1-11-02


	Evolution tells me we are in trouble. It says so every day, in small ways, but never so much as when we are at war.
	You could say we have selected for fierceness, that those who have survived and flourished are those who were willing to fight, no holds barred. But I think perhaps we have not selected so much for genetics as for ideas. It is our concept of war that has me concerned.
	Over thousands of years of unbalanced conquest, invasion, and revolution, we have encouraged those who were willing to win at any cost. *At any cost*. Let me point out a few examples, and the costs that came with them.
	First, the French Revolution. I don't say the American Revolution for a reason: that fight was fierce, yet one side struggled to hold onto an ideal of how one ought to fight. You can say it was for lack of adaptability, or for honor, but it hardly matters- and the ones breaking most of the rules were the locals.
	But the French Revolution held no such lines, clear or not, between homelander and colonist. It was a question of rich versus poor, which in turn was a question of powerful versus weak. And as the weak became powerful, they in turn were targeted by other weak people. It took several incredibly strong and viscious men in succession to slowly turn the chaos back into order so people could go about the process of living. The willingness of groups on either side to use the mob mentality and the Guillotine, and their continued willingness as sides changed, was a dangerous attitude. Who might be next? Call any man a counter-revolutionary and you've signed his death sentence. Might not someone else do the same to you? In not considering the consequences, many people made the arrogant assumption that they would always be on top- that it would never be their lives on the line.
	Let us pause a moment to consider a relatively new field of political theory- game theory. In game theory, we consider how people or groups of people might react under certain entirely arbitrary situations, then apply those lessons to the complexity of real life.
	One enlightening game is to ask people to create a group-based social system from scratch, along a few basic lines like money, social status, etc. The key is to not tell them what group they will be a part of. In these cases, people tend to create equal systems, not knowing what side they will eventually have to take. If, however, they know which group they will belong to, they are much more likely to create an unbalanced social structure in their favor.
	People don't like risk. But when they think they have enough power, they are willing to take risks to maintain that power. So Frenchmen used the Guillotine and beheaded one another until a firm imbalance of power was re-established.
	Moving up in time, let us then consider the American Civil War, or rather, the end of it. Disregarding the destruction at Gettysburg and other battlefields in Virginia and Tennessee, let's take a look at the state of Georgia. In 1865, General William Sherman did something utterly appalling and almost unbelievable, even to some of the soldiers on his own side: he razed through the countryside of that state, burning towns, destroying crops, and killing men (mostly old men and boys to young to join the army). He cut a swath through the state from Atlanta to Savannah, deliberately destroying everything in his path. There was no army to stop him, not after he took Atlanta. It was not a battle; it was a deliberate act of mass destruction designed to terrorize and demoralize the Confederate people and their army. As such, it certainly had an effect.
	The difference between an offensive and a defensive war is that the defense has the advantage of the countryside, and the people in it. They know their homeland, can get food and supplies from it, and can disappear into it even if they are behind enemy lines. An army on the offensive can never rest, because though the people may not physically resist, they can do so passively and can do quite a bit of damage in non-military ways (by passing along information, hiding enemy soldiers, etc.).
	This is a massive simplification, but it may help explain why invaders want to get a war over with quickly. The longer they spend in enemy territory, the more chances they give the enemy to use that old hometown advantage.
	The problem is, traditional warfare says one should leave women, children, the sick, and the elderly out of combat. They are not acceptable targets. Oh sure, they get killed sometimes, but it is generally considered wrong to make a policy of executing civilians, even the civilians of an inferior people. So what is an invading army to do?
	The combination of wanting to end a war quickly and feeling uneasy about those civilians living way too close to one's troops creates a perfect solution in the minds of people who only care about winning at this particular moment: kill the civilians in a drastic and horrifying way, and the soldiers (related to them, responsible for them, or what have you) will put down their weapons and surrender.
	It worked.
	Sherman's tactic wasn't the only thing pushing General Lee to surrender at Appomatux, but combined with the state of his armies and their lack of prospects, it certainly tipped the balance. A demoralized army is hard to lead against superior numbers and firepower. Lee did what made sense to him, as a soldier. Had he been a modern American general, he would no doubt have been court-martialed, by one side or the other.
	But the game was only just beginning.
	In its history, America has only lost one war outright- Vietnam- if one counts Korea as a stalemate. The war of 1812 was much the same as the Revolutionary War, except that the British were a bit better adapted to the situation. The Mexican-American war went along more traditional lines, but manpower and manufacturing capability gave America a significant edge. We won the Spanish-American war with overwhelming force, after ostensibly entering it over the loss of the battleship Maine to a mine, though probably it was because of the Monroe Doctrine that America should control the colonies of the Western Hemisphere. Why? Because they're here, right next to us, and that makes it easy.
	So far, it seemed like America didn't need to use Sherman's tactic- we were winning anyway.
	Skipping to World War II, we found that changing. Yes, America was slowly beating back the Japanese in the Pacific, and probably would have won in the long run, but two forces were acting on then-President Truman to change the course of the war. First, the sheer numbers of dead soldiers in Europe and the Pacific were starting to take their toll on home support. Each island was taking an incredible toll in machinery and human lives. Second, we were locked in an open technological struggle with Germany, and a clandestine one with some of our own allies.
	Desperate times called for desperate measures, and two birds (or two cities) were killed with one stone. 200,000 casualties later*, Japan surrendered amid the fallout of radioactive ash, and the Soviets backed down, realizing America had a functional atomic bomb. Did they forget about it, though? Of course not. They stepped up efforts to produce some of their own.
	Like evolution itself, arms races constantly push nations to devote more and more resources to developing and manufacturing new weapons. 3.8% of America's GDP (Gross Domestic Product- the economists' way of saying how many goods and services we produce in a year) in the year 2000 went to military expenses*, despite the end of the Cold War. Imagine if you had to spend 4% of your income every year to defend your home. If you make $40,000, that would be a brand new alarm system every year, some cameras, and maybe even a gun. Do you really need all that?
	But if your neighbors are all putting alarms on their houses, your house might look like an easy target without the latest model. Then maybe your insurance would go up without the cameras. Perhaps the school shootings have scared you enough that you want to send your children to learn karate, or buy them bullet-proof vests.
	It's a viscious game. Every step someone else takes, friend or foe, forces you to increase your own defenses. Otherwise, you'll be left behind, making you an easy target.
	Which is what has happened to most of the world. Without our level of affluence, many countries simply don't have the resources- money, manpower, raw ingredients- to spend on bombs, guns, fighter planes, and sophisticated electronic surveilance equipment. They are more concerned with food, and their leaders with holding onto power under turbulent circumstances.
	Which makes them easy targets.
	The last *six* countries we have invaded (with or without declaring war) are second- or third-world nations. They hardly put up a fight, which was a very good thing for our own leaders. When two American soldiers died in Somalia, the public outcry was huge. But why?
	Truman faced public concern for casualties during World War II, but not the hugely negative reaction that Vietnam (and retroactively, Korea) produced. This war, fought on foreign soil without a previous attack to galvanize American support, faltered in the face of anti-war protests. The Vietnamese used their hometown advantage to the maximum, and casualties on both sides were high, despite the Americans' obvious technological advantages.
	The solution was Agent Orange.
	It really doesn't look good to have squadrons of American soldiers snap and level entire villages out of fear. On the other hand, Sherman and Truman had pointed the way- create fear in your enemy that he is endangering the very people he is supposed to protect. Thus, Agent Orange was born.
	(Okay, yes, it was more complicated than that. The removal of foliage could be justified on its own grounds as a wartime necessity- the removal of civilians could be considered a mere side effect- but let's look at the overall results. As a terror weapon, Agent Orange was the next step up from the gas used in Europe during World War II. It was a way to create fear without feeling personal responsibility, since you weren't really trying to kill people, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.)
	Despite the new weapons, support for the war at home continued to collapse, and eventually the troops were recalled. This was a critical lesson for the politicians of America- you cannot win at any cost. You must win at no cost.
	Very well, easy enough. We will attack helpless targets. We will make our policies and preferences known by choosing sides in wars that seem to have nothing to do with us, then neatly destroying the opposition in a show of overwhelming force.
	But what about the public outcry of peaceniks and the like, people who point out the suffering that we are inflicting on helpless people? Everybody loves an underdog, even if it's the opponent. How are we to handle this potentially volatile reaction?
	Two ways. First, television. Let's begin the trend of reality tv, knowing that truth (with a little brushing up) can be more entertaining than fiction. Let the newsboys get in there, but make sure they treat a war as a media heyday, rather than as something to argue against.
	Second, let's demonize the other side. Oh, it's an old trick, but people still fall for it. No reason to teach an old dog new tricks. Just pick a few details about the side you're fighting against (and cover up a few on the side you're fighting for), and you've set the ground. You've told the story your way first, and who's to say reality is any different? In fact, isn't history just a way of telling the story your way? A way of saying "we were right, and god was on our side for it"?
	Sherman's march to the sea. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Agent Orange. The Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan. What do they all have in common? The evolution of war. This is where we are going, folks. War as television drama. War as win-at-any-cost. War as win-at-no-cost. The ideal war now has no casualties- on our side. The ideal war is a carpet-bombing campaign against people armed with third-hand AK-47s and pocketknives. We risk nothing and expect to solve the world's problems by choosing sides and dropping bombs.
	Someday, we will not be the strong ones. Someday, we will be the weak, on the defensive, trying to swing the balance back in favor of that old hometown advantage. Maybe then we'll curse ourselves for taking things this far. Maybe then we'll realize that the democratic motto of "Might Doesn't Make Right" rings hollow in the mouths of the powerful who choose to excercise that power to win at any cost to the other side.
	We are not evolving into better people, with higher morals and a better understanding of consequences. We are not evolving into stronger people, cooperating with one another to create a stronger world economy, better cures for disease, or a faster colonization of space. Only our tactics are evolving, and they are escalating to the point where we could truly take that fatal plunge into all-out destruction. Just because Russia and America are no longer in a Cold War doesn't mean anybody's finger has moved off the trigger. In fact, what are our attacks on helpless countries if not practice, letting ourselves and the world know that we are combat-ready?
	Now, who can tell me where terrorism came from?


*Casualties according to the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm

*GDP percentage calculated from the Bureau of Economic Statistics' NIPA tables, http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableViewFixed.asp?SelectedTable=3&FirstYear=2000&LastYear=2001&Freq=Qtr

Question: Have you ever thought of how much power the UN Security Council weilds, compared to how few countries are on it? Does the fact that membership on the council seems entirely based on whether or not the country has a functional nuclear bomb make that situation a little clearer?

Speaking of nuclear bombs, does it bother you that Pakistan and India have escalated their own cold war (with the occassional flare) by manufacturing nuclear bombs of their own?

Thought: Now that Vietnam's back in the fold, there are only four nations that the US considers to be enemies: Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, and Lybia. From all accounts, economic embargoes on these nations have led to mass poverty and hunger for the ordinary people, without really changing the power balance. Does that tell you that the US doesn't really want to change the power balance? We are not invading these countries, we are smoking them out. Or perhaps we are merely giving them something to worry about other than preaching against us- and making them useful examples at the same time.

Oh, that's odd. All four countries are led by strong leaders (or in one case, the son of a strong leader). We don't like this, do we? Kadaffi, Hussein, and Castro have been demonized, and Kim has been portrayed as an ineffective successor to his father. Aside from the mud-slinging campaign, I wonder how much use democracy gets as a foreign policy instrument to destabalize potentially hostile nations?

Then again, we try to prevent democracy in some countries, so maybe it really is just what side a government picks. Or whether or not they annoy us.