All That We're Saying...

The other night while watching the History channel (yes, I am a nerd) when a trailer for one of the multiplicity of war programs came on, I was suddenly struck by the absurdity of it. Not the absurdity of the plethora of war programs on the History channel, but the absurdity of war.

Think about it. What exactly is anyone hoping to gain in this time and place by putting an excessively large number of people into one place with the sole intent of blowing up people and/or things? I think that what really hit me about it was watching some footage of a sea battle from World War 2. Here are these large vessels in the ocean, pounding away at each other, but all that's going to be accomplished is enabling a force to land on a small island that normally no one would want?

I suppose that there was a time when war made at least a little more sense. One group had something that was desired by another group, so the second group decides to take the something by force and the first group has to defend itself. Maybe it's still unnecessary, but it's at least understandable.

But fast forward to today, and it appears that the sole reason we're blowing each other up is, to quote a book I read recently, "this insidious idea is antithetical to our existence and cannot be allowed to flourish alongside our peace-loving, free society." Where's the sense in that? At a time when you can pick up a phone and instantly make contact with anyone in the world, surely there are better ways to resolve things than resorting to violence.

I think this shift happened sometime in the 20th century. Having lived in the last quarter of that century during a time of apparent peace, it's easy to forget that the entire century was essentially one gigantic war. It started in the traditional way: a few emerging superpowers decided that they wanted more land, and alliances were formed to prevent them from taking it. But that's where it ended. The treaty of Versailles was like no other treaty signed before: the winners got together, carved up the world the way they wanted it, and stuck it to the losers as hard as they could. The rest of the century became about vengeance for that act and rebelling against the imperialism that led those powers to think that they could simply cut the world up like pieces of pie. As soon as you start fighting about ideals like that, war seems to lose all sense of purpose.

The other major shift was away from the "band of brothers" army and towards killing machines. In a significant way, it's a shame that the World War 2 mini-series was called "band of brothers." The line from Henry V continues "for he who sheds his blood this day with me shall be my brother." Remember, that's the King speaking. Where was the "king" in the world wars? No longer were the leaders fighting alongside their men. When the people calling the shots are not putting themselves in danger, they no longer have direct motivation to protect their men. I don't mean to say that every leader since Waterloo has felt this way, but to an extent it's unavoidable. Troops become numbers. Citizens become collateral damage.

And that's ultimately what leads us to where we are today. I'm sure that many of the men returning from Agincourt also suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, but consider that society didn't recognize it until World War 1 when the men started coming home with "shell-shock." And given the vast issues that our troops return with now and the cost to their families and society at large-- PTSD, familial violence, homelessness, depression, suicide-- we have to start asking what we're getting for this and stop sending people out blindly to fight for ideals when there is a better way.

I don't mean to denigrate what the people who sign up for the military sacrifice in the name of protecting us. I think that their motivations are good, and that protection in some form or another is necessary. But I do question the leadership that continues to believe that it's worth the cost to send these people into harm's way in the name of an ideal. Ideas are meant to be discussed, not killed for. Surely it's at least conceivable that differences can be worked out and tolerated by sitting around the table and talking rather than by shedding the blood of millions.