 9th grader. There is this sense of inner justice and if this sense of inner justice is violated it is not uncommon to have an older “big-brother” or more senior student intervening to protect one or the other party and/or try to resolve the conflict in a more diplomatic manner.

 

So this is the schoolyard. Otherwise, historically there is always a code of honor in warfare (excepts for pirates and/or really archaic societies of the past). In the old days a night would place his sword when sleeping in the open air between him and a woman to show that the Lady’s honor has not been violated. In duels, two champions would face one another believing that God would eventually decide in favor of the more righteous party by letting the other party die. And this is not some sort of empty belief system. Even in the early 20th century you could be asked to choose a pistol from an open box if (for instance) you insulted an upper class gentlemen in one way or another. There were even legual codes for such duels in the 19th century.

 

And the Japanese are probably the masters of such martial rules. Although I believe that their society was very archaic before WWII, I know some stuff about their martial arts and writings. One very interesting book is the Hagakure by Uamamoto Tsunemoto and the Bushido by Inazo Nitobe.

 

So war and conflict has never been purely about who beats who and who gets all the good stuff by whatever way possible. This isn’t how it works even in more ancient societies.

 

From here I want to bring this debate to the Middle East. To my knowledge none of the major powers in the Middle East has ever fought what we call an asymmetric warfare. Again there were codes and strict rules in this part of the world too. When for instance a local noblemen called “The Efe” rode in the main street of his village or town everyone was supposed to make way or risk being trampled by him or his men. Of course there were also bands and/or bandits in remote places etc. who truly practiced “the rule of the strongest” without following any type of moral code but as I have said, these were bandits.

 

So what happened in the Middle East is that after WWII, the USSR actively supported all resistance groups in the Middle East who wanted to free themselves from European colonialism. Later this spirit of resistance spread to Palestine as well. Then, at some point, things like the Munich Massacre in October 1971 started happening. Someone simply decided that delivering any type of punch to your adversary was ok.

 

Now, If I had lived in that era this is where I would drive the line. Yes, people like Mao-Tse-Tung and Che Guevara even wrote books about asymmetric warfare and yes, the can be results (there has been results in Vietnam, Algeria and many other places) but when you start terrorizing by attacking whoever or whatever you are able to attack you become an entity without any sense of morality. So if you have no morality, what is it that you are fighting for in order to make the world a better place?

 

So there it is, the philosophical part of this thread.

 

And I want to extent this to Islam. I still know more Muslim people than all of the people in this forum combined. And I grant myself the freedom to say that there is no “Islamist group” or “Muslim extremist” or “Jihadi Group”. And there is no “Christian” such group either. I know next to nothing about Judaism but I don’t think there can be such thing in Judaism either. Christ is this divine or semi-divine figure whose philosophy does not match this kind of violence. And Islam, technically means that you take you sense of selfhood and surrender it to the Universe itself. So you cannot be a 100% ego-based being with a distorted philosophy who does purely evil things and pretend to be any of the above. That’s how I see it.

 

Also: I’m hearing that Ukraine is now cutting the route of Russian grain exports. Again: Where is our moral superiority? Would Vlodimir Zelensky want to win this war but starving people who need this grain shipments in other parts of the world?

 

So here is question number two. Personally: I’m ok with Ukraine bombing oil refineries in Russia. Let them feel the weight of this war I think they have deserved this much. But what about grain? Someday we will have to rebuild Russia. At that time we will need a Russia that is able to produce stuff that are other than fossil fuels and outdated weapons. Don’t you agree?