War - Does the End Justify the Means?

SATOhara wrote:
Ultimately, war will be seen as a viable option, so long as we refuse to acknowledge the flaws of ourselves, and refuse to come together as one people and fix these flaws.

yes, war is humankind's failure as a thinking animal

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Entropist wrote:
yes, war is humankind's failure as a thinking animal

I would disagree there. Most of the warriors, and professional warriors that I know are incredibly intelligent people who do a great deal more thinking than most, with a stunning ability to be objective and frankly... brilliant in their thinking. War is not necessarily about physical violence. Its purpose is domination, and that can be done in many more ways than just blowing people up. To suggest that war is a failure of thought I do not believe to be accurate.

A failure in empathy, diplomacy and compromise and non hostile de-escalation perhaps...

Brenna wrote:

Entropist wrote:
yes, war is humankind's failure as a thinking animal

I would disagree there. Most of the warriors, and professional warriors that I know are incredibly intelligent people who do a great deal more thinking than most, with a stunning ability to be objective and frankly... brilliant in their thinking. War is not necessarily about physical violence. Its purpose is domination, and that can be done in many more ways than just blowing people up. To suggest that war is a failure of thought I do not believe to be accurate.

A failure in empathy, diplomacy and compromise and non hostile de-escalation perhaps...

Fair to include war through non-violent means as a metaphor. now substitute war with violence, does the statement hold true?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Its fair to say that reacting with violence could be considered instinctive or animalistic. But what about a carefully considered decision to use violence as a tool to achieve ones ends?

I think the statement is a generalization.

Brenna wrote: Its fair to say that reacting with violence could be considered instinctive or animalistic. But what about a carefully considered decision to use violence as a tool to achieve ones ends?

I think the statement is a generalization.

definitely a generalization.

some people strike out of instinct, people like myself restrain and constrain to assess out of instinct before deciding.

would you explain this carefully considered decision to use violence to achieve one's end? I'm curious, or at least please guide me through your experience and rationale

Entropist wrote: yes, war is humankind's failure as a thinking animal

I agree. I can not see a scenario where both sides, after carefully consideration and due process, find war to be their best means and are both justified to do so. To me there must be a failure in thinking in one side or the other. Most likely in both sides.

A scenario where one side is justified sure but not both.

Soldiers do what they're told to do. They're obviously smart people, at least those who draw strategies and stuff, and it's true that the best commanders are the ones who can have the least people killed in accomplishing their mission, but war itself only happens when at least one of the sides refuses to see logic and reasoning, and forces the hand of the other side.

SeventhSL wrote:

Entropist wrote: yes, war is humankind's failure as a thinking animal

I agree. I can not see a scenario where both sides, after carefully consideration and due process, find war to be their best means and are both justified to do so. To me there must be a failure in thinking in one side or the other. Most likely in both sides.

A scenario where one side is justified sure but not both.

This reminds me of the Nash equilibrium ( vid explanation ) and game theory. Of course this has many different facets to it, and the social exchange theory would be somewhat useful in explaining people's decisions. People look at their costs and benefits based on how they presume other people will decide to act, often allowing justifications to cloud their judgement. Of course power differentials play a very important role in what a person decides as well.

I think it is important that we try to be consciously aware of why we are acting before we make decisions. This is easier said than done, but that is why you have people around you that will challenge you. I think the more in-tune and patient we are, such as the Jedi try to be, then it is easier to look at the bigger picture rather than the parts that it makes up.

Almeida wrote: Soldiers do what they're told to do. They're obviously smart people, at least those who draw strategies and stuff, and it's true that the best commanders are the ones who can have the least people killed in accomplishing their mission, but war itself only happens when at least one of the sides refuses to see logic and reasoning, and forces the hand of the other side.

Not entirely true. The US Military are constantly trained to think for ourselves. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines. We each are individually accountable for our actions. Yeah, there's a lot of "go there, do that" but if we follow an unlawful order, that's our own fault.

I have met very very few people in the military where I questioned their intelligence in a non joking manner. And I've been in for 11 years.

Walkaboutman wrote: Being a medieval Reenactor, I have had the opportunity to be engaged in many battles.

I'm glad you gained insight during the reenactment, but none are based on the the qualifier of having engaged in battle.

Entropist wrote:
some people strike out of instinct, people like myself restrain and constrain to assess out of instinct before deciding.

Have you ever had to weigh the decision to exercise restraint during a deadly force encounter?

Have you ever been asked to weigh the decision to use deadly force or not as part of a planned, intended event?

Are you a member of a profession where the use/withholding of deadly force is within the purview of your job description?

I look forward to learning about the conclusions you've drawn from experience.

Entropist wrote: would you explain this carefully considered decision to use violence to achieve one's end? I'm curious, or at least please guide me through your experience and rationale

I can't speak to Brenna's experience, but I can to mine. I don't care to go into specific instances, but I'll offer some of the operational considerations that go into planning.

I submit that some corners of the department of defense are more judicious than others when considering violence as a tool. Beyond the tactical, operational, and strategic realities of a given situation, much of what commanders decide to do is a function of what defines 'success' for their particular warrior ethos. If your metric of success is the killed/captured count on your top ten most wanted list, expect a kinetic deployment. There are others of us who understand that, though you don't receive medals for the battles you don't fight, you are winning by shaping your operational environment such that you don't have to fight them in the first place. That requires a multitude of tools to shape one's environment - not just a hammer, chainsaw, or scalpel. Some military units are trained and equipped to employ a combination of these, and are lauded for their ability to do so in a tightly efficient manner. They are very intelligent and thoughtful, and are operating according to their understanding of the problem set and what they've been asked to do with their available tools. As the saying goes, if you are a hammer, problems start looking like nails.

Operationally, everything comes down to 'end-state' - essentially a vision as to what a place looks like once you're done with it. That vision is what a commander provides for subordinate elements. The clearer the vision, the more latitude and creativity guys can use in employing their tools to achieve that end. Vision includes end-state with respect to one's adversary, allies, civil society, and environment. Part of the process involves an in-depth assessment of risk - considering the risks to your people, risks to the mission (the executing element's ability to achieve the desired end-state), and the risks to civil populace. Lastly, what are the risks incurred by NOT executing this mission? How does that affect all the things previously listed? Carefully weighed odds of success, mission criticality, and assumption of risk combine to drive the nature of the operation and whether it goes at all.

Essentially it falls to these things:

Can we achieve our vision?

Is it an end-state worth killing and dying for?

If things go awry, is it worth the possible damage done knowing everything we know about the possible risks?

These questions are highly subjective, but are generally weighted on long-term preservation of life and stable civil society. Often non-violent 'soft' methods are very, very successful and we use them to the greatest extent we can - but in others they are NOT effective and invite disaster. In those cases where violence IS necessary, employ it effectively, efficiently, and minimally. Pragmatically and professionally, I understand that resorting to violence can be a HUGE detriment on the road to a positive end-state. The second and third-order effects of violence ripple beyond even the most experienced ground force commander's understanding, no matter how carefully he considered his course of action. With all that, sometimes it's plain as day that the scalpel IS the right tool to maintain the health of the whole.

On the use of both violent and non-violent tools for implementing national policy - Failure is loud...success is quiet. By the time violent tools become relevant, we have failed on many other levels. Employing those violent tools is a worthy endeavor if it competently aims to make violence irrelevant again - and affords the non-violent tools another chance to find purchase on a long-term, peaceful solution.