Is War Inevitable in History?

There was some frustration from the usual frustrated suspects when the topic was suggested, the complaint being that the past has already happened, therefore we cannot say any war is not inevitable.  However, taken another way, we might wonder what needed to happen in order to prevent wars of the past, in order to prevent wars in the future, I imagine.  Is it possible to find some key points that would draw the path of human history to peace?  Can we apply the circumstances of the past to present and future?  One difficulty is that human beings are violent animals.  Not every individual is violent at every moment, but we have aggressive and destructive patterns of behavior, as a species, when dealing with other humans, other species, and even inanimate objects.  The violence that war harnesses is always with us, as a natural part of our selves.  While we might try to lower the intensity and number of explosions of expression, eliminating violence does not seem likely.  Another difficulty comes out when we define what we mean by "war".  Conflicts between individuals or even small groups are not generally considered wars, except when given almost joking names.  Wars are between nations, tribes, large organized groups.  Individuals fight for their group because they identify with it, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for something that will not reward them for their sacrifice, or even punish them if they do not "choose" that path.  As previously mentioned, violence may not be eradicable from the human being, but if we stop identifying ourselves with the large group that can afford to see each member as an expendable part, conflict would be limited to people with real problems with each other.  Our need to belong to groups probably makes this an extremely unlikely event, however.

Much along the same lines is the writing by the Leader, who was unable to join us due to some seasonal viral visit.  He also examines the reasoning of those who take their groups to war, mostly pointing to the power of persuasion organized violence has both for those who commit it and those who suffer it.  The True Philosopher insisted in his short article that "history" was also in need of definition for proper discussion.  His conclusion is that history, or rather History, and war are so closely linked as to be one and the same.  He referred to Francis Fukuyama's work The End of History in which the theory that without conflict there is no need to record events is discussed.  The Philosopher noted that Fukuyama started from the very limited perspective, focusing only on the political ideologies of Communism and Capitalism, while ignoring other sources of conflict between groups, and in fact the author himself later admitted that he had been mistaken in declaring the "end of History" to have come.  The Philosopher reminded us of the saying that history is written by the winners, implying that the winners have a vested interest in showing how they were simply drawn into a conflict and managed to come out all right.  They might even have been the victims of their rival's machinations.  Yet, for history yet to be written, how can we say any war is not inevitable?  Maybe particular wars are possible to avoid, but some armed conflict will certainly take place, simply because of human nature.  Towards the end of the meeting he laid blame for war on the doorsteps of the powerful, saying that they have already considered the courses of action that we lowly Sunday philosophers might suggest, and discarded them because they do not serve their interests.  In the end, war is about power.

The Friend of the Animals was sure that the existence of weapons and the sales of arms were the root causes of war.  Get rid of the weapons, she insisted, and war will disappear.  Conflict will be limited to individuals who have to stab each other, not battles where a bomb can flatten a city block.  She displayed a good deal of faith in diplomacy, saying we need to send diplomats before all else, people who work for peaceful solutions, not just expediency.

A New Regular focused on violence more than organized warfare, saying it is sometimes necessary for defense.  Recognizing that violent part of human nature will not be contained, she also said that pacifism and non-violence cannot contain aggression, and in fact there are moments when the right thing to do is fight.

The Prodigal Participant basically took for granted that wars would start; her worry was that they go on too long, either because of manipulation by those who benefit from the conflict or by simple incompetence.  She was almost offended by the interference that some countries inflict on others, meddling in their wars in order to secure favors and resources from them.  In some cases, wars drag on for generations, which this Participant found to be the most inhumane for citizens of the country in question, since their infrastructure and systems of health and education will almost necessarily be damaged or even destroyed, leaving an ignorant and ill populace even when the conflict is over.  As an example she mentioned Vietnam, while the Friend of the Animals felt Palestine to be a fitting illustration.  These specific mentions irritated the Longest of Winds, who lectured the Participant on not keeping to the topic at hand, although it did not take long for him to go off on his own tangent about terrorism and Big Pharma.

Our conclusion was a pessimistic one on human nature: since war cannot be avoided as a whole, the best we can do is try to let only the shortest and most limited practices of organized violence through our filter of behavior.