Homo Homini Lupus (Man=s Wolf to Man)

Plautus (c.254-184 B.C.)

THE CAUSES OF WAR B A SAMPLE OF WESTERN VIEWS

Francoise Hall, M.D., M.P.H.

Number of words: 24,554 August 13, 2005

Number of pages: 88

Copyright 2005, Francoise Hall, all rights reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 5

SECTION I IS WAR AN END OR A MEANS?........................................................................ 15

I. a. WAR IS AN END, NOT A MEANS.................................................................... 15

I. b. WAR IS A MEANS, NOT AN END.................................................................... 18

SECTION IIIS THE LOCUS OF CONTROL IN GOD?........................................................... 21

II. a. WAR IS THE WILL OF GOD............................................................................ 21

II. b. WAR IS NOT THE WILL OF GOD................................................................... 24

SECTION IIIIS WAR PART OF NATURE? ............................................................................ 25

III. a. WAR IS PART OF NATURE............................................................................ 25

III. b. WAR IS BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED................................................... 26

III. c. WAR IS THE BASIS OF EVOLUTION........................................................... 29

SECTION IVIS WAR PART OF SOCIAL LIFE?..................................................................... 31

IV. a. WAR IS NATURAL TO SOCIAL LIFE........................................................... 31

IV. b. WAR IS ESSENTIAL TO SOCIAL LIFE ....................................................... 32

SECTION VIS WAR PART OF POLITICAL LIFE?................................................................ 34

V. a. WAR IS NATURAL TO POLITICAL LIFE...................................................... 34

V. b. WAR IS ESSENTIAL TO POLITICAL LIFE................................................... 35

SECTION VIIS WAR REASONABLE?.................................................................................... 37

VI. a. WAR IS ROOTED IN REASON....................................................................... 37

VI. b. WAR IS ROOTED IN A FAILURE OF REASON.......................................... 40

SECTION VIIIS WAR RELATED TO PROGRESS?............................................................... 43

VII. a. WAR IS THE PRICE OF PROGRESS............................................................ 43

VII. b. WAR ENGENDERS PROGRESS................................................................... 44

SECTION VIIIARE PEACE AND FREEDOM POSSIBLE WITHOUT WAR?..................... 45

VIII. a. WAR IS THE GUARDIAN OF PEACE........................................................ 45

VIII. b. WAR IS THE GUARDIAN OF FREEDOM................................................. 46

SECTION IXARE LEADERS RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR?................................................... 47

IX. a. WAR IS ENGENDERED BY LEADERS........................................................ 47

IX. b. WAR IS NOT ENGENDERED BY LEADERS............................................... 49

SECTION XIS WAR RELATED TO TRADE?.......................................................................... 50

X. a. WAR ORIGINATES IN NATIONS= LACK OF TRADE................................ 50

X. b. WAR ORIGINATES IN NATIONS= DEPENDENCE ON TRADE............... 51

SECTION XIIS WAR REALITY?.............................................................................................. 52

B B B WAR IS AN ABUSE OF REALITY................................................................. 52

SECTION XIIIS WAR A MEASURE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT?................................. 53

B B B WAR IS A COMPONENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT............................ 53

SECTION XIIIIS WAR DUE TO A DIVISION WITHIN THE WARRING GROUP?......... 56

XIII. a. WAR IS AN INTER-CLASS PHENOMENON............................................ 56

XIII. b. WAR IS AN INTER-GENERATIONAL PHENOMENON......................... 57

SECTION XIVIS WAR RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT?........................... 58

B B B WARS ENGENDERS INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT................................ 58

SECTION XVARE THE SEEDS OF WAR IN OUR DAILY LIVES?.................................... 60

SECTION XVIIS EACH ONE OF US A CULPRIT IN WAR?................................................ 62

XVI. a. WAR IS THE OUTER EXPRESSION OF INNER CONFLICTS................ 62

XVI. b. WAR ORIGINATES IN OUR LACK OF CONNECTEDNESS................. 65

XVI. c. WAR ORIGINATES IN OUR CONSCIOUSNESS OF DEATH................ 67

CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................... 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................ 72

INDEX.......................................................................................................................................... 86

INTRODUCTION

Enheduana, Homer, John Locke, Francois-Marie Voltaire

Enheduana, the Akkadian poet-priestess who lived around 2,270 B.C., is the first poet in history, man or woman, to be known to us by name. She was the daughter Sargon, King of Akkad, a city-state in the north of Mesopotamia. Her poem, ALament to the Spirit of War,@ begins with these lines:

You hack everything down in battle . . .

God of War, with your fierce wings

you slice away the land and charge

disguised as a raging storm . . .

It ends with these lines:

You triumph over all our rites.

Who can explain why you go on so?

Enheduana 2,270 B.C., reproduced in Gioseffi, p. 3

Homer, the Greek poet who lived in Asia Minor, before 700 B.C., is the first European poet to be known to us by name. His two epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, each 24 books in length, are about force, power and war.

To the English philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), it seemed that

AAll the talk of history is of nothing almost but fighting and killing . . .@

Locke (1632-1704), quoted in Requadt 1998-2005, Book II (Man and Society), Chapter 11 (War), Quotations (undated).

And to the French philosopher, Francois-Marie Voltaire (1694-1778), it seemed that

AHistory is but the register of human crimes and misfortunes.@

Voltaire (1694-1778), quoted in Geib (undated).

Why War? has occupied the greatest minds of civilization.

Frameworks for War

There are many ways to provide a framework in which war can be analyzed. Some of these are as follows:

1. The Historical Perspective: Archeological evidence shows us that war did not always exist. Only one site showing evidence of warfare has been discovered in excavations dating from the whole Paleolithic Period (2,900,000-10,000 B.C.), and it is dated from the end of the Period. The site is the ANubian Site 117,@ near Jebel, Sahaba, Sudan, dated between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C. (Kelly 2000, p. 1).

There is no evidence of warfare during the Mesolithic Period (10,000-7,500 B.C.), a time when humans lived in settled communities. Warfare begins with the Neolithic Period (7,500-1,500 B.C.), when humans started to domesticate plants and animals and develop agriculture. The second generally accepted evidence of warfare is in the Near East, and dated as between 7,500 and 7,000 B.C. By 3,000 B.C., when the earliest historical records appear, war was generalized and being documented in writing (Kelly 2000, pp. 1-2).

War does not seem to occur until the conceptualization of a new socio-cultural logic B the logic of substitutability, that is, the replacement of one member of a group by another for the purpose of killing. The emotional gratification derived from revenge is displaced from the culprit to any member of his group. This transition initiated war and constitutes, therefore, a major turning point in human history (Kelly 2000, pp. 5-7).

2. Discontinuity with Interpersonal Violence: Interpersonal violence does not necessarily translate into war.

During the Paleolithic Period (2,900,000-10,000 B.C.):

C The sex ratio for Homo erectus (Pithecanthropus, 1,600,000- 400,000 B.C.) and for Homo sapiens (400,000-10,000 B.C.), was, on the average, 148 to 100 in favor of men (Vallois 1961, p. 225, cited in deMause 1974, p. 27).

C Early hominid children were decapitated and eaten by their parents (Simons 1989, p. 1344, cited in deMause 2002, p. 299).

During the Neolithic Period (7,500-1,500 B.C.):

C Around 7,000 B.C., in Jericho, children were sealed into walls, bridges and the foundation of buildings in order to strengthen (Abreathe life into@) these structures (Darlington 1931. Bett 1929, pp. 104-105. Joyce 1903, p. 285. Payne 1916, p. 154. Anonymous 1909, tome 23, pp. 494-501. These five sources cited in deMause 1974, p. 27).

AOf old, the chosen victim of the Mason was often his own child, as in the ease of him who laid the foundation of Jericho in Abiram, his first-born, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest, Segub@ (Upward 1915, p. 56, quoted in Newton and Haywood 1923, Vol. IX, No. 5, May; reproduced in Phoenix Masonry, p. 3).

C Around 2,000 B.C., in Stonehenge, young children had their skulls split by axes (Taylor 1996, p. 189, cited in deMause 2002, p. 299).

C Between 1,500 B.C. and 900 A.D., in Central America, the Maya killed (Asacrificed@) their children (Carey 1999, pp. 44-53, cited in deMause 2002, p. 299).

C Around 1,250 B.C., ancient Jews, under Egyptian King Ramses II (d. 1225 B.C.), continued to Apass their children through the fire,@ despite the denunciation of the custom by Hebrew prophets (Abt-Garrison 1965, p. 29, cited in deMause 2002, p. 298).

3. Continuity with Some Forms of Violence: From a perspective of physical violence of all types, war appears to be on a continuum beginning with disputes and altercations (in which deadly force is generally not used), brawls and riots (in which deaths are caused in the heat of anger rather than planned), to duels, and then to murder B which, if it is homicide, is disapproved, but if it is the death penalty (capital punishment), is approved by the killer=s community. War (including its more primitive forms, the raid or the feud) differs from all other types of violence by its principle of social substitutability. In war, any one of the enemy=s group member is substitutable for another B any member of the opposite group may be targeted for killing. This is a radical emotional displacement which is absent from capital punishment (Kelly 2000, pp. 3-7).

4. Continuity with Games: Contests between humans which fall short of war, are called games. Dangerous games (modern football, for example), and war, then become a dispute over measurements B which one is the more powerful, stronger, braver, most fearless, etc. . .? (van Creveld 1991, p. 163. Stoessinger 2001, pp. 255 and 258).

In both war and games, contestants are of a broadly comparable nature and of approximately equal strength. The word bellum (war), derives from due-lum, a combat of two. Where no symmetry exists, violence may still take place, even violence that is organized, purposeful, politically-motivated and on a fairly large scale, but the name given to this violence is generally not war B rather it is called a disturbance (with repression), an uprising (with counter-insurgency measures), or a crime (with police action) (van Creveld 1991, pp. 165 and 173-174).

5. War as a Disease: In the framework of war as pathology, whether a conflict qualifies as war is generally decided by the most powerful party. Among the many violent conflicts which are not defined as war, are revolutions, uprisings, rebellions, guerilla warfare, resistance to occupation, the hiring of secret mercenaries, violence by death squads and private militias, secret assistance to depose another country=s leader, and conquests defined by the powerful as Acivilizing missions@ or Ahumanitarian interventions.@

Epidemiologically, war is waged every few years. From 1812 to 2003, for instance, the United States engaged in, at a minimum, sixteen wars B an average of one war every twelve years. The pathogenesis of war is in dispute. Clinical manifestations consist in inflicting as much damage to one=s opponent as possible, while sustaining the least possible damage to one=s own side. The duration of war may vary from a few days or weeks to several generations. Convalescence is slower for long than for short wars. After the Vietnam war, the United States was said to be suffering from the AVietnam Syndrome@ which consisted of opposition to aggression, terror and violence, and even sympathy for victims. Complications of war include unpredicted mishaps and turns of events, such as, for the United States, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, or the present world-wide rise of terrorism. Treatment is in dispute, as is prevention.

6. War as a Gender Issue: Analysis of war in terms of the sex of the planners and executers shows that war is principally a male adventure. A higher proportion of women than men oppose war, but as a group, women have generally supported war and acted in auxiliary positions. Lysistrata, the play by Athenian poet and playwright Aristophanes (c.448-c.388 B.C.), about women going on a sex strike to force their husbands to vote for peace with Sparta, remains to this day, a comedy (Aristophanes 411 B.C. See Theatre Database 2000).

7. War as a Core with Concentric Circles: Another way to visualize war is to conceptualize its major driving forces as forming a core in which they converge, overlap and act synergistically. Around this core, lesser forces act in concentric circles, ranging from medium forces to mere pretexts and even lies as justifications for war. Rage generated by an abusive childhood, for example, could be the core of war, in the sense of giving rise to the need for an enemy B any available enemy on which to take revenge. The greed of leaders and their manipulation of both people and information might be viewed as a medium force. Somewhat less potent (since these can be bought at a price), might be the country=s need for resources. Less potent still might be an individual soldier=s wish to defy death, experience a unique intensity of feelings, or enroll in the military in return for college tuition. Pretexts, excuses, rationalizations and opportunistic moves might include the Apacification@ of warring tribes, putting an end to atrocities, have more Abreathing space,@ combat terrorism, or avenge a humiliation. In the very outermost circle, one might visualize the conditions propitious for war, such as, for instance, humans being at a stage where they are reaching the earth=s human carrying capacity, humans dividing themselves up into a system of states without higher common jurisdiction, a widening socio-economic inequality, or the availability of nuclear power and other dangerous technologies.

8. The Results of War: Analyzing war in terms of its results would show that in all cases, the results of war have been a change in power, energy and land relationships, sometimes accompanied by transfers of population groups.

9. War and Consciousness: Deliberately causing the death of others on a large scale, as in war, does not begin to happen until man has invented farming. Farming demands a clear visualization of the future. But his new-found future includes one=s own death. Could it be then, that war is man=s revenge on his peers for the fact that his own future will be taken away from him? Is there a correlation between level of consciousness and war?

The earliest known hominid (human-like species) in the fossil record is the man-ape, Australopithecus afarensis, who inhabited the savannas and woodlands of Africa 5,000,000 to 3,000,000 years ago. He was probably the only species of its kind. Adults walked in a bipedal manner broadly similar to that of Homo sapiens. His cranial capacity was about 400 cubic centimeters, approximately that of modern chimpanzees. We can assume that the external world of Australopithecus afarensis (nature around him, his body) and his self (the newly evolving center of his experience) were undifferentiated. There could not have been a comprehension of death or its sequella, existential fear. Australopithecus afarensis lived in a AGarden of Eden,@ a time before the Afall@ when knowledge and reflection drew a separation between oneself and the great Other (Wilson, p. 52. Wilbur, p. 26).

The appearance, 2,000,000 years ago (at the beginning of the Paleolithic Period 2,900,000-10,000 B.C.), in East Africa, of a small gracile species, Homo habilis, the first member of the genus Homo, marked a major evolutionary step. Homo habilis had a cranial capacity of 750 cubic centimeters (Wilson pp. 49, 52-53 and 189. Wilbur, pp. 39-40).

About 1,500,000 years ago (mid-way through the Paleolithic Period), Homo erectus (the APeking man@) appeared in Africa and soon expanded his range to Europe and Asia. His cranial capacity, originally 915 cubic centimeters, increased steadily during the next 250,000 years to 1,140 cubic centimeters. The stone tools he made increased correspondingly in sophistication (Wilson p. 53).

By 250,000 years ago, Homo sapiens was fully evolved from Homo erectus. Homo sapiens had a cranial capacity of 1,350 cubic centimeters, near the present world average. At this early stage of consciousness, the self must have been a body self, the body not yet having differentiated itself from the nature, much less the mind from the body. This body self must have been experienced as separate from the natural world but central to it. Man must have vaguely sensed his own finiteness and vulnerability. The oldest self-portrait of a human dates from that time, discovered in the Paleolithic cave site of Trois Frere, St.-Giroud, France. The Aman@ is composed of different animal parts B the ears of a stag, the eyes of an owl, the tail of a wolf, the sexual organs of a lion, and the paws of a bear (Wilson, pp. 48-49, 53, 186 and 189. Wilbur, pp. 43-44 and 47-48. Columbia Encyclopedia).

By 67,000 years ago, fully modern humans had become the single surviving hominid species. A subspecies, known as the ANeanderthal man@ (from the Neander Valley, Germany), had a cranial capacity of 1,600 cubic centimeters B larger than contemporary Homo sapiens. He was almost entirely non-verbal. The graves and the bear sanctuaries of the Neanderthal man are our earliest evidence of religious rituals, and significantly, these reveal attempts to cope with the imprint of death (Wilbur, p. 62. Columbia Encyclopedia).

About 40,000 years ago, the ACro-Magnon@ man (from Cro-Magnon, Les Eyzies, Dordogne, France), lived in what is now France, Spain, Germany and Central Europe. He was largely non-verbal, though with a verbal ability superior to that of the Neanderthal man. He made finely crafted stone and bone tools, shell and ivory jewelry, and polychrome paintings. His rituals aimed both at averting his own death and preventing the revenge of the animals he killed during hunts. At the time the Cro-Magnon man and his culture (the Aurignacian culture) flourished, the world was still free of warfare as we know it today (Wilbur, pp. 69-72. Columbia Encyclopedia)

Around 8,000 B.C., simple agricultural practices began to appear simultaneously at several sites, in the Levant and Iraq. Towns grew to 200 people. Humankind had discovered farming. Man=s consciousness now included a more vivid future, and by the same token, must have also included a clearer realization of his death in this future. At the same time that man had learned to make a banquet (food surplus), he had also learned that for himself, the banquet would be finished when the skull came grinning in. The self was now a verbal self, transcending both the body and the present. Ceremonial graves became a common practice. Warfare as we know it today, begins (Wilbur, pp. 95-96 and 161).

By 3,000 B.C., specialized classes of people, released from having to hunt or farm for themselves, had produced the first truly and purely mental productions of humanity B the alphabet, mathematics, writing and the calendar. Money and payment in wages came into use. Civilization had begun. Warfare was widespread. Enheduana (see Introduction) writes her poem. It is a poem about war (Wilbur, pp. 102-103 and 121).

Around 2,000 B.C., the world=s myths and narratives are an unprecedented outcry of anguish, guilt and sorrow. Man is now fully awake (Wilbur pp. 39-40).

War in terms of its Locus of Control

Another way to analyze war, and the one used in the present document, is to look at war in terms of where a person visualizes its locus of control. Who is to blame for war? Who is at the helm?

Section I, discusses whether war is an end or a means. If it is an end in itself, then the issue of control seems mute. People wage war because they want to do it, just like they eat because they want to eat.

Sections II and III take up the question of whether the locus of control is in humans at all. Perhaps it is in God, or perhaps violence is part of Anature@ and hence within us, biologically determined. It could even be the basis of our evolution as the human species.

In Sections IV and V, the locus of control is brought nearer to ourselves. Perhaps war is natural to social life, or even indispensable to it. Similarly, perhaps war is natural to political life, or even indispensable to it.

The locus of control is brought even closer to us in Sections VI, VII and VIII. Perhaps war is a reasonable response to injustice, perhaps war is linked to our progress as a civilized society, perhaps we could have neither peace nor freedom without war.

Leaders are often blamed for war. The locus of control is thought to be in them, not the population at large. Sections IX takes up this issue.

Section X takes up the question of whether war is due to nations= lack of trade, or an overly great dependence on trade.

Section XI considers war as not being part of Areality.@ Just like the atheists= denial of the existence of God on the basis of lack of physical evidence is a fallacy, so is it a fallacy to deny the noble purpose of the United States on the basis of lack of historical evidence. Both conclusions are unwarranted because both rely on actual evidence rather than the Areality@ of our minds.

Section XII analyzes the view of the United Nations on war, as expressed in its index of human development (IHD), which it applies to member countries.

Section XIII brings the locus of control a step closer to the individual. Is war due to internal factions within the warring group itself, such as class divisions or inter-generational conflicts?

Section XIV asks whether war helps the development of the individual.

Section XV points to our every day life as the source of war.

Finally, Section XIV fully highlights the individual. War may be manifestation of internal emotional conflicts which, to the extent that they are unconscious, drive our behavior, no matter our rationales for our actions. Perhaps war originates in our lack of sensitivity to the Whole which is the ground of our being B a failure to apprehend the universe directly, as a whole, in a wild flower. War could be a manifestation of the particular stage in the development of consciousness at which we find ourselves now B above the sub-conscious level but not yet able to transcend our isolated selves and be in full union with the All (the great Other, God, Spirit, the Ultimate, the Ground of Being, our deepest Nature, the integral Wholeness).

We will not be able to prevent war and its attendant suffering, unless we know the origins of war. The present work is a minute step in the direction of prevention.

The Definition of War

War, as understood in the present document, is an armed conflict collectively carried out. The use of deadly weapons is seen as legitimate by the collectivity resorting to arms. During the advance planning which war requires, people envision and aim for other persons= death. Such planning is believed to be justified by prior events and circumstances, and hence morally appropriate. War is not an immediate and spontaneous expression of anger, but rather the result of a considered decision to elect war as a course of action. War is the deliberate infliction of intolerable harm. Even if for some, war is an end in itself, politically, it is declared to be instrumental B waged to achieve a purpose other than itself.

War requires a division of labor for both planners and participants. Planners do research to develop more efficient (Asmarter@) weapons, manufacture and test weapons, raise and train an army, and develop a system of rewards for Aheroism.@ Participants have specialized roles such as scouting, being point men, being bombardiers, covering the rear, controlling the flow of information, and preparing for casualties and prisoners.

War is governed by the application of the principle of social substitutability. The group perceiving itself as the injured party, sees itself injured as a whole, and thus holds all of the oppositive collectivity responsible for its injury. Any member of the opposite group is a legitimate target, provided the collectivity believes that this is necessary to achieve its goal. Rules of war have only very partially succeeded in restraining the unimpeded use of force (Kelly 2000, pp. 3-7. Van Creveld, p. 165. Card 2002, p. 122).

Metaphorically, we think of war as an object which is a container. We think of war as an object which exists in space and time when we say that we are going to war or ask someone if she remembers the war. We think of it as a container when we say that a soldier was in a war, or when we list the major battles which occurred during a particular war (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, p. 30).

Some projects labeled Awars@ are not wars in the usual sense of the term, but rather are metaphors based on war. Examples include Athe war on terror@ (in the 1980's), Athe war on terrorism@ (at present), Athe war on drugs,@ Athe war on crime,@ Athe war on poverty@ and Aclass war.@ Such Awars@ are omitted from the present discussion.

Fatalists, Realists, Just-war Theorists and Idealists

The present document eschews labels such as Athe Fatalists,@ Athe Realists,@ Athe Just-war Theorists,@ and Athe Idealists,@ because these labels have been formulated by the ARealist@ school of thought which dominates the present discourse about war. Most academicians have conflated the first two categories B Athe Fatalists,@ and Athe Realists.@ The Realist school of thought then includes Thucydides, sometimes Saint Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay [these last three, as revealed in The Federalist Papers (1787-1788)], Reinhold Niebuhr, Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan.

The alternative to ARealism@ is AIdealism,@ a label which includes a potpourri of religious pacifists, some (perhaps all) just-war thinkers, liberals (such as Kant), natural-law adherents (such as Grotius), Aone-worlders,@ Apeace-through-understanding naifs,@ and well-meaning, but hopelessly wide of the mark, others (Elshtain, pp. 87-88).

A Large Round Table

And now, reader, during the while that you are with me, sit down in the moderator=s chair at a large, round table. Let go of both time and space, for we do not need them for our present inquiry. Invite all those named herein to speak in turn, telling you in their own words why it seems to them that we wage war. Call on me for concluding comments, and I will take the opportunity to give you my own opinion. It is too bad that your own opinion will have to wait until after our meeting has ended, when the parameters of time and space will again enforce their rules. But speak your mind. Though I may not hear it in real time and space, others will, and the more we talk about the subject, the more we are likely to question the why of our actions.

SECTION I

IS WAR AN END OR A MEANS?

I. a. WAR IS AN END, NOT A MEANS

WAR IS ENJOYABLE

1. Soldiers fight because they like fighting

Martin van Creveld (1991), Hebrew University, Israel:

AJust as it makes no sense to ask why people eat or . . . sleep, [it makes no sense to ask why they fight because] fighting in many ways is not a means but an end.@

van Creveld 1991, p. 161.

A... fighting can never be a question of interest [because] dead men have no interests . . . Warfare constitutes the great proof that man is not motivated by selfish interests . . . For a man to die for his own interest is absurd; to die for those of somebody or something else, more absurd still . . .@ (Emphasis in the original).

van Creveld 1991, pp. 158-159.

2. The Use of Force is intoxicating

Simone Weil (1909-1943), French Philosopher and Mystic:

In her essay on the Iliad, the epic poem by the Greek Poet Homer (before 700 B.C.), Weil notes:

AForce is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims B the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates. The truth is, nobody really possesses it.@

Weil 1940, in Miles, 1986 (posthumous publication), p. 191, quoted in Matthewson 2001, p. 9. See also Wilson (undated), p. 2.

3. Fighting is enjoyable

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British Philosopher and Mathematician:

APeople who are vigorous and brutal often find war enjoyable, provided that it is a victorious war and that there is not too much interference with rape and plunder. This is a great help in persuading people that wars are righteous.@

Russell 1950, p. 147; reproduced in Danilo Mirkovic, p. 2.

4. Fighting keeps one Young

Martin van Creveld (1991):

AThe successful conduct of war requires a certain boyish enthusiasm. This enthusiasm, in turn, can cause those who engage in it to retain their boyishness. War has always been the business of the young.@

van Creveld 1991, p. 170.

5. Fighting engenders a Sense of Freedom

Martin van Creveld (1991):

ACoping with danger calls forth qualities such as boldness, pride, loyalty and determination . . . What makes coping with danger so supremely enjoyable is the unique sense of freedom it is capable of inspiring . . . Fighting demands the utmost concentration. By compelling the senses to focus themselves on the here and now, it can cause a man to take his leave of them . . . In the whole of human experience, the only thing that even comes close is the act of sex . . . However, the thrills of war and fighting are probably more intense than those of the boudoir. War causes human qualities, the best as well as the worst, to realize their full potential.@

van Creveld 1991, pp. 164-165.

6. Fighting gives the Soldier a Chance to be a Hero

Barbara Ehrenreich (1997), American Journalist and Author:

AIn war [the warrior] finds adventure, camaraderie, searing extremes of emotion, proof of manhood, possibly new territory and loot, and always the chance of a >glorious death,= meaning not death at all but everlasting fame.@

Ehrenreich 1997, p. 150.

7. Leaders come to Life in War

Martin van Creveld (1991):

AOne reason why Robert E. Lee, Theodore Roosevelt, George S. Patton and Winston Churchill, were considered such great leaders was because for them, fighting represented the medium in which they came to life. Enjoying themselves, they and their counterparts at all times and places, were able to inspire countless followers who, as they went into combat, came to know the meaning of excitement, exhilaration, ecstasy and delirium. Few among us are immune to these sensations, nor perhaps are those who are immune to them, deserving of admiration.@ (Emphasis in the original).

van Creveld 1991, p. 162.

AAll . . . restrictions are artificial, hence in a certain sense absurd. War=s unique nature consists precisely in this: it has always been, and still remains, the only creative activity that both permits and demands the unrestricted commitment of all man=s faculties against an opponent who is as strong as oneself. This explains why, throughout history, war has often been taken as the ultimate test of a person=s worth B or, to speak with the terminology of previous ages B the judgment of God.@

van Creveld 1991, p. 165.

8. Spectators like it B War is akin to Violent Games

Samuel II:

AAbner, . . . Captain of Saul=s [army], took Ish-bosheth, son of Saul, to Mahanaim, and made him king [of] Gilead, . . . the Ashurites, . . . Jezreel, . . . Ephraim, . . . Benjamin, . . . and all Israel. Ish-bosheth . . . was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David, and the time that David was king in Hebron . . . was seven years and six months.@

AAbner . . . and the servants of Ish-bosheth, went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon. And Joab . . . and the servants of David, went out and met [them] by the pool of Gibeon. They sat down, the one on one side of the pool and the other on the other side of the pool.@

AAnd Abner said to Joab, >Let the young men now arise and play before us!=@ And Joab said, >Let them arise!= Then they arose and went over by number B twelve . . . [for] Ish-bosheth . . . and twelve . . . [for] David. And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow=s side, so they fell down together . . . [The battle] was very [severe] that day.@

The Aplay@ or game, was in fact a murderous hand-to-hand combat where all twenty-four participants were killed.

Old Testament (c.1050 B.C.), Samuel II 2:8-17, reproduced in Early Jewish Writings. See also Van Creveld 1991, p. 163.

9. People like Tales of Trauma

Bessel van der Kolk (1996), Psychiatrist, Harvard Medical School:

AFor reasons that are far from clear, people always seem to have had a well-nigh insatiable appetite for tales of trauma, as long as these do not personally involve the listeners or demand compassion for the victims.@

van der Kolk et al. 1996, p. 42.

I. b. WAR IS A MEANS, NOT AN END

WAR IS NOT WAGED FOR ITS OWN SAKE

1. The Aim of War is Other than Itself

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Greek Philosopher:

AWe are busy that we may have leisure, and make war that we may live in peace. Warlike actions are completely [un-leisurely], but the action of the statesman is also un-leisurely . . . [for it] aims at despotic power and honors, or at all events, happiness for him and his fellow citizens B a happiness different from political action, and evidently sought as being different . . . Political and military actions, [even noble and great] . . . aim at an end. They are not desirable for their own sake.@

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Nicomachean Ethics, Book X., Chapter 7, Publication 1984, reproduced in Banach (undated), p. 2.

2. Fighting traumatizes Soldiers

Bessel van der Kolk (1996):

AIn both World Wars, many astute clinical observations were made about the psychiatric casualties of battle B the [syndrome] eventually becoming known as . . . >combat stress reaction= (CSR). The treatment concepts of >proximity, immediacy and expectancy= were developed in this setting, to deal with the significant psychiatric toll of war. CSR remains a matter of major concern to medical services and field commanders in war because of its impact on the fighting capacity of a force and the need for casualty facilities at the front.@

van der Kolk et al. 1996, p. 104.

WAR IS A MEANS TO CAPTURE ENERGY

War is one of the Ways Societies increase their Energy Supply

Richard Heinberg (2003), New College of California, Santa Rosa, CA:

Only a limited amount of energy (all of it originally from the Sun), is available to sustain life on Earth. Living organisms depend on a continuous intake of both energy and matter in order to create and maintain their internal order. The same is true of human societies. Societies depend on a continuous intake of energy and matter to create order within themselves. They do this by means of technology.

Energy is the basic currency of ecosystems, passing from green plants to herbivores and then carnivores. The energy available in an ecosystem is one of the most important factors determining its ability to sustain life. Ecosystems which have not been significantly disturbed for long periods of time, tend to reach a state of dynamic equilibrium, Athe climax phase,@ in which organisms use the available energy most efficiently. Waste from one organism becomes food for another. Cooperation, collaboration and mutual dependence are at a maximum, competition, fighting and killing at a minimum.

Humans are capable of living in balance and harmony as long-term members of climax ecosystems B hunters and gatherers do. Many millennia ago, however, humans began to use their extraordinary powers of adaptation, their grasping hands, and their ability to communicate abstract ideas by means of complex vocalizations (language), to capture more energy for themselves and thereby increase the capacity of the environment to sustain humans, at the expense of other life forms. War is but one of the instruments which societies have used to increase their supply of energy.

Humans have used five major strategies to increase the capacity of the environment to sustain them:

f. Take-over: This strategy consists of diverting some of the earth=s life-supporting capacity away from other life forms and re-directing it toward humans. Our pre-Homo sapiens ancestors, with their simple stone tools and fire, took over organic materials that would otherwise have been consumed by insects, carnivores or bacteria. About 10,000 years ago, our earliest horti-culturalist ancestors began taking over land on which to grow crops B land that would have otherwise supported trees, shrubs, wild grasses and animals. As the expanding generations replaced each other, Homo sapiens took over an ever-larger fraction of the surface of the planet, at the expense of other inhabitants. When the take-over strategy has been applied to other humans, the name given to it, has been Awar.@

g. Tool Use: Archaeological evidence suggests that humans have been using tools for at least 100,000 years, perhaps much longer. Over the millennia, increasingly complex tools have facilitated the take-over of both other societies and new ecosystems B fire-drills, spears, knives, baskets and pots, have given way to plows, carts, sailboats, machine guns, steam shovels and computers. Nearly all tools assist in harnessing energy from the environment. Complex tools require a source of energy external to the human body both to manufacture and use them. Examples of such tools include the steel plow, gun, steam engine, internal combustion engine, jet engine, nuclear reactor, hydroelectric turbine, photovoltaic panel, wind turbine, and all electrical devices. These tools define Aindustrialization.@

h. Specialization: As society increased in complexity, tools made out of stones and stick became supplemented by the use of other humans as tools. At first, this strategy took the form of slavery, but after money came into use, it became the basis for wage labor. For a monetary reward, some humans give their energies to tasks organized by, and primarily benefitting, others.

i. Scope Enlargement: The carrying capacity of any given region for an organism, is limited by whatever indispensable substance or circumstance is in shortest supply. The sharing of resources by humans in geographically separate regions typically takes the form of trade. If one group has plenty of minerals but poor soil, and another has good soil but few minerals, trade allows both to benefit, so that their total population can rise above that which would have pertained, had they stayed isolated. Scope enlargement is often achieved by conquest and political consolidation. It is what today enables the citizens of industrialized societies to eat foods grown thousands of miles away, and fill their cars with gasoline originating in oil wells on the other side of the planet.

j. Draw-down: The fifth strategy which humans have used to increase the human carrying capacity of the environment, is to draw down nature=s stocks of non-renewable energy resources B coal, oil, natural gas and uranium. Draw-down dramatically improved the rates of return from the previous four strategies, permitting the intensification of agriculture, the invention of a vast array of new tools, the development of social roles based on specialized tool usage, and the rapid acceleration of transportation and trade. Since nature=s stocks of non-renewable energy resources are limited, wars may be expected when societies try to capture the limited supply of these non-renewable fuels, and when societies accustomed to the use of these resources, face a dwindling supply.

Thus, from the point of view of ecology and the limited supply of energy available to support life, war can be seen as one of the ways which societies have used to appropriate energy for themselves, away from other societies.

Heinberg 2003, pp. 9, 11-12, 15-16 and 19-29.

SECTION II

IS THE LOCUS OF CONTROL IN GOD?

II. a. WAR IS THE WILL OF GOD

WAR IS ORDAINED BY GOD

1. God is Himself a Warrior

Exodus:

AThe Lord is a man of war.@

Old Testament (c.9,500-2,500 B.C.), Exodus 15: 3, reproduced in Early Jewish Writings.

2. God commands War

Joshua:

AAnd the Lord said to Joshua, >Fear not, neither be thou dismayed. Take all the people of war with thee, rise, and go up to Ai. See, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land. And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst to Jericho and her king B only the spoil thereof, and the cattle thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves.=@

ASo Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up against Ai . . . And the Lord said to Joshua, >Stretch out the spear that is in thy hand toward Ai, for I will give it into thine hand.= And Joshua stretched out the spear that he had in his hand toward the City.@

AAnd so it was that all fell that day. Of men and women, [there] were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. For Joshua drew not his hand back with which he had stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the cattle and spoil of that City, Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according to the word of the Lord which he commanded Joshua.@

Old Testament (c.9,500-2,500 B.C.), Joshua 8:1-3, 18, and 25-27, reproduced in Early Jewish Writings.

Urban II (Pope) (1042-1099), in 1095, at the Council of Clermont, which inaugurated the Crusades, referring to the Muslims:

AChrist commands [that] this vile race [be exterminated] from the lands of our brethren. Oh, what a disgrace if a race so despised, degenerate, and slave of the demons, should thus conquer people fortified with faith in omnipotent God and resplendent with the name of Christ!. . . Let those who have hitherto been robbers now become soldiers of Christ! God wills it.@

Urban II 1095, quoted in Elshtain 1987, p. 134.

3. God helps the Faithful, even in Wars they have started without His Command:

Exodus:

AThen came Amalek, and he fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said to Joshua, >Choose our men, and go fight with Amalek . . . Tomorrow, I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.= So Joshua did as Moses had told him and fought with Amalek. Moses, Aaron and Hur went up to the top of the hill . . . And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. Then the Lord said to Moses, >Write this for a memorial in a book, and [repeat] it in the ears of Joshua, >I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.=@

Old Testament (c.9,500-2,500 B.C.), Exodus 17:8-10 and 13-14, reproduced in Early Jewish Writings.

Hebrews:

A. . . the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel, and the other prophets [all of whom] through faith, subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, [and] turned to flight the armies of the aliens.@

New Testament (50-100 A.D.), Hebrews 11:32-34, reproduced by Blue Letter Bible.

4. God permits Men to decide when to engage in War:

Deuteronomy:

AWhen a man goes into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the helve, and lights on his neighbor, that he die, [this man] shall . . . live.@

ABut if a man [should] hate his neighbor and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him and smite him mortally that he die . . . , then the elders . . . shall send and fetch him and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eyes shall not pity [this man].@

ABut thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.@

Old Testament (c.9,500-2,500 B.C.), Deuteronomy 19:5 and 11-13, reproduced by Early Jewish Writings.

5. War helps God choose among Nations

Colmar von der Goltz (1843-1916), Prussian Military Historian:

For Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz, war was Aan exercise in unrestricted violence . . . The way God effects His choice among nations.@ von der Goltz saw war as the greatest, most serious, and possibly the most wonderful thing on earth.

von der Goltz 1883, quoted in van Creveld 1991, pp. 42-44.

von der Goltz denied that the effort in war should be proportional to political goals. In his view, since each contestant will escalate the violence, wars should be pushed to the utmost limit of violence.

Howard 1983, p. 63; cited in Cannon 1989, p. 8.

II. b. WAR IS NOT THE WILL OF GOD

WAR IS NOT GOD=S WILL

God does not like Violence

Euripides (c.483-406 B.C.), Greek Tragic Dramatist:

AFor God himself hates violence, and will not have us grow rich by rapine, but by lawful gains. That abundance which is the fruit of unrighteousness, is an abomination. The air is common to men, the earth also, where every man, in the ample enjoyment of his possession, must refrain from doing violence or injury to that of another.@

Euripides 412 B.C., quoted in Grotius (1583-1645), 1631, Book 1, Chapter 1 (On War and Right), reproduced in Chen 1998, p. 4.

WAR IS A DISPLACEMENT OF LOVE FOR GOD ONTO A SUBSTITUTE

War implies loving Something Other than God, more than God

Robert Runcie (1982), Archbishop of Canterbury, Kent, England:

In his July 26, 1982, sermon at the Saint Paul=s Cathedral, London, during a service to give thanks for England=s victory in the Falkland Islands War (May 1 to June 14, 1982), Runcie declared:

AThose who dare interpret God=s will must never claim Him as an asset for one nation or group rather than another. War springs from the love and loyalty which should be offered to God, being applied to some God substitute B one of the most dangerous [of these] being nationalism.@

Runcie 1982, July 26, quoted in Koszarycz (undated), p. 16.

SECTION III

IS WAR PART OF NATURE?

III. a. WAR IS PART OF NATURE

VIOLENCE IS A PRINCIPLE OF NATURE

1. All Nature is Violent

Anthony Stevens (2004), British Psychologist and Psychiatrist:

A. . . we inhabit a universe of unimaginable violence . . . Human transactions are no less discordant than celestial ones . . . Wherever human communities exist, conflict is generated both within them and between them at all levels of intimacy . . . Conflict is a principle of nature.@ (Emphasis in the original).

Stevens 2004, pp. 10-11.

2. War Ahits@:

The United Nations (2003):

AAnalysis of the 25 countries hit hardest by conflict between 1960 and 1995, reveals substantial variation in the human and economic costs of war.@

United Nations 2003, p. 77.

AViolent conflict is a key obstacle to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. During [the period] 1990-2001, there were 57 major armed conflicts in 45 locations. Sub-Saharan Africa [was] hit the hardest, but no developing region [was] unaffected.@

United Nations 2003, p. 45.

III. b. WAR IS BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED

WAR IS A NATURAL PART OF LIFE

1. It is Natural to wield Arms

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.):

AThe hand serves man for a spear, a sword or any arms whatever, because it can hold and wield them.@

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), The history of animals, Book 4, Chapter 10, quoted in Grotius (1583-1645) 1631, Book 1, Chapter 2 (Inquiry into the Lawfulness of War), reproduced in Chen, p. 11.

2. Self-defense is a Principle of Nature

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.), Roman Orator, Politician and Philosopher:

Cicero notes that from the moment of its birth, every animal is endowed with natural strength to defend itself, and seeks the preservation of its condition. The principles of nature thus favor war. War waged for the preservation of our lives or for the acquisition of things necessary and useful to life, is in conformity with these principles.

Cicero (106-43 B.C.), cited in Grotius (1583-1645) 1631, Book 1, Chapter 2 (Inquiry into the Lawfulness of War), reproduced in Chen 1998, pp. 10-11.

Galen (c.130-c.200), Physician and Writer:

AEvery animal appears to defend itself with that part of its body in which it surpasses others. The calf butts with its head before its horns have grown, the colt strikes with its heel before its hoofs are hard, and the young dog attempts to bite before his teeth are strong . . . A man is a creature formed for peace and war. His armor forms not an immediate part of his body, but he has hands fit for preparing and handling arms, and we see infants using them spontaneously, without being taught to do so.@

Galen (c.130-c.200 A.D.), quoted in Grotius (1583-1645) 1631, Book 1, Chapter 2 (Inquiry into the Lawfulness of War), reproduced in Chen 1998, p. 11.

3. Death, like Life, is part of Nature

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Founder of Psychoanalysis:

AThe meaning of the evolution of civilization is no longer obscure to us. It must present the struggle between Eros and Death, between the instinct of life and the instinct of destruction, as it works itself out in the human species. This struggle is what all life essentially consists of.@

Freud 1989, p. 82s, quoted in Hedges 2002, p. 158. See also Elshtain, p. 200.

Anthony Stevens (2004):

AAttraction and repulsion, like life and death, are principles which function in apparent opposition to one another throughout nature.@

Stevens 2004, p. 28.

4. War is a Vestigial Defense against Ancient Fears

Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989), Austrian Zoologist and Ethologist:

ATo the humble seeker of biological truth, there cannot be the slightest doubt that human militant enthusiasm evolved [from the] communal defense response of our pre-human ancestors.@

Lorenz 1966, p. 261, quoted in Ehrenreich 1997, p. 77.

Barbara Ehrenreich (1997):

AThere were at least two broad and overlapping epochs in pre-history B one in which our ancestors confronted the world, for the most part, as potential prey, and another in which they took their place among the predators which had for so long oppressed them . . . [This has] to be the single greatest advance in human evolution . . . The original trauma B meaning, of course, not a single event but a long-standing condition B was the trauma of being hunted by animals and eaten . . . , the terror inspired by the devouring beast, and the powerful emotions, associated with courage and altruism, that were required for group defense.@ (Emphasis in the original).

Ehrenreich 1997, pp. 46-47.

5. War is in the Nature of Man

James Madison (1751-1836), President of the United States 1809-1817:

AThe latent causes of faction are sown in the nature of man@

Madison et al. 1787-1788. Publication 1987, p. 124. Quoted in Schell 2003, p. 237.

Bessel van der Kolk (1996):

AMedicine, psychiatry and psychology must find a way to acknowledge human beings= primitive wish to dominate and remain in control B and suppress contradictory evidence when self-interest (be it economic or sexual), is at stake. Professionals are placed in the unique position of witnessing the predatory nature of our species, whose members are capable of victimizing others, even their own closest relatives.@

van der Kolk et al. 1996, p. 45.

6. Males have a Predisposition to be Dominant

Anthony Stevens (2004):

AFrom the psycho-biological standpoint, maleness, dominance, aggression, authority, discipline, territoriality, the will to power, Logos functions, and the maintenance of law and order are all linked concepts . . . @

Stevens 2004, p. 150.

III. c. WAR IS THE BASIS OF EVOLUTION

WAR IS ESSENTIAL FOR EVOLUTION

1. Evolution depends on Struggle

Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English Naturalist:

AThe Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.@

Darwin 1859. Subtitle to The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. Quoted in Yahya (undated), p. 2.

AGenerally, the most vigorous males B those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny. But in many cases, victory depends not so much on general vigor, but on having special weapons, confined to the male sex . . . Sexual selection, by always allowing the victor to breed, might surely give indomitable courage, length of spur, and strength . . . How low in the scale of nature the law of battle descends, I know not. Male alligators have been described as fighting, bellowing, and whirling round, like Indians in a war-dance, for the possession of the females . . . The war is, perhaps, severest between the males of polygamous animals, and these seem most often provided with special weapons. The males of carnivorous animals are already well-armed . . . To them . . . , special means of defense may be given through means of sexual selection . . . for the shield may be as important for victory as the sword or spear.@

Darwin 1859, Chapter 4 (Chapter Title: Natural Selection. Subtitle: Sexual Selection), reproduced by American Buddha (undated), pp. 1-2.

AMan [is] the most dominant animal that has ever appeared on earth.@

Darwin 1871, quoted in Ehrenreich 1997, p. 45.

2. War gives Men a Sense of Power

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), German Philosopher:

AWhat is good? Whatever augments the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is evil? Whatever springs from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power increases, that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power, not peace at any price, but war, not virtue but efficiency. The weak and the botched [failures] shall perish B first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice? Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak B Christianity.@ (Emphasis in original).

Nietzsche 1888, paragraph 2, reproduced by the Friedrich Nietzsche Society, p. 1.

3. The best Warriors are selected by Females

Robin Fox (2002), Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.:

AWe waste our time asking what >causes= [human violence]. It is as much a part of the human life process as digesting or reproducing . . . We are a sexually reproducing, sexually competitive, slow-growing, large land mammal . . . Given sexual competition, the dominance of older males, and the rise in testosterone [in pubertal males], it is entirely predictable that violence will occur. Thus, we find in all cultures, young, post-pubescent males acting aggressively, and older males acting to restrain and divert them [such as, for instance, sending them off to war]. The females, in their wisdom, pick off the winners. This is what Darwin called sexual selection . . . Whether we are talking about pub fights, so-called soccer hooligans, or international conflict, much the same rules seem to apply.@

Fox 2002, June 7, Part 4, p. 2 and Part 5, pp. 1 and 4, reproduced by the Social Issues Research Center (undated).

4. War contributes to the Propagation of the Species

Anthony Stevens (2004):

AFrom the archetypal [innate propensity] standpoint, wars may be regarded as natural phenomena possessing a periodicity and a function somewhat similar to forest fires . . . [They] keep human groups in a state of ecological balance (i.e., in balance with each other and the environment) and select the >fittest= genes among male members of the community . . . Viewed from the strictly biological point of view, sanctioned use of violence between human groups would not have come into being, had it not contributed to the propagation of the species.@

Stevens 2004, pp. 26-27 and 38-39.

SECTION IV

IS WAR PART OF SOCIAL LIFE?

IV. a. WAR IS NATURAL TO SOCIAL LIFE

WAR IS IN THE NATURE OF SOCIETY

1. War is Natural to Society

Thucydides (c. 460-c.400 B.C.), Greek General and Historian, Chronicler of the Peloponnesian War from 431 to 411 B.C.:

For Thucydides, as for the Greeks in general, war was the basis of society B a natural state. The Greek city-state was a community of warriors.

Elshtain 1987, pp. 47, 87 and 149.

Greek political leaders were military leaders. Political life entailed the preservation of the city through war.

Saxonhouse 1980, p. 66, quoted in Elshtain 1987, p. 47.

2. War is imbedded in Societal Life

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), English Philosopher:

AFor what reason go men armed, and have locks and keys to fasten their doors, if they be not naturally in a state of war?@

Hobbes 1642, quoted in Charles de Montesquieu 1748, Book I (Of Laws in General), Part 2 (Of the Laws of Nature). In Jon Roland, online text, p. 4.

AIf any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies, and . . . endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another.@

Hobbes 1651, publication 1996, p. 87; quoted in Schell 2003, p. 237.

A[In the state of nature], life is a war of all against all . . . [Such a condition leads to a] war of every man against every man . . . [and makes life] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.@

Hobbes 1651, Chapter 13. Quoted in Nation Master, pp. 1-2. Quoted also in publication 1966, and partially re-quoted in Elshtain 1987, pp. 84 and 88.

AMan is wolf to man@

Originally in Plautus (c.254-184 B.C.), quoted in Hobbes 1642. Re-quoted in Geib (undated), p. 1.

IV. b. WAR IS ESSENTIAL TO SOCIAL LIFE

WAR IS AN ESSENTIAL SOCIAL ACTIVITY

1. War helps a Group define Itself

Martin van Creveld (1991):

AFighting other societies is an important way by which human societies . . . [have developed] their internal structure.@

van Creveld 1991, p. 195.

Robert Kaplan (2000), New America Foundation and Consultant to the U.S. Army:

AUnlike the Augustan Peace that lasted from 31 B.C. to 14 A.D., in which Rome merely stood for order against chaos, the peace of the Cold War allowed the West to define the philosophical terms of its freedom and prosperity, by virtue of whom we were up against B for definitions are impossible without boundaries, which often take the form of enemies.@

Kaplan 2000, p. 171.

2. War helps Males define themselves

Martin van Creveld (1991):

A. . . war [is] the field in which sexual differences are most pronounced . . . The one point where the difference between the sexes is evident [is] the average physical strength . . . Women=s relative physical weakness [makes them unsuitable] for the physical discomfort, deprivation, and danger [of war].@

van Creveld 1991, pp. 180-181 and 183.

3. War helps a Group develop Cohesion

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Swiss-French Philosopher:

Rousseau emphasized that the polity must be as one, the national will undivided, and citizens prepared to defend civic autonomy through the force of arms. The body individual and the body politic must be driven by a single motor. The citizen in whom love of the fatherland, as a civic mother, does not beat steadily and true, is a monster, an unworthy wretch, who deserves public shaming and execution. (Emphasis in Rousseau=s original).

Elshtain 1987, pp. 60 and 69.

AWar then is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State. Individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as men, nor even as citizens, but as soldiers B not as members of their country, but as its defenders. Finally, each State can have for enemies only other States, and not men. For between things disparate in nature, there can be no real relation.@

Rousseau 1762, Book 1, Chapter 4, reproduced in Paul Halsall, 1998. Quote on p. 4.

Anthony Stevens (2004):

AOur capacities to collaborate with members of our own group and to adapt to greatly varying ecological conditions, have developed along with our capacities to hunt and make war . . . The bonding of young males for aggressive pursuits is not so much an instinctual >urge= as an archetypal disposition which can be activated, trained, and exploited by more senior males in positions of

authority . . . @

Stevens 2004, pp. 38 and 50-51.

4. War is Essential for Societal Health

Georg Hegel (1770-1831), German Philosopher:

AIn times of peace, civil life expands more and more, all the different spheres settle down, and in the long run, men sink into corruption, their particularities becoming more and more fixed and ossified. But [the] health [of a nation] depends upon the unity of the body, and if the parts harden, death occurs.@

Hegel 1821, quoted in Friedrich 1953, p. 322; re-quoted in Ehrenreich 1997 p. 202. See also Elshtain 1987, pp. 73-75.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), President of the United States (1801-1809), commenting on the Shays Rebellion, 1786-1787:

AThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure.@

Jefferson (undated), quoted in Whitman, p. 83; re-quoted in Hardt and Negri 2004, p. 248. Quoted also in Adams 1990, p. 51; and partially re-quoted in deMause 2002, p. 52.

Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896), German Historian:

AOne must say in the most decided manner: >War is the only remedy for ailing nations!= The moment the State calls, >Myself and my existence are at stake!=, social self-seeking must fall back and every [partisan hatred] be silent. The individual must forget his own ego and feel himself a member of the whole . . . In this very point lies the loftiness of war B that the small man disappears entirely before the great thought of the State.@

von Treitschke (undated), quoted in Gowans 1914, pp. 23-24; re-quoted in Ehrenreich 1997, p. 202.

Robert Kaplan (2000):

AWhereas war leads to a respect for large, progressive government, peace creates an institutional void filled by, among other things, entertainment-oriented corporations.@

Kaplan 2000, pp. 174-175.

SECTION V

IS WAR PART OF POLITICAL LIFE?

V. a. WAR IS NATURAL TO POLITICAL LIFE

WAR IS POLITICS

War is the Continuation of Politics

Carl von Clausewitz, (1780-1831), Prussian General:

von Clausewitz viewed war as an instrument of policy B one of the many of forms political intercourse. It is a language of politics, whose Agrammar@ consists of shells and bullets rather than words and gestures.

von Clausewitz 1976 (posthumous publication), cited in van Creveld 1991, pp. 124-125.

AWar is the continuation of politics with an admixture of other means.@

von Clausewitz 1976 (posthumous publication), quoted in van Creveld 1991, p. 124. See also van Creveld 1991, pp. 160-161.

For von Clausewitz, war was a duel on a large scale B Aan act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.@ Once begun, war tends to become a series of Areciprocal actions@ as each contestant attempts to overwhelm the other by force. This leads to extremes because there is no Alogical limit@ to the application of force. The aim is to bring about the complete overthrow of the enemy.

von Clausewitz 1984 (posthumous publication), pp. 69, 75, 77 and 91, cited in Cannon 1989, p. 5.

V. b. WAR IS ESSENTIAL TO POLITICAL LIFE

WAR IS ESSENTIAL FOR POWER

1. War is at the Center of Politics

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian Author and Statesman:

Machiavelli saw victory, success and power as the goals of life. His description of political life is in terms of war. Politics is a constant struggle for power. Even Apeace@ is warlike.

Machiavelli 1521, cited in Elshtain 1987, p. 56.

AYou should never let things get out of hand in order to avoid war. You don=t avoid such a war. You merely postpone it, to your own disadvantage.@

Machiavelli 1532, Chapter 3. Quoted in Encyclopedia Wikiquote.

AA prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline. For this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms, they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it, is to neglect this art. And what enables you to acquire a state, is to be master of the art.@

Machiavelli 1532, Chapter 14. Quoted in Encyclopedia Wikiquote.

George Kennan (1948), Head, United States Department of State, Policy Planning Staff:

AWe have about 50 percent of the world=s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population . . . In this situation, we cannot fail to be the objects of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security . . . We should cease to talk about vague and . . . unreal objectives, such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

Kennan 1948, February 24. Reprinted in part in Etzold and Gaddis, 1978, p. 226f. Quoted in Chomsky 1985, p. 48.

George W. Bush (2004), President of the United States (2000-Present):

AOur enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.@

Bush 2004, quoted in the Associated Press, 2004; re-quoted by Howington (undated), p. 2.

2. In Politics, War may come First, the ACause@ of it, Later

Martin van Creveld (1991):

AIt is not a just cause that makes for a good war but a good war that makes for a just cause, especially in retrospect.@

van Creveld 1991, p. 175.

SECTION VI

IS WAR REASONABLE?

VI. a. WAR IS ROOTED IN REASON

WAR IS A REASONABLE AND JUST RESPONSE TO THREATS AND INSULTS

War is the Continuation of Justice

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.):

Cicero viewed war as a contention by force. Of the two modes of contending, one by argument and the other by force, only man possesses the former. When it is impossible to use argument, man must have recourse to force. War is akin to a lawsuit B an extraordinary legal remedy to be employed if all else fails.

Cicero (106-43 B.C.), cited in Grotius (1583-1645) 1631, Book 1, Chapters 1 (On War and Right) and 2 (Inquiry into the Lawfulness of War), reproduced in Chen 1998, pp. 2 and 12. See also van Creveld 1991, p. 129. See also Parenti 2003, pp. 85-88.

Ambrose (Saint) (?340-397), Bishop of Milan:

AThere is nothing wrong with bearing arms. But to bear arms for pillage and plunder is a sin indeed.@

Ambrose (?340-397), Seventh Discourse, quoted in Grotius (1583-1645) 1631, Book 1, Chapter 2 (Inquiry into the Lawfulness of War), reproduced in Chen 1998, p. 26.

AThe courage which defends one=s country against the incursions of barbarians, or protects one=s family and home from the attacks of robbers, is complete justice.@

Ambrose (?340-397), First Book of Offices, cited in Grotius (1583-1645) 1631, Book 1, Chapter 2 (Inquiry into the Lawfulness of War), reproduced in Chen 1998, p. 26.

Augustine of Hippo (Saint) (354-430 A.D.), Algerian, Christian Mystic:

A. . . the wise man will wage just wars . . . If they were not just, he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered of all wars. For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars . . . And if any one either endures or thinks [of these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless] without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling.@

Augustine 412 A.D., reproduced in Great Books and Film (undated), pp. 6-7. See also Elshtain 1987, p. 131.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint) (1225-1274), Italian Philosopher and Theologian:

Organized violence is necessary, even desirable, where either the courts are unable to enforce their authority, or the parties refuse to submit to its decision. War represents the stick in the hand of the law. It is the last recourse to redress Agrievances,@ chastize rebellious subjects and avenge insults.

van Creveld 1991, p. 128.

AIn order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. [It is the] business [of those who are in authority] to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies . . . Secondly, a just cause is required, namely, that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault . . . Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.@

Aquinas (1267-1273), reproduced in Knight 2003, pp. 2-3.

Martin Luther (1483-1546), German Leader of the Protestant Reformation:

Luther argued in favor of officially legitimated rule. The state, now unleashed from the authority of the pope, must have the power both to fight just wars, and suppress insurrections and disobedience. Order must be maintained. The aim of a just war is peace. War is a last resort, a defense of a way of life against possible destruction.

Elshtain 1987, pp. 135-136.

John Stoessinger (2001), University of San Diego, San Diego, CA:

A. . . war lovers will not stop unless they are stopped . . . The war against Hitler was a war to save civilization [and] had to be fought.@ (Emphasis in the original).

Stoessinger 2001, p. 260.

Chris Hedges (2002), Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.:

AThe poison that is war does not free us from the ethics of responsibility. There are times when we must take this poison B just as a person with cancer accepts chemotherapy to live. We can not succumb to despair. Force is, and I suspect always will be, part of the human condition. There are times when the force wielded by one immoral faction must be countered by a faction that, while never moral, is perhaps less immoral.@

Hedges 2002, p. 16.

Jean Elshtain, Social and Political Ethics, University of Chicago, IL:

ANearly everyone, with the exception of absolute pacifists and those who seem to think we should let ourselves be slaughtered with impunity because so many people out there >hate= us, agrees [that the bombing of Afghanistan was clearly a just war].@

Elshtain 2002, October 6, quoted in Chomsky 2003, p. 199.

VI. b. WAR IS ROOTED IN A FAILURE OF REASON

WAR IS MADNESS

1. War is a Delirium

Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), German Philosopher:

A[War is] the [fascist] agitator=s dream, a union of the horrible and the wonderful, a delirium of annihilation masked as salvation.@

Adorno undated, p. 7. Quoted in Wasserstrom 1999, p. 76, and re-quoted in Oldmeadow 2004, pp. 370-371. Also reproduced in Why War? 2004.

2. The Reasons given for War camouflage Evil Passions

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970):

AThe misfortunes of human beings may be divided into two classes. First, those inflicted by the non-human environment and, second, those inflicted by other people. As mankind has progressed in knowledge and technique, the second class has become a continually increasing percentage of the total . . . It is now man that is man=s worst enemy . . . I think that the evils that men inflict on each other, and by resection upon themselves, have their main source in evil passions rather than in ideas or beliefs. But ideas and principles that do harm are, as a rule, though not always, cloaks for evil passions.@

Russell 1950, pp. 146-147, reproduced in Danilo Mirkovic (undated), pp.1-2.

3. War is driven by a Hatred within Man

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German-American Theoretical Physicist:

A. . . man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction.@

Einstein 1932, quoted in Zinn 1990, p. 34. See also Elshtain 1987, pp. 199-200.

AThe unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.@

Einstein 1946, May 24. Quoted in Quotation Page (undated).

WAR IS AN ABERRATION OF CIVILIZED LIFE

War is an Interruption of Civilized Life

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Dutch Jurist and Humanist:

AThe grounds of war are as numerous as those of judicial actions. For where the power of law ceases, there war begins.@

Grotius 1631, Book 2, Chapter 1 (Defense of Person and Property) p. 1, reproduced in Chen, 1998, p. 2.

Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1755), French Jurist and Political Philosopher:

Like most Enlightenment writers, Montesquieu saw war as a failure of reason, an aberration, an interruption of political, civilized intercourse. War was the point where human reason came to an end B or at any rate, has not yet triumphed.

van Creveld 1991, p. 124.

AAs soon as man enters into a state of society, he loses the sense of his weakness. . . Each particular society begins to feel its strength, whence arises a state of war between different nations . . . The law of nations is naturally founded on this principle B that different nations ought in time of peace do one another all the good they can, and in time of war, as little injury as possible, without prejudicing their real interests.@

Montesquieu 1748, Book I (Of Laws in General), Part 3 (Of Positive Laws). In Jon Roland, online text, pp. 4-5.

WAR IS THE ULTIMATE ADJUDICATOR

War is the Ultimate Settler of Differences

Thomas More (Sir) (1478-1535), English Lawyer, Statesman and Author:

Given the fact that European society was organized as a system of states without higher common jurisdiction, Sir Thomas More saw no way to escape war for the settlement of differences. For better or worse, war was an institution which could not be eliminated from the international system.

Howard 1970's, cited in Zinn 1990, p. 69. See also Elshtain 1987, p. 227.

A[The inhabitants of Utopia] detest war as a very brutal thing, [yet one] which, to the reproach of human nature, is more practiced by men than by any sort of beasts . . . Though they accustom themselves daily to military exercises and the discipline of war . . . , they do not rashly engage in war, unless it be either to defend themselves, or their friends, from any unjust aggressors, or out of good-nature or compassion, to assist an oppressed nation in shaking off the yoke of tyranny. They indeed help their friends, not only in defensive, but also in offensive wars, but they never do that unless they have been consulted before the breach was made . . . , and found that all demands for reparation were rejected, so that a war was unavoidable.@

More 1516, Book II (Of their Military Discipline). Internet Edition, 1993. Reproduction, 1997, Crady and Uzgalis, p. 1.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), German Metaphysician:

AWar . . . is only the sad recourse in the state of nature (where there is no tribunal which could judge with the force of law) by which each state asserts its right by violence and in which neither party can be adjudged unjust (for that would pre-suppose a juridical decision). In lieu of such a decision, the issue of the conflict (as if given by a so-called Ajudgment of God@), decides on which side justice lies. But between states, no punitive war (bellum punitivum) is conceivable because there is no relation between them of master and servant.@

Kant 1795, reproduced by Ferraro (undated), p. 4. See also van Creveld 1991, p. 124.

WAR IS THE RESULT OF COGNITIVE MIS-PERCEPTION

War is rooted in a Cognitive Distortion

Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), American Anthropologist:

AIn >primitive= societies, human beings [include only] one=s own little tribe. The rest are non-human, like the animals. Killing animals is, of course, acclaimed and non-human bipeds of the neighboring tribe are equally objects of prey. Their death proves my strength just as a successful hunt for a lion does.@

Benedict 1959, quoted in Ehrenreich 1997, p. 135.

WAR IS THE RESULTS OF A VICIOUS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE

Defense and Retaliation are an Unending Cycle

Lawrence Keeley (1996), Anthropology, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL:

AThe precipitating causes of most wars B primitive and civilized B are acts of violence that provoke further violence in immediate defense or subsequent retaliation.

Keeley 1996, p. 116.

SECTION VII

IS WAR RELATED TO PROGRESS?

VII. a. WAR IS THE PRICE OF PROGRESS

WAR IS THE RESULT OF PROGRESS

War results from our Ability to abstract

Raymond Kelly (2000), Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI:

Our ability to abstract is demonstrated by the development of hierarchical social systems in which the parts that make up the larger whole are interchangeable B as when several counties make up a state, and several states make up a nation. For certain purposes, the counties or states are not seen in their individuality but abstractly, as parts which form a larger whole.

AArchaeological evidence points to a commencement of warfare that post-dates the development of agriculture . . . [War] entails a radical emotional displacement absent in capital punishment. In the latter case, the anger a man feels toward the individual who slew his brother is directly expressed. But in war and feud, the anger is re-directed toward an entirely different individual, one who is sufficiently peripheral as to be unsuspecting. Meanwhile, the actual killer of one= s brother lives on. Yet, such vengeance is experienced as emotionally gratifying.

[Among foragers], there is a very strong association between an unsegmented [non-hierarchical] organizational type [of society] and a low frequency of warfare . . . [Non-hierarchical societies] lack the organizational features associated with social substitutability that are conducive to the development of group concepts [such as war].@

Kelly 2000, pp. 2, 6, and 51.

VII. b. WAR ENGENDERS PROGRESS

WAR ENGENDERS PROGRESS

1. War is an Agent of Historical Achievement

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), American Religious and Social Thinker:

AGroup relations can never be as ethical as those which characterize individual relations. [This distinction] necessitates political policies which a purely individual ethics must always find embarrassing.@

Niebuhr 1932, quoted in Rosenthal 2000-2001, p. 6.

A[War represents] the paradox of grace@ B [the inescapable] taint of sin on all historical achievements B [generated by the need for leaders to make] conscious choices of evil for the sake of good [when they] face the responsibilities of power.@

Niebuhr 1932, quoted in Chomsky 1993, p. 232.

2. War is an Agent of Historical Evolution

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), German Theorists of Modern Socialism:

Both Marx and Engels accepted war as a fact of life, and hence inevitable. However, they also saw it desirable because of its ability to act as a weapon of historical transformation. For Engels, Ato perish@ was the dialectical mission of a people not destined for historic triumph.

Elshtain 1987, p. 81.

Michael Hardt, Duke University; and Antonio Negri, Universities of Padua and Paris, (2004):

AThe forces of democracy must counter this violence of sovereignty but not as its polar opposite in symmetrical fashion . . . There is no dialectal rule (of the kind so widespread in theories of pacifism) by which the behavior of the multitude in exodus must respond to the attack of sovereign power, with its symmetrical opposite B meeting the repressive violence with the absolute lack of violence . . . A democratic use of force and violence is neither the same as, nor the opposite of, the war of sovereignty. It is different . . . Democracy must use violence only as an instrument to pursue political goals.@ (Emphasis in the original).

Hardt and Negri 2004, pp. 341-342.

Robert Kaplan (2000):

AWar, much more than peace, is an equalizer and a fomenter of social change.@

Kaplan 2000, p. 171.

SECTION VIII

ARE PEACE AND FREEDOM POSSIBLE WITHOUT WAR?

VIII. a. WAR IS THE GUARDIAN OF PEACE

WAR PRESERVES PEACE

War serves Peace

Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus) (65-8 B. C.), Latin Poet:

AIn peace, as a wise man, he should make suitable preparations for war.@

Horace (65-8 B.C.), quoted in Geib (undated), p. 4.

Vegetius (Favius Vegetius Renates) (flourished c. 385-400), Roman Writer:

AHe who desires peace should prepare for war.@

Vegetius (flourished c.385-400), quoted in Geib (undated), p. 1.

George Washington (1732-1799), President of the United States (1789-1797):

ATo be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.@

Washington 1790. Quoted in Geib (undated), p. 1.

United States Strategic Air Command (2005):

APeace is our Profession.@

United States Department of Defense, Strategic Air Command 2005.

VIII. b. WAR IS THE GUARDIAN OF FREEDOM

WAR PRESERVES FREEDOM

War serves Freedom

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), English Economist and Philosopher:

AWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things B the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse . . . A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.@ (Emphasis in original).

Mill 1862. Publication 1868, Vol. 1, p. 26, quoted in Encyclopedia Wikiquote.

George W. Bush (2005):

AWe lost 1,864 members of our Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 223 in Operation Enduring Freedom. Each of these men and women left grieving families and loved ones back home. Each of these heroes left a legacy that will allow generations of their fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of Liberty.@

Bush 2005.

SECTION IX

ARE LEADERS RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR?

IX. a. WAR IS ENGENDERED BY LEADERS

WAR IS GENERATED BY LEADERS

1. War results from overly Powerful Leaders

John Acton (Lord) (1834-1902), English Historian:

APower tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.@

Acton 1887, April 3, quoted by the Institute for Humane Studies (undated), p. 4.

R. J. Rummel (1997), University of Hawaii, HA:

AMass killing and mass murder carried out by governments is a result of indiscriminate, irresponsible Power at the center. . . [There is] an inverse relationship between democracy and violence . . . [A] surface explanation . . . is that where you have representative government, decision makers are restrained from making war by the public will. After all, it is argued, the public does not want to bear the awful human cost of war.@ (Capitalization and emphasis in original).

A deeper explanation [takes into account the fact that] the institutions of democratic governance . . . create checks and balances on the use of power . . . [and that a] democratic culture requires [the development of] the arts of conciliation and compromise, . . . toleration of differences, and a willingness to lose. At a most fundamental level, then, we have an opposition between Freedom and Power.@ (Capitalization in the original).

Rummel 1997, pp. 3-4, 6 and 8.

AThe empirical and theoretical conclusion is this. The way to end war and virtually eliminate democide appears to be through restricting and checking Power B that is through fostering democratic freedom.@ (Capitalization and emphasis in original).

Rummel 1999, p. 34.

Howard Zinn (2003), American Military Historian:

AThe truth is beginning to come through to more and more people . . . When people learn what is going on, they respond . . . When the truth gets out, a power is created that is greater than the power of guns and money the government possesses . . . That is what social change is about.@

Zinn 2003.

Michael More (2003), American Film Maker, Author and Television Producer:

AOnce you give the American public the information, once you give them the facts, they will respond in the right way. They are just being lied to on a daily basis, so we have to get [the information] out there. People do want to find out the truth and when they find out the truth, they=ll behave in a good way. I believe that. The problem is lack of information and a whole bunch of mis-information that is put out there.@

More 2003.

2. Governments are the Culprits

(Desiderius) Erasmus (?1466-1536), Dutch Humanist:

A. . . once war has been declared, then all the affairs of the State are at the mercy of the appetites of a few.@

Erasmus, quoted in Howard 1978; re-quoted in Zinn 1990, p. 68.

Hermann Goering (1893-1946), German National Socialist Leader:

During the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (1945-1946), interviewed by Intelligence Officer Gustave Gilbert on April 18, 1946, Goering gave his view of the origin of war:

AWhy, of course, the people don=t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it, is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don=t want war . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.@

Goering 1946, as reported by Gilbert 1946; reproduced by Spartacus School (undated), pp. 6-7.

3. War results from the Mis-calculations of Leaders

John Stoessinger (2001):

A. . . perhaps the most important single precipitating factor in the outbreak of war is mis-perception [of the adversary=s power] . . . A leader=s mis-perception of his adversary=s power is perhaps the quintessential cause of war. The war itself then becomes a dispute over measurement.@

Stoessinger 2001, pp. 255 and 258.

IX. b. WAR IS NOT ENGENDERED BY LEADERS

WAR IS A REBELLIOUS WAY OF THINKING APPROPRIATED BY LEADERS

The War of the State originates in a Conceptual War

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1983), French Philosophers:

Deleuze and Guattari see the origin of war as a force which wards off and dissolves (Ade-territorializes@) the rigidity of the State B a Anomadic@ way of existing, a conceptual Awar machine@ outside the State and, at first, in competition with it. The State=s response to this force, is to appropriate it and Aconstitute [a war machine] for itself, in conformity with its size, domination, and aims.@

Thus, nomadic thinking, the force behind war (Athe war machine@), is separate from war itself, which is the use of war by the State. The influence of nomadic thinking (expressed by de-territorialization) and the influence of the State (expressed by re-territorialization), is present in a wide variety of endeavors, among which are science, history and philosophy.

AThere are many reasons to believe that the war machine is of a different origin, is a different assemblage, than the State apparatus. It is of nomadic origin and is directed against the State apparatus . . . The State [appropriates] this war machine that is foreign to it, and makes it a piece of its [own] apparatus in the form of a stable military institution. . . The war machine [then] takes war as its object, and . . . war becomes subordinated to the aims of the State.@

The formation of a military is not the origin of war, but rather the State=s use of war.

AWhat we call a military institution, or army, is not all the war machine in itself, but the form under which it is appropriated by the State.@

Deleuze and Guattari 1983, quoted in White 2004, December 1, pp. 4-6. Reproduced in Why War? 2004.

SECTION X

IS WAR RELATED TO TRADE?

X. a. WAR ORIGINATES IN NATIONS= LACK OF TRADE

WAR RESULTS FROM A LACK OF INTER-DEPENDENCE AMONG NATIONS

War is due to Lack of Trade

Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1755):

APeace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who differ from each other become reciprocally dependent. For if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling, and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.@

Montesquieu 1748. Publication 1975, Vol. 1, p. 316, quoted in Anti-war. See also Elshtain 1987, p. 228.

X. b. WAR ORIGINATES IN NATIONS= DEPENDENCE ON TRADE

WAR IS PIVOTAL IN MAINTAINING ACCESS TO RESOURCES

War is indispensable to ensure Resource Security

Michael Klare (2001), Director, Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA:

AResource issues [play] a central role in U.S. military planning, [reflecting] the growing importance of industrial might and the economic dimensions of security. While diplomacy and economic sanctions can be effective in promoting other economic goals, only military power can ensure the continued flow of oil and other critical materials from (or through) distant areas in times of war and crisis. As their unique contribution to the nation=s economic security, therefore, the [United States] armed forces have systematically bolstered their capacity to protect the international flow of essential materials.@

AFor almost every country in the world, the pursuit or protection of essential materials has become a paramount feature in national security planning . . . Resource concerns also figure in the organization, deployment, and actual use of many of the world=s military forces.@

Klare 2001, pp. 7, 9 and 14.

Howell Estes III (General) (1996), Director, United States Department of Defense, United States Space Command:

AThe United States Space Command B Dominating the Space Dimension of Military Operations to protect United States Interests and Investment.@

Estes 1996, p. 1, quoted in Grossman 2001, p. 12.

ANations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests . . . The globalization of the world economy will continue, with a widening gap between >haves= and >have-nots.= [The U.S. Space Command is preparing] to control space . . . and [from space] dominate the earth.@

Estes 1996, quoted in Grossman 2001, pp. 9 and 12-13.

SECTION XI

IS WAR REALITY?

B B B WAR IS AN ABUSE OF REALITY

WAR IS NOT REALITY

Henry Morgenthau Jr. (Hans) (1891-1967), American Statesman:

For its victims, war is all too real, but not necessarily so for political leaders. Here, Hans Morgenthau states that atheists are wrong in denying the existence of God on the basis that there is no physical evidence for God. Similarly, he argues, people who deny the good intentions of the United States on the basis that there is no historical evidence for it, are also wrong. Both conclusions confuse Areality@ (the existence of God, the good intentions of the United States) with the Aabuse of reality@ (lack of physical evidence for God, lack of historical evidence for the good intentions of the United States).

AThe transcendent purpose [of the United States] is the establishment of equality in freedom in America, [and in the world, since] the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide. To adduce the facts [of the historical record, however] is to confound [this] reality with the abuse of reality, [and thereby recapitulate] the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds. [Reality is the un-achieved] national purpose [as revealed by] the evidence of history as our minds reflect it. [The actual historical record is merely the abuse of reality].@

Morgenthau 1964, quoted in Chomsky 1991, p. 19, Chomsky 1993, pp. 120-121, and Chomsky 1994, p. 28.

SECTION XII

IS WAR A MEASURE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT?

B B B WAR IS A COMPONENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

WAR HELPS A COUNTRY BECOME ADEVELOPED@

The United Nations (1999):

In 1939, English economists John Maynard Keynes and Richard Stone, published a paper entitled, AThe National Income and Expenditures of the United Kingdom, and how to pay for the War.@ Their argument was that paying for the War was the priority for England at the time, that the well-being of the people was a secondary consideration, and hence that the war expenses should come out of taxation levied on the people.

In 1941, American economist Milton Gilbert, published a paper entitled, AMeasuring National Income as affected by the War.@ Gilbert offered the concept of a nation=s Agross national product@ (GNP) as a measure of the relationship between defense expenditures and the country=s total output. Like Keynes and Stone, Gilbert aimed his statistical analysis at how best to pay for World War II. The GNP is the sum of (a) Consumer expenditures, (b) Gross investment outlay, and (c) Government expenditures on goods and services. The GNP has no deficit side.

The GNP, therefore, has built into it an intentional pro-war bias. It treats war as a positive, productive and valuable endeavor, does not take into consideration the negative side of war, and attributes little or no value to peace.

National income and national product statistics were used successfully during the War and continued to be used in post-war planning. By 1953, the GNP, as a new form of accounting, was well-established.

When, in the early 1990's, the United Nations proposed the human development index (HDI) as a measure of the relative Adevelopment@ of a country, it made the GNP one of the four components of this new index.

Around 1995, the United Nations replaced the GNP component of its HDI, with the gross domestic product (GDP). The GNP and the GDP are similar statistical calculations purporting to measure the income-generating production of a country. The difference is that whereas the GNP counts only the income-generating production of the residents of a country, the GDP includes also the income-generating production of the non-residents of the country. Thus, interests, profit and other forms of transfer from income generated in the country but accruing to non-residents, are part of the GDP but not part of the GNP. Otherwise, both measures are the same, and both have the same pro-war bias. A thriving war machinery increases a country=s production and thus its human development index.

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), pp. 44-45, 57 and 135.

At present, the four components of the United Nations= index of human development are as follows:

Life expectancy at birth.

Adult literacy.

Combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment.

Per capita gross domestic product (GDP).

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), p. xxxiv. United Nations 2001, pp. 136-138. United Nations 2003, pp. 2, 190, 237-240 and 361.

Marilyn Waring, in the Department of Social Policy at Massey University, New Zealand, identifies the pro-bias of the GDP in its following characteristics:

5. The GDP assigns a positive value to the production, profit, capital and Amanpower@ related to weapons. For instance, it includes the value of weapons (including the value of nuclear bombs).

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), pp. 55-57, 81 and 135.

2. The GDP assigns a value to unused weapons (including nuclear bombs).

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), pp. 50-52 and 57.

3. The GDP classifies armed forces and arms transfers in special, privileged categories. For instance, it considers the value of food and uniform for the armed forces at cost only, and includes the purchases of military equipment form other governments. On the other hand, it excludes the sale of military equipment to other governments, and the value of military equipment transferred between governments.

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), pp. 49, 52-53 and 86.

4. The GDP assigns a value only to death by arms. The value of deaths by arms is the difference between the cost of arms production and the cost of the government=s arms Aconsumption.@ The GDP does not take into account other deaths, even those that are related to war, such as deaths from poverty, homelessness and disease. (These do not involve any market transaction, and hence do not register any cost to the market).

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), p. 140.

5. The GDP assigns no value to the negative effects of war, such as poverty, starvation, disease, homelessness, refugee populations, the ruination of food sources and environmental degradation.

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), p. 135.

6. The GDP omits any measure of qualitative life satisfactions, such as a people=s working conditions, sense of freedom, well-being, security and happiness.

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), pp. 44-47 and 122.

7. The GDP assigns no value to investments in children, such as their birth, maintenance, care and education.

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), pp. xxxi, 3 and 74.

8. The GDP does not consider Awork,@ the work done (mostly by women) in the house, without exchange of money. With this statistical manipulation, the GDP leaves out the needs and demands of a large segment of the population which, as a group, is significantly less supportive of war than men.

Waring 1988. Second Edition (1999), pp. 1, 3, 8, 23-24, 58, 67, 70-71, 81, 86 and 125.

SECTION XIII

IS WAR DUE TO A DIVISION WITHIN THE WARRING GROUP?

XIII. a. WAR IS AN INTER-CLASS PHENOMENON

WAR IS THE EXPLOITATION OF THE MANY BY THE FEW

War is a Racket

Smedley Butler (1935), Major General, United States Marines:

AWar is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small >inside= group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.@

Smedley 1935, Edition 2003, p. 23.

XIII. b. WAR IS AN INTER-GENERATIONAL PHENOMENON

WAR DECREASES INTRA-GROUP VIOLENCE

1. War is a Rite of Passage to help Immature Males become AReal@ Men (Warriors):

Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox (1972), Rutgers University New Brunswick, N.J.:

AWithout a knowledge of male secrets, rituals and taboos, a boy could not be a man. This was the trick. One could not simply become a man, one had to know how to become a man. The first schools, in the technical sense, were initiation schools. Their overt function was to pass on knowledge and to >make men.= Their covert function was to preserve the ascendancy of the elders.@ (Emphasis in the original).

Tiger and Fox 1972, (page number not available), quoted in Stevens 2004, p. 91.

2. War directs outward the Energies of Restless Male Youths

Anthony Stevens (2004):

AInitiation rites for boys are . . . a selection procedure whereby >competent= males select similar males with whom to become bonded on the hunt and on the warpath. Initiation rites for girls . . . are much less common and, where they occur, are less protracted and, except where female circumcision is practiced, less demanding than those considered necessary for boys. One important reason for this, is that females in the great majority of cultures, do not constitute a threat to the masculine social hierarchy, whereas young males do.@

Stevens 2004, p. 95.

3. War is a Revenge of the Older against the Younger Generation

Lloyd deMause (1982), American Psychohistorian:

AOld women, symbols . . . of the grandmother . . . were thought to have an >evil eye= under whose gaze the child would die . . . Fathers of every age tell their sons,. . . >I would rather have a dead son than a disobedient one.=@

deMause 1982, p. 33.

SECTION XIV

IS WAR RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT?

B B B WARS ENGENDERS INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT

WAR IS PROOF OF MAN=S HUMANITY

1. War is Man=s Affirmation of his Humanity

Georg Hegel (1770-1831):

AThe contempt for [their own] humanity displayed by the Negroes [of Africa] who allow themselves to be shot down by the thousands in war with Europeans [is amazing]. [In fact], life has value only if it has something valuable as its object [but this thought is beyond the grasp of these] mere things!@

Hegel 1817, p. 96, quoted in Chomsky 1993, pp. 119-120.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), French Philosopher:

AThe native has only one choice, that between servitude and supremacy . . . [In Algeria], at first, the only violence is the settler=s. But soon [the natives] will make it their own . . . By their ever-present desire to kill us, . . . they have become men . . . Hatred, blind hatred . . . is their only wealth . . . There is one duty to be done, one end to achieve B to thrust out colonialism by every means in their power . . . This irrepressible violence . . . is man re-creating himself . . . No gentleness can efface the marks of violence, only violence can destroy them. [Violence] achieves . . . the emancipation of the rebel . . . Once begun, it is a war that gives no quarter . . . The rebel=s weapon is the proof of his humanity.@ (Emphasis in the original).

Sartre 1963, Preface to Fanon 1963, pp. 12, 17 and 21-22. See also Elshtain 1987, p. 85.

Martin van Creveld (1991):

AWar causes human qualities, the best as well as the worst, to realize their full potential . . . There has always been a sense in which it is only those who risk their lives willingly, even joyfully, who can be completely themselves, completely human . . . War is life written large.@

van Creveld 1991, pp. 165-166 and 226.

Robert Kaplan (2000):

APhysical aggression is part of being human . . . Corruption, infidelity, and stupidity in moderate doses are, like occasional wars, evidence of humanity.@

Kaplan 2000, pp. 45 and 174.

2. War staves off Boredom

Robert Kaplan (2000):

AIn Afghanistan, . . . worrying about mines and ambushes frees you from worrying about mundane details of daily existence.@

Kaplan 2000, p. 45.

Anthony Stevens (2004):

AFinding boredom unendurable, young men of all cultures crave excitement, commitment, achievement, success. All of these needs can be met by participating with comrades in a warlike adventure, which can also bring fame, valor, honors, women, riches, esteem . . . Peace offers few ways of achieving these. War offers many.@

Stevens 2004, pp. 190-191.

3. War gives Meaning to Lives devoid of Excitement and Strong Emotions

Bishop of London (1914):

AKill Germans B to kill them, not for the sake of killing, but to save the world B to kill the good as well as the bad, to kill the young men as well as the old, to kill those who have shown kindness to our wounded as well as those fiends who crucified the Canadian Sergeant [referring to a widely circulated propaganda myth] . . . As I have said a thousand times, I look upon it as a war for purity. I look upon everyone who dies in it as a martyr.@

Bishop of London 1914, quoted in Bainton 1960, p. 207; re-quoted in Elshtain 1987, p. 137.

Martin van Creveld (1991):

AWar [is] the eternal, unchanging axis around which revolves the whole of human existence and [is what] gives meaning to all the rest.@

Van Creveld 1991, p. 218.

Barbara Ehrenreich (1997):

AAt the level of the individual, the symmetry of war may even be expressed as a kind of love. Enemies by definition >hate= each other, but between habitual and well-matched enemies, an entirely different feeling may arise.@

Ehrenreich 1997, p. 140.

Chris Hedges (2002):

AThe enduring attraction of war is this B even with its destruction and carnage, it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominate our conversations and increasingly our airwaves. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble.@

Hedges 2002, p. 3.

SECTION XV

ARE THE SEEDS OF WAR IN OUR DAILY LIVES?

B B B WAR ORIGINATES IN OUR DAILY DECISIONS

WAR GERMINATES IN EVERY SINEW OF OUR LIFE

War originates in our every Day Life

Susan Griffin (1992), American Feminist Writer, Poet, Playwright and Film Maker:

ALong before the firebombing of Dresden, the German government knew about the terrible effects of firestorms. Late on the night of July 27, 1943, . . . the first firestorm was created. It was a new phenomenon, even to its makers, who dropped 7,931 tons of bombs, almost half of these incendiary, over the city of Hamburg . . . I am looking at a photograph of British Air Marshal Arthur Harris. During the Second World War, he was known as >Bomber Harris.= He was the man who commanded the bombing of Dresden. The photograph is on the cover of an old copy of Life Magazine. It is dated April 10, 1944, ten months before that famous air raid took place.@

AI am imagining Air Marshal Harris now, a year after he appeared on the cover of Life. He has in his hands photographs of Dresden after the bombing . . . He gazes at the ruins he has commanded into creation . . . The training he has received, not to respond in any way, except as a soldier, has become so habitual, he hardly has to remind himself now to stay calm. No hand goes over his mouth to silence him. He is steady. Unblinking. But still, despite the success of years, some trace of descent into a less ordered region of himself must exist.

How many small decisions accumulate to form a habit? What a multitude of decisions, made by others, in other times, must shape our lives now. A grandmother=s name is erased. A mother decides to pretend that her son does not drink too much. A nation refuses to permit Jewish immigrant to pass its borders, knowing, and yet pretending not to know, that this will mean certain death. The decision is made to bomb a civilian population.@

Griffin 1992, Chapter 1 (Denial), pp. 8, 12 and 14-16.

A. J. Muste (1885-1967), American Pacifist and Social Reformer:

AWe cannot have peace if we are only concerned with peace. War is not an accident. It is the logical outcome of a certain way of life. It we want to attack war, we have to attack that way of life.@

Muste 1967, p. xi, quoted in Bing 2003, p. 6.

A[The crisis of war] has to do with ultimates, with what it is to be human, the pre-suppositions by which men live, the nature of the resources upon which we draw in extremity, the quality of the life which men seek, the values which they embrace, the drums to which they march, the commands which they dare not disobey.@

Muste (undated), quoted in Wells 1987-1988, p. 8.

SECTION XVI

IS EACH ONE OF US A CULPRIT IN WAR?

XVI. a. WAR IS THE OUTER EXPRESSION OF INNER CONFLICTS

WAR IS ROOTED IN EMOTIONAL CONFLICTS

1. War is generated by Inner Conflict

Marianne Moore (1887-1972), American Poet:

AThere never was a war that was

not inward; I must

fight till I have conquered in myself what

causes war, but I would not believe it.

I inwardly did nothing.

O [Judas] Iscariot-like crime!@

Moore 1944, p. 138.

Albert Camus (1913-1960), Algerian-French Writer:

AWe used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it is inside ourselves.@

Camus 1939, September 7. English translation, posthumous publication, 1963. Quoted in Koszarycz (undated) p. 15.

2. War is a Reaction to the Pain of Childhood Dependence

Lloyd deMause (1982):

ARather than wars being terrible >mistakes,= [wars are] wishes.@

deMause 1982, p. v.

AThe history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken.@

deMause 1982, p. 1.

AWar [is] a group-psychotic episode, with patterns of thinking, levels of imagery, degrees of splitting and degrees of projection that are usually only found in the limited psychotic episodes of individuals . . . The manic optimism and inevitable under-estimation of the length and severity of the war, the increase in paranoia as to the motivation of the enemy . . . , the total absence of awareness that in going to war, real people would actually die, these and other seeming irrationalities are all indications that a powerful group-fantasy is being acted out.@ (Emphasis in the original).

deMause 1982, p. 92.

3. War is an Act of Purification having its Origin in Childhood Needs

Lloyd deMause (2002):

AGroups go to war both to revenge their childhood traumas and to rid themselves of feelings of sinfulness, hoping to cleanse their emotions and be reborn by sacrificing victims representing >bad= parts of themselves.@

deMause 2002, p. viii.

A[War provides the opportunity to] simultaneously take revenge against the terrifying mommy alter, kill the bad-child alter, be reborn, and become pure and lovable, all in one splendid act of mass butchery.@

deMause 2002, p. 181.

4. A AJust War@ elaborates Punishment by a Benevolent Parent

Martin van Creveld:

AIn theory at any rate, a just war [that is, one conforming in Saint Thomas Aquinas= three criteria], resemble[s] a punishment administered by a benevolent father.@

Van Creveld 1991, pp. 128-129.

5. War is a Re-staging of Childhood

Alice Miller (1990), Swiss Psychoanalyst and Author:

AWhen I realize that millions of people had to die so that Adolf Hitler could keep his repression intact, that millions were humiliated in camps, so that he should never feel how he was once humiliated, then I have to say: we cannot point out these connections often enough or clearly enough [in order to make transparent] the mindless production of evil.@

Miller 1990, Chapter 7 (The Monstrous Consequences of Denial), p. 89.

6. The Enemy Within becomes the Enemy Without

Peter Lowenberg (1995), Historian, Political Psychologist and Psychoanalyst, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

AHostility and aggression in the politico-social world are created through murderous rage, persecutions, and foulness in the conscious and unconscious inner fantasies of the perpetrators. A moment=s reflection will convince us that we are able to postulate a characteristic or trait in another only because it has been to some degree known to us in fantasy. Peoples and nations find in their minorities and in their neighbors, an available and vulnerable target on whom to project their bad internal objects B their hatred and urge to kill as well as their depreciated sense of inferiority, of being despised as slovenly parasites, cheats, and unscrupulous characters. In the passion of nationalism, the enemy within becomes the enemy without.@

Lowenberg 1995, p. 211.

7. War originates in the Negation of the Unacceptable Part of Ourselves

Sam Keen (1986), American Philosopher:

AThe major responsibility for war lies not with villains and evil men but with reasonably good citizens . . . Healing begins when we cease playing the blame game B when we stop assigning responsibility for war to some mysterious external agency and dare become conscious of our violent ways . . . The generals are the (largely unconscious) agents of a (largely unconscious) civilian population. The good people send out armies as [their] symbolic representatives to act out their repressed shadows, denied hostilities, unspoken cruelties, unacceptable greed, un-imagined lust for revenge against punitive parents and authorities, uncivil sexual sadism, denied animality, in a purifying blood ritual that confirms their claim to goodness before the approving eyes of history or God.@

AThe persistent efforts of liberal, peace mongers, and assorted groups of nice people to assign the blame for war to the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, or some other surrogate for the devil, are no less a denial of responsibility than laying the blame on an external enemy.@

AOnce men have destroyed their own >femininity= in order to mold themselves into warriors, they will inevitably perceive women as a sub-species of the enemy B a threat to their integrity B and will live with civil war within the self, the war between the sexes, and political war between nations. Those who live by the sword perceive all reality, inner and outer, through the metaphor of war.@

Keen 1986, pp. 91-92 and 133-134.

XVI. b. WAR ORIGINATES IN OUR LACK OF CONNECTEDNESS

WAR IS ROOTED IN AN ALIENATION FROM THE UNITY OF THE UNIVERSE

There are no AOthers,@ and hence no AEnemies@

John Donne (1572-1631), English Metaphysical Poet and Divine:

ANo man is an island

Entire of itself.

. . .

Each man=s death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.@

Donne 1624, reproduced in Love Poems? 2004. See also Krause 2005, p. 2.

Thomas Traherne (?1636-1674), English Metaphysical Poet:

AYou never enjoy the world aright, till the Sea

itself floweth in your veins, till you are

clothed with heavens, and crowned with

the stars: and perceive yourself to be the sole

heir of the whole world, and more than so,

because men are in it who are every one sole

heirs as well as you.@

Traherne 1908 (posthumous publication), quoted in Oldmeadow p. 406.

William Blake (1757-1827), English Poet and Artist:

To see a world in a grain of sand,

And Heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And Eternity in an hour.

Blake 1789, quoted in Oldmeadow p. 406.

John Ruskin (1819-1900), English Art Theorist:

AAs the art of life is learned, it will be found at last that all lovely things are also necessary B a wild flower by the wayside, tended corn, wild birds and creatures of the forests, as well as the tended cattle B because man doth not live by bread only.@

Ruskin 1985 (posthumous publication), p. 226, quoted in Pepper 2003, p. 173.

Ananda Coomaraswamy (1877-1947), Art Historian, born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and raised in London by an English Mother:

Ananda Coomaraswamy was a pre-eminent exponent of the traditionalist perspective, which rejects modernity, defined by its irreligious temper and attachment to rationalistic and materialistic science. The core of the traditionalist outlook is a recognition of the unity of the Universe as expressed in the metaphysical wisdom at the core of all religions. This wisdom is invariable, despite the variegations of its outward vestments.

Oldmeadow 2004, pp. 16-19.

ADiverse cultures are . . . the dialects of a . . . spiritual and intellectual language [which expresses] the common metaphysical basis of all religions.@

Coomaraswamy (1877-1947), p. 18, cited by Oldmeadow 2004, p. 16.

Erich Fromm (1900-1980), German Humanistic Psychoanalyst:

AZen [Buddhism demands] the realization of the relation of myself to the Universe.@

Fromm 1974, p. 135, quoted in Oldmeadow 2004, p. 324.

Frithjof Capra (1975), American Atomic Physicist and Author:

A[Eastern teachings] emphasize the basic unity of the universe. The highest aim of their followers B whether Hindus, Buddhists or Taoists B is to become aware of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things, to transcend the notion of an individual isolated self and identify themselves with ultimate reality.@

Capra 1975, p. 29, quoted in Oldmeadow 2004, p. 332.

Joseph Goldstein (1976), American Meditation Teacher:

ACompassion in the world becomes a spontaneous response to the experience of connectedness.@

Goldstein 1976, quoted in Schwartz 1995, p. 329; re-quoted in Oldmeadow 2004, p. 308.

Lenore Friedman (1987), American Psychotherapist and Buddhist Scholar:

The reluctance of many American Buddhist women scholars to describe themselves as Afeminists@ B though they share many of the attitudes, values and perspectives which are commonly understood as such B seems to derive not from any equivocation, but from a Adisinclination to polarize, exclude, proclaim enemies, or solidify around any fixed idea.@

Friedman 1987, p. 26, quoted in Oldmeadow 2004, p. 385.

XVI. c. WAR ORIGINATES IN OUR CONSCIOUSNESS OF DEATH

WAR RESULTS FROM A LACK OF FULL HUMAN TRANSCENDENCE

War is the Sacrifice of Others, to bolster the Denial of our own Death

Ernest Becker (1975), American Anthropologist and Psychiatrist:

AThe logic of killing others in order to affirm our own life, unlocks much of what puzzles us in history, much that with our modern minds, we seem unable to comprehend, such as the Roman area games. If the killing of a captive affirms the power of your life, how much does the actual massive staging of life-and-death struggles affirm a whole society? The continual grinding sacrifice of animal and human life in the arenas was all of a piece with the repressions of a society that was dedicated to war and that lived in the teeth of death.@

Becker 1975, quoted in Matt622 2004. Partial quote in Wilbur 1981, Edition 1996, p. 163.

Ken Wilbur (1981), American Philosopher:

AThe rage at being only a finite creature was soon turned into rage at other finite creatures, so that today, the world is split into several large and heavily armed camps of finite creatures, glutted in overkill, bent upon mutual destruction.@

Wilbur 1981, Edition 1996, p. 72.

AHuman hatred and overblown murderous impulses are [not] innately biological. Rather, violent hatred is almost entirely a cognitive and conceptual elaboration, extending quite beyond mere biological aggression which, by and large, is always in the service of evolutionary trends, whereas the same can hardly be said of human murder and war.@ (Emphasis in the original).

Wilbur 1981, Edition 1996, pp. 160-161.

AWhatever natural aggression may be innately present in humans, . . . it is amplified through conceptual domains, and part of the amplification includes the heightened apprehension of death, which, when turned outward, explodes into really vicious aggression and hostility, in proportions not given instinctually. And that murderous hostility is pre-eminently the substitute sacrifice, a killing of others to magically buy off the death of the self. The original death terror becomes death-dealing, and there is the human source of joyous murder.@ (Emphasis in the original).

Wilbur 1981, Edition 1996, pp. 160-161.

AThe mythology of sacrificial death, perverted from a symbol to a sign, and pressed into action on a large-scale basis by the sense of a separate-self, is the substitute . . . attempt at transcendence known to us all as war. Murder as self-preservation B offering up another person=s life as a magical attempt to perpetuate one=s own [life].@

Wilbur 1981, Edition 1996, p. 163.

AAll men and women intuit that the skull will grin in, and war is a simple arrangement for the skull to belong to the other guy.@

Wilbur 1981, Edition 1996, pp. 163-164.

AAs long as individuals are not able to transcend their separate self B thereby >sacrificing= it B they will be open to sacrificing someone else instead.@

Wilbur 1981, Edition 1996, p. 161.

AEvolution is a spiritual unfolding . . . History is a movement of human consciousness . . . The future of humankind is God-consciousness . . . Transcendence is the only cure for the homicidal animal B to Akill@ the [separate] self instead of killing others.@

Wilbur 1981, Edition 1996, pp. viii, xix, 3 and 160.

Ron Leifer (1986), American Psychiatrist:

AThe basic problems of human life are the result of the consciousness of the fact of death. The word >human= comes from >humus= which means mud. From mud we came, to mud we shall return. So it is with all living things. Nothing lasts forever. One day, even the sun shall die. But human beings, of all the beings in the universe, as far as we know, have the power to be aware of the certainty of death and to dream of eternal life. This power is based on the capacity for language and symbolism, the distinctive thread of human consciousness, from which profane time and history are woven. The presence of death casts a dark shadow on human life.@

Leifer 1986, pp. 8-21, reprinted in Psychnews International 1997, Vol. 2, Issue 4, July-September, reproduced by Freie University, Berlin (undated).

CONCLUSIONS

This sample of views is neither comprehensive nor representative of Western culture. The reader will think of views not represented here, and whole categories of views that are missing. But neither comprehensiveness not representativeness is the purpose of the present document. That task would have been impossible. Rather, the purpose of this work is to gauge the range and variety of views, the relationships between the various views, and the extent to which a number of views are mutually exclusive. Finally, it is to assess for each view both its explanatory power and its fertility in terms of engendering questions which will open new areas of research.

Perhaps there are altogether too many views on the origin of war. One is tempted to say, like Queen Gertrude to her son, Hamlet, AThe lady doth protest too much, methinks@ (Shakespeare 1600, Hamlet, Act III, Scene ii, quoted in Enotes 2004). The reality is that in this society of technological wonders, the basic cause of why every few years, we systematically go on a legitimized murder rampage, is still very uncertain.

The organization of the sample, in terms of a continuum from views which identify the cause of war as being outside of human control, to those which identify it as being within the control of each of us as individuals, is, as far as I know, a new approach. Since Sigmund Freud=s discovery of the unconscious at the turn of the 20^th century, one might have thought that views of war which would include unconscious causes, might have much gained in popularity. But it is hard to decipher such a trend from the sample provided here. For any Marianne Moore saying, AThere never was a war than was not inward,@ a Lloyd deMause pointing to the consequences of an oppressive childhood, a Sam Keen looking at the effects on the male psyche of having to prove one=s Amasculinity,@ or a Ken Wilbur pointing to war as a psychological defense against our existential dread of death, there are many, like Martin van Creveld, Robert Kaplan, Chris Hedges and Anthony Stevens, who find apologies for the continuation of war.

Personally, the views of war which I find most challenging, most potent in their explanatory power, and potentially most fertile for prevention, are four:

A Limited Supply of Energy: Richard Heinberg (Section I. b.) places war in the context of ecology and the limited life-support capacity of the planet. Human intelligence has served the purpose of enabling humans to colonize the planet by appropriating for themselves an increasingly large fraction of the total energy on the planet available to sustain life. Hence, the massive extinction of other species which we are witnessing today B the most massive extinction in 65,000,000 years, a loss of 9.3 species an hour. As non-renewable sources of energy, such as oil and natural gas, are being depleted, humans themselves are reaching the limit of the planet=s capacity to sustain even them, at their present rate of resource use. We are headed for a crisis of unimaginable proportions, one staged at the present time to be accompanied by mind-stunning atrocities (E. O. Wilson 1992/1999, pp. xviii, xxii-xxiii, 15, 32, 189, 191 and 252).

2. Childhood: Section XVI. a. points to our childhood. All of us harbor anger from what we interpreted as indignities, humiliations, injustices and punishments during the long period of our helplessness and dependence on our parents. It was impossible for us to express this anger openly at the time, both because of our lack of verbal ability and because we depended so heavily on our parents for our lives. So we harbored it until, now adult and independent, we take our revenge on another society willing to serve as our enemy (partner) in war by rising to the bait, defending itself, and thus itself venting its need for an enemy. The more our wishes remain unconscious, the more they drive our behavior. What kind of world would it be, if we all faced the pain and the monsters of our childhood, and discovered those wishes that drive us repetitively to such ignoble behavior as war? This road would be much, much harder to travel than the road which leads to war.

3. The Experience of Connectedness: The thrust of Section XVI. b., is the oneness of the Universe. If the Universe is one unit, there are no Aothers@ and hence, no Aenemies.@ To kill Aanother,@ is to kill part of oneself. The sanctity of life and the Amoral solidarity@ of all living forms, are expressed in various ways and to various degrees in all the great religious traditions. Science rather haughtily discourages this connection with the Universe. The degree to which the Universe is experienced directly as an organic whole, may be subject to individual variations among humans. If so, a fertile area of research would be how to encourage and amplify this immediate apprehension of the oneness of all B the assumption being that a powerful experience in this direction, would pervade every aspect of a person=s way of Abeing in the world.@

4. A Stage in the Development of our Consciousness: Section XVI. c. points to the present stage of our consciousness development B not so much in each of us as individuals, but as the average level of consciousness development achieved by humankind to date. Over the course of millions of years, humankind has evolved from a sub-conscious level to the self-conscious level of the present. In the great arc of evolution, we will continue to evolve and eventually rejoin the ground of our being B which has never left us but from which we have differentiated. We are presently mid-way between the beasts which are mortal and do not know it, and the gods who are immortal and know it. We are aware of our mortality but still have not transcended our isolated self and joined the immortal gods. War is the price we pay for being at this stage in our development. The existential dread which our mortality brings forth in us is so painful and so intolerable that we have to disprove it repeatedly, and we do so by killing others whole-sale, in wars. This view highlights the tragedy of a species which kills its own kind en masse. The thesis is powerful in eliciting empathy for the killer himself.

The four views I have singled out as seeming the most basic, are by no means separate. It is our intelligence and level of consciousness which have enabled us both to appropriate for ourselves the limited energy on the planet available to support life (No. 1), and which have made us fully aware of our own upcoming death (No. 4). Our first experience of connection to the Universe (No. 3) is with our mother ( No. 2). I come back to my concept of the causes of war as possibly being a core with concentric circles (See Introduction, No. 7). These four main forces I have selected, intertwining, overlapping and converging with each other, could form the core of our motivation for war, other views being to a greater or lesser extent more peripheral.

Our meeting around the large round table has come to an end. It is my loss, reader, that I cannot be privy to your views about war. Others will have that privilege. But before you depart, let me leave you with one more thought . . .

Visualize for a moment the United States, and imagine 765,600,000 dollars (the country=s defense expenditures in 2004) spent on trying to find out why we kill, instead of how to kill even better . . . (Brauer and Anglewizc 2005, June 19, p. 2).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abt-Garrison, H. 1965. The history of pediatrics. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders. Cited in Lloyd deMause. 2002. The emotional life of nations. New York: Karnac/Other.

Acton, John (Lord), 1887. Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton. Reprinted in Mandell Creighton. 1904. The life and letters of Mandell Creighton. Quoted by the Institute for Humane Studies (undated).

http://www.theihs.org/libertyguide/people

Adorno, Theodor, Undated. Why War? Anti-Semitism and Fascist Propaganda. Quoted in Steven Wasserstrom, 1999. Religion after religion B Gershom Scholem, Mircea Eliade and Henry Corbin at Eranos. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University. And re-quoted in Harry Oldmeadow. 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom. Also reproduced in Why War? 2004.

http://why-war.com/files/2004/02/adorno_fascistpropaganda.html.

Ambrose, Saint (?340-397). Seventh Discourse. In Hugo Grotius, Definitive Edition 1631. De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the law of war and peace). Scanned, edited and reproduced in Wei-Cheng Wilson Chen, 1998. In Geocities.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8098/book1final.htm

Ambrose, Saint (340-397). First Book of Offices. In Hugo Grotius, Definitive Edition 1631. De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the law of war and peace). Scanned, edited and reproduced in Wei-Cheng Wilson Chen, 1998. In Geocities.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8098/book1final.htm.

Anonymous 1909. Foundations laid in Human Sacrifice. In the Open Court, tome 23 (1909). The archives of the Open Court Publishing Company are available in Special Collections, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Cited in Lloyd deMause, 1974. The Evolution of Childhood. In Lloyd deMause, Ed., The history of childhood, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

http://www.lib.siu.edu.spcol/inventory/SC027.html.

Aquinas, Thomas (Saint). 1267-1273. Summa theologica. Second and Revised Edition, 1920. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Translators. Kevin Knight, 2003, Online Edition. Reproduced in New Advent (undated).

http://www.newadvent.org/summa.

Aristophanes 411 B.C. Lysistrata. See Theatre Database 2000.

http://www.theatredatabase.com/ancient/aristophanes.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). The history of animals. In Hugo Grotius, Definitive Edition 1631. De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the law of war and peace). Scanned, edited and reproduced in Wei-Cheng Wilson Chen, 1998. In Geocities.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8098/book1final.htm

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Nicomachean ethics. Publication 1984, Jonathan Barnes, Ed. The complete works of Aristotle. W. Ross, Translator, J. Urmson, Revisor. New Jersey: Princeton University. Reproduced by David Banach, Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire (undated).

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/nethics.htm.

Augustine of Hippo (Saint), 412 A.D. Letter to Marcellinus (Letter No. 138). Reproduced by Great Books and Film (undated). See also Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

http://www.greatbooksandfilm.com/augustine.

Becker, Ernest. 1975. Escape from evil. New York: Free Press. Quoted in Matt622, 2004. Partial quote in Ken Wilbur, 1981. Up from Eden B a transpersonal view of human evolution. Edition 1996. Wheaton, IL: Quest.

http://www.beliefnet.129.33.230.60/boards/message_list.asp?discussion ID376990.

Benedict, Ruth. 1959. The Natural History of War. In Margaret Mead, Ed., An anthropologist at work B the writings of Ruth Benedict. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Quoted in Barbara Ehrenreich, 1997. Blood rites B origins and history of the passions of war. New York: Owl/Henry Holt.

Bett, Henry. 1929. The games of children B their origin and history. London: Methuen. Seaan McAy signals that the book is available as No. 398.3.B565g at the University of California, Stanford Auxiliary Library. Cited in Lloyd deMause, 1974. The Evolution of Childhood. In Lloyd deMause, Ed., The history of childhood, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

http://jducoeur.org/game-hist/gamesearch.html.

Bishop of London, 1914. Quoted in Roland Bainton, 1960. Christian attitudes toward war and peace B a historical survey and critical re-evaluation. New York: Abington. Re-quoted in Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Blake, William. 1789. Auguries [Songs] of Innocence. Quoted in Harry Oldmeadow, 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Brauer, Jurgen and Nicholas Anglewicz, 2005. Two-thirds on Defense.

http://www.zmag.org/contents/showarticle.cfm.

Bush, George W., 2004. Quoted in the Associated Press, 2004. August 5. Re-quoted by Jim Howington (undated).

http://home.att.net/~howingtons/gop/bushjr.htm

Bush, George W., 2005. Speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Salt Lake City, Utah. August 22. Quoted in Democracy Now! WBAI. New York. August 23.

Butler, Smedley (Major General). 1935. War is a racket. New York: Round Table. Edition 2003. Los Angeles, CA: Feral House.

Camus, Albert. 1939. 1962 (French, posthumous publication). Carnets: Mai 1935-Fevrier 1942. 1963 (English translation, posthumous publication). Albert Camus= diary and working notebooks, Vol. 1, 1935-1942. Philip Thody, Translator. Alfred Knopf: New York. Quoted in Yuri Koszarycz (undated). War B Confronting the Ultimate Moral Problem. Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia. For publication dates, see Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://www.acu.edu.au/staffhome/yukoszarycz

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article.

Capra, Frithjof. 1975. The Tao of physics. London, England: Fontana. Quoted in Harry Oldmeadow, 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Card, Claudia. 2002. The atrocity paradigm B a theory of evil. New York: Oxford.

Carey, Celia, 1999. Secrets B The Incas appeased Mountain Gods with their Children=s Lives. Discovering Archeology. July/August. Cited in Lloyd deMause. 2002. The emotional life of nations. New York: Karnac/Other.

Cicero, Marcus (106-43 B.C.). De officiis [on duty]. In Hugo Grotius, Definitive Edition 1631. De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the law of war and peace). Scanned, edited and reproduced in Wei-Cheng Wilson Chen, 1998. In Geocities.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8098/book1final.htm.

Columbia Encyclopedia. 2000. 6^th Edition. Paul Lagasse Editor. New York: Columbia University/Gale Group.

Coomaraswamy, Ananda. 1989 (posthumous publication). The Pertinence of Philosophy. In Ananda Coomaraswamy B What is civilization? and other essays. Ipswich, England: Golgonooza. Quoted in Harry Oldmeadow, 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Darlington, H. S., 1931. Ceremonial Behaviorism B Sacrifices for the Foundation of Houses. In the Psychoanalytic Review, No. 18. Cited in Lloyd deMause, 1974. The Evolution of Childhood. In Lloyd deMause, Ed., The history of childhood, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

Darwin, Charles. 1859. The origin of species. In Harun Yahya, undated. The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism B Darwinism and Materialism. Reproduced in Islam denounces Terrorism.

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/darwinism materialism.html.

Darwin, Charles. 1859. The origin of species. Reproduced in American Buddha, (undated).

http://www.american-buddha.com/origin.species.5.darwin.htm.

Darwin, Charles. 1871. The descent of man. In Barbara Ehrenreich, 1997. Blood rites B origins and history of the passions of war. New York: Owl/Henry Holt.

DeLeuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1983. Traite de nomadologie B la machine de guerre (Nomadology B The War Machine). English Translation 1986. New York: Semiotext(e). In Micah White, 2004, Kant, Hegel and Deleuze on War. In Why War?

http://www/why-war.com/commentary/2004/kant_hegel_deleuze_war.html.

deMause, Lloyd. 1974. The Evolution of Childhood. In Lloyd deMause, Ed., The history of childhood, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

deMause, Lloyd. 1982. Foundations of psychohistory. New York: Creative Roots, Inc., P.O. Box 401, Planetarium Station, New York, N.Y.

deMause, Lloyd. 2002. The emotional life of nations. New York: Karnac/Other.

Donne, John, 1624. Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (Devotion No. 17). In John Donne, 1624. Meditations. Reproduced by Love Poems? 2004. See also Steve Krause, 2005.

http://www.love-poems.me.uk/donne_for_whom_the_bell_tolls_s.htm.

http://www.skrause.org/reading/donne.shtml.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1997. Blood rites B origins and history of the passions of war. New York: Owl/Henry Holt.

Einstein, Albert, 1932. Letter to Sigmund Freud. Quoted in Howard Zinn, 1990. Declarations of independence B cross-examining American ideology. New York: HarperPerennial/ HarperCollins.

Einstein, Albert, 1946. Telegram. Quoted in Quotation Page.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24947.html.

Elshtain. Jean. 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Elshtain, Jean, 2002. Boston Globe. Quoted in Noam Chomsky, 2003. Hegemony or survival B America=s quest for global dominance. New York: Metropolitan/Henry Holt.

Enheduana (c.2,270 B.C.), Lament to the Spirit of War (Poem). In Daniela Gioseffi, Ed., Women on war B an international anthology of writings from antiquity to the present. New York: City University of New York/Feminist Press.

Erasmus (?1466-1536). Quoted in Michael Howard, 1978. War and the liberal conscience. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University. Re-quoted in Howard Zinn, 1990. Declarations of independence B cross-examining American ideology. New York: Harper Perennial/ HarperCollins.

Estes, Howell III (General). 1996. Vision for 2020. United States Department of Defense, United States Space Command. Peterson Air Force Base. CO: United States Space Command. In Karl Grossman, 2001. Weapons in space. New York: Seven Stories/Open Media.

Euripides, 412 B.C. Helena. In Hugo Grotius, Definitive Edition 1631. De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the law of war and peace). Scanned, edited and reproduced in Wei-Cheng Wilson Chen, 1998. In Geocities.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8098/book1final.htm

Fox, Robin, 2002. The Human Nature of Violence. Speech at the International Conference on Drinking and Public Disorder. Reproduced by the Social Issues Research Center, Oxford, England.

http://www.sirc.org/publik/foxviolence.html.

Freud, Sigmund. 1989 (posthumous publication). Civilization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton. Quoted in Chris Hedges, 2002. War is a force that gives us meaning. New York: Anchor/Random House. See also Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Friedman, Lenore. 1987. Meetings with remarkable women B Buddhist teachers in America. Boston: Shambhala. Quoted in Harry Oldmeadow, 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Fromm, Erich, 1974. Psychoanalysis and Zen. In Erich Fromm, D. T. Suzuki and Richard De Martino, 1974. Zen Buddhism and psychoanalysis. London, England: Souvenir. Quoted in Harry Oldmeadow, 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Galen (c.130-c.200). In Hugo Grotius, Definitive Edition 1631. De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the law of war and peace). Scanned, edited and reproduced in Wei-Cheng Wilson Chen, 1998. In Geocities.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8098/book1final.htm

Goering, Hermann, 1946. Nuremberg War Crimes Trial. Reproduced by Spartacus School (undated).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWnuremberg.htm.

Goldstein, Joseph. 1976. The experience of insight B a natural unfolding. Santa Cruz, CA: Unity Press. Quoted in Tony Schwartz, 1995. What really matters B searching for wisdom in America. New York: Bantam. Re-quoted in Harry Oldmeadow, 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Griffin, Susan. 1992. A chorus of stones. New York: Anchor/Random House.

Grotius, Hugo. Definitive Edition 1631. De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the law of war and peace). Scanned, edited and reproduced in Wei-Cheng Wilson Chen, 1998. In Geocities.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8098/book2final.htm.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude B war and democracy in the age of empire. New York: Penguin.

Hedges, Chris. 2002. War is a force that gives us meaning. New York: Anchor/Random House.

Hegel, Georg. 1817. Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. Quoted in Noam Chomsky 1993, Year 501 B the conquest continues. Boston: South End.

Hegel, Georg. 1821. Philosophy of Right. Quoted in Carl Friedrich, 1953, The philosophy of Hegel. New York: Modern Library. Re-quoted in Barbara Ehrenreich, 1997, Blood rites B origins and history of the passions of war. New York: Owl/Henry Holt. See also Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Heinberg, Richard. 2003. The party=s over B oil, war and the fate of industrial societies. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society.

Hobbes, Thomas. 1642. De cive B epistola dedicatoria. In Montesquieu, Charles de, 1748. The spirit of laws. Edition 1914, London: G. Bell & Sons. Thomas Nugent, Translator, J. Prichard, Revisor. Rendered in HTML by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society, where the full text of The spirit of laws, is available.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/montesquieu.htm.

Hobbes, Thomas. 1642. De cive B epistola dedicatoria. Originally in Plautus (c.254-184 B.C.). Asinaria. Quoted in Richard J. Geib (undated), p. 1.

http://www/rjgeib.com/thoughts/killing

Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. Publication 1966, New York: Collier Books. Republished 1996, Cambridge: Cambridge University. Quoted in Jonathan Schell. 2003. The unconquerable world B power, non-violence, and the will of the people. New York: Metropolitan/ Henry Holt.

Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. Quoted in Nation Master. Quoted also in publication 1966, New York: Collier Books, and partially re-quoted by Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/State-of-nature.

Horace (65-8 B.C.). Quoted in Richard J. Geib (undated).

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/war/war.html.

Howard, Michael, 1970's. Lecture Series, Oxford University, Oxford, England. Cited in Howard Zinn, 1990. Declarations of independence B cross-examining American ideology. New York: Harper Perennial/ HarperCollins. See also Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Howard, Michael. 1983. Clausewitz. New York. Oxford University. Cited in Michael Cannon, 1989. Aerospace Power Journal. Summer.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil.

Jefferson, Thomas (1743-1826). Undated. Letter to Colonel Smith (son-in-law of John and Abigail Adams). In Willson Whitman, Ed. Jefferson=s letters. Eau Claire, WI: Hale. Re-quoted in Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, 2004. Multitude B war and democracy in the age of empire. New York: Penguin. Quoted also in Michael Adams, 1990. The great adventure: male desire and the coming of World War I. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University; and partially re-quoted in Lloyd deMause, 2002, The emotional life of nations. New York: Karnac.

Joyce, P. W. 1903. Social history of ancient Ireland. 2 Volumes. Longmans, Green. Edition 1997. 2 Volumes. Irish Genealogical Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Cited in Lloyd deMause, 1974. The Evolution of Childhood. In Lloyd deMause, Ed., The history of childhood, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/gaelic5.htm

http://www.lowary.org/igf.htm.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de.

Kant, Immanuel. 1795. Perpetual peace B a philosophical sketch. Reproduced by Vincent Ferraro, Mount Holyoke University (undated). See also Martin van Creveld, 1991. The transformation of war. New York: Free Press.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/k.

Kaplan, Robert. 2000. The coming anarchy B shattering the dreams of the post cold war. New York: Vintage/Random House.

Keeley, Lawrence. 1996. War before civilization B the myth of the peaceful savage. New York: Oxford University.

Keen, Sam. 1986. Faces of the enemy B reflections of the hostile imagination. New York: Perennial/Harper & Row.

Kelly, Raymond. 2000. War-less societies and the origin of war. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Kennan, George, 1948. Policy Planning Study #23, FRUS 1948, I (part 2) Policy Planning Staff, United States Department of State. Reprinted in part in Thomas Etzold and John Gaddis, 1978. Containment: documents on American policy and strategy, 1945-1950. New York: Columbia University. Quoted in Noam Chomsky, 1985. Turning the tide B U.S. intervention in Central America and the struggle for peace. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Klare, Michael. 2001. Resource wars B the new landscape of global conflict. New York: Metropolitan/Henry Holt.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Edition 2003. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Leifer, Ron, 1986. The Fifth Column. In KAIROS, a Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. Reprinted in Psychnews International, 1997. Reproduced by Freie University, Berlin (undated).

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~expert/psyc

Locke, John (1632-1704). Quoted in Walter Requadt, 1998-2005. How life really works. As of September 2005, available on the Internet only.

http://www.rationality.net/Hlrw.htm.

Lorenz, Konrad. 1966. On aggression. New York: Bantam. Quoted in Barbara Ehrenreich, 1997. Blood rites B origins and history of the passions of war. New York: Owl/Henry Holt.

Lowenberg, Peter. 1995. Fantasy and reality in history. New York: Oxford University.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1521. Dell= arte della guerra (On the art of war). Cited in Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1532. Il principe (The prince). R. M. Adams, Translator. In Encyclopedia Wikiquote.

http://en/wikiquote.org/wiki/Niccolo_Machiavelli

Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Hay. 1787-1788. The Federalist papers. Publication 1987. New York: Penguin. Quoted in Jonathan Schell, 2003. The unconquerable world B power, non-violence and the will of the people. New York: Metropolitan/Henry Holt.

Mill, John Stuart, 1862. The Contest in America. Fraser=s Magazine. February. Re-publication in John Stuart Mill. 1868. Dissertations and discussions. In Encyclopedia Wikiquote.

http://en.wikiquote,org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill.

Miller, Alice. 1990. Breaking down the wall of silence B the liberating experience of facing painful truth. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe Verlag. 1997 (Revised) Edition. Simon Worrall, Translator. New York: Meridian/Penguin.

Montesquieu, Charles de, 1748. The spirit of laws. Edition 1914, London: G. Bell & Sons. Thomas Nugent, Translator, J. Prichard, Revisor. Rendered in HTML by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society, where the full text of The spirit of laws, is available.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/montesquieu.htm.

Montesquieu, Charles de. 1748. The spirit of laws. Publication 1975. New York: Hafner. Quoted in Anti-war. See also Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

http://www/antiwar.com/orig/bresiger1.html.

Moore, Marianne, 1944. In Distrust of Merits. In Marianne Moore B complete poems. New York: Macmillan/Penguin.

More, Michael, 2003. Interview with Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! WBAI. October 15.

More, Thomas (Sir). 1516. Utopia (in Latin). English Translation, 1551. Edition 1901, New York: Ideal Commonwealths/Collier & Sons/Colonial. Internet Edition, 1993, by Internet Wiretap. Reproduction on Internet, 1997, scan by Kirk Crady, mark-up by William Uzgalis.

http://www/oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/more/discipline.html.

Morgenthau, Henry Jr. (Hans). 1964. The purpose of American politics. Vintage. Quoted in Noam Chomsky 1991, Deterring democracy. New York: Hill and Wang/Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Quoted also in Noam Chomsky, 1993. Year 501 B the conquest continues. Cambridge, MA: South End. And in Noam Chomsky, 1994. World orders, old and new B with an update on the Palestinian predicament. New York: Columbia University.

Muste, A. J.. 1967. The essays of A. J. Muste. Nat Hentoff. Ed. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. In Anthony Bing, 2003. A. J. Muste Memorial Lecture. Hope College, Holland, MI. September 9.

http://www.earlham.edu~pags/documents/Bings_Muste_Lecture.doc.

Muste, A. J., (undated). In Wells, Donald, 1987-1988, A. J. Muste and the Politics of Peace. In Peace Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 6, p. 16. December/January.

http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v03n6p16.htm.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1932. Moral man and immoral society. Quoted by Joel Rosenthal, 2000-2001. What the Sages say. Lecture No. 2 in a series of six lectures delivered at the Fletcher School of Diplomacy, Tufts University.

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMed

Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1932. Moral man and immoral society. Quoted in Noam Chomsky, 1993. Year 501 B the conquest continues. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1888. The antichrist. German publication 1895. English publication, 1920, Translation by H. L. Mencken. Reproduced online by the Friedrich Nietzsche Society (undated).

http://www.fns.org.uk.ac.htm.

New Testament. King James Version. Reproduced by Blue Letter Bible.

Hebrews: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/

Oldmeadow, Harry. 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Old Testament. King James Version. Reproduced in Early Jewish Writings.

Exodus: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/exodus.html.

Deuteronomy: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/deuteronomy.html.

Joshua: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/joshua.html.

Samuel II: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/2samuel.html. See also Martin van Creveld, 1991. The transformation of war. New York: Free Press

Parenti, Michael. 2003. The assassination of Julius Caesar B a people=s history of ancient Rome. New York: New Press.

Payne, George. 1916. The child in human progress. New York: G. P. Putnams= Sons. Cited in Lloyd deMause, 1974. The Evolution of Childhood. In Lloyd deMause, Ed., The history of childhood, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/refch7/history_childhood.

Plautus. (c.254-184 B.C.). Asinaria. Quoted in Richard J. Geib (undated), p. 1.

http://www/rjgeib.com/thoughts/killing

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. 1762. The social contract. In Paul Halsall, 1998, Extended Excerpts B Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762. Modern History Sourcebook.

http://fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rousseau-contract2.html.

Rummel, R. J.. 1997. Power kills B democracy as a method of non-violence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.

Rummel, R. J., 1999. Power kills, Absolute Power kills Absolutely. In Israel Charny, Ed. Encyclopedia of genocide, Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Runcie, Robert, 1982. Sermon. Quoted in Yuri Koszarycs (undated), War B Confronting the Ultimate Moral Problem. Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia.

http://www.acu.edu.au/staffhome/yukoszarycz.

Ruskin, John. 1985 (posthumous publication). Unto this last and other writings. London, England: Penguin. Quoted in William Pepper. 2003. An act of state B the execution of Martin Luther King. New York: Verso.

Russell, Bertrand. 1950. Ideas that have harmed Mankind. In Unpopular essays. New York: Simon and Schuster. Reproduced by Danilo Mirkovic, in Geocities (undated).

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2528/br_ideaharm.htm.

Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1963. Preface, in Frantz Fanon, 1963. The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove. See also Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Saxonhouse, Arlene, 1980. Men, Women, War and Politics: Family and Polis in Aristophanes and Euripides. In Political Theory 8:1, February, pp. 65-81. Quoted in Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Shakespeare, William, 1600. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Quoted in Enotes, 2004.

http://www.allshakespeare.com.

Simons, E., 1989. Human Origins. In Science 1989, Vol. 245. Cited in Lloyd deMause, 2002. The emotional life of nations. New York: Karnac/Other.

Stevens, Anthony. 2004. The roots of war and terror. New York: Continuum.

Stoessinger, John. 2001. Why nations go to war. 8^th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ThomsonLearning.

Taylor, Timothy. 1996. The pre-history of sex. New York: Bantam. Cited in Lloyd deMause. 2002. The emotional life of nations. New York: Karnac/Other.

Tiger, Lionel, and Robin Fox. 1972. The imperial animal. Secker and Warburg: London, England. Quoted in Anthony Stevens, 2004. The roots of war and terror. New York: Continuum.

Traherne, Thomas. 1908 (posthumous publication). Centuries of meditation. Quoted in Harry Oldmeadow, 2004. Journeys East B 20^th century western encounters with eastern religious traditions. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom.

Upward, Allen. 1915. The divine mystery B a reading of the history of Christianity down to the time of Christ. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Quoted in The Builder Magazine, 1923. Joseph Newton and H. L. Haywood, Eds. (The Builder Magazine was published from 1915 to 1930 by the National Masonic Research Society). Reproduced in Phoenix Masonry (undated).

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_builder_1923_march.htm.

United States Department of Defense, Strategic Air Command 2005. Motto.

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/home/htm.

United Nations Human Development Programme. 2001. Human development report 2001 B making new technologies work for human development. New York: Oxford University.

United Nations Human Development Programme. 2003. Human development report 2003 B millennium development goals, a compact among nations to end human poverty. New York: Oxford University.

Urban II, 1095. Quoted in Jean Elshtain, 1987. Women and war. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Vallois, Henri, 1961. The Social Life of Early Man B The Evidence of Skeletons. In Sherwood Washburn, Ed., Social life of early man. Chicago, Il: Aldine. Cited in Lloyd deMause, 1974. The Evolution of Childhood. In Lloyd deMause, Ed., The history of childhood. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

van Creveld, Martin. 1991. The transformation of war. New York: Free Press.

van der Kolk, Bessel, Alexander McFarlane and Lars Weisaeth. 1996. Traumatic stress B the effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body and society. New York: Guilford.

Vegetius. Epitoma rei militari III (A summary of military matters). Quoted in Richard J. Geib (undated).

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/war/war.html.

Voltaire, Francois-Marie (1694-1778). Quoted in Richard J. Geib (undated).

http://www.rjgeibcom.thoughts/voltaire/voltaire.html.

von Clausewitz, Carl. 1976 (posthumous publication). On war. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Editors and Translators. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University. Cited in Martin van Creveld, 1991. The transformation of war. New York: Free Press.

von Clausewitz, Carl. 1984 (posthumous publication). On war. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Editors and Translators. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University. Cited in Michael Cannon, 1989. Aerospace Power Journal. Summer.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil.

von der Goltz, Colmar. 1883. Das volk in waffen. Translation, The nation in arms, 1913. Cited in van Creveld, 1991. The transformation of war. New York: Free Press.

von Treitschke, Heinrich (1834-1896). In Adam Gowans, 1914. Selections from von Treitschke=s lectures on politics. Adam Gowans, translator and editor. New York: Frederick Stokes. Quoted in Barbara Ehrenreich, 1997. Blood rites B origins and history of the passions of war. New York: Owl/Henry Holt.

Waring, Marilyn. 1988. Second Edition (1999). Counting for nothing B what men value and what women are worth. 2^nd Edition. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto.

Washington, George, 1790. First Annual Address to Congress, January 8. Quoted in Richard Geib (undated).

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/war/war.html.

Weil, Simone. 1940. L=Iliade, ou le poeme de la force (The Iliad, or the Poem about Power). In Siann Miles, 1986 (posthumous publication). Weil, an anthology. London: Viking. Quoted in Donald Matthewson, 2001. Homer as a Political Scientist B The Iliad as a Guide to Statecraft. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30 to September 2. San Francisco, CA. Donald Matthewson is in the Department of Political Science, California State University, Fullerton, CA. See also Andrew Wilson, (undated). The Classics Pages, Homer=s Iliad B The Poem of Power.

http://faculty.fullerton.edu/dmatthewson/Homer. (View as HTML).

http://www/users/globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/iliad.

Wilbur, Ken. 1981. Up from Eden B a transpersonal view of human evolution. Edition 1996. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Wilson, Edward O.. 1992/1999. The diversity of life. New York: W.W. Norton.

Zinn, Howard, 2003. The War against Iraq. Speech, Provincetown, Cape Cod, MA. August. Broadcast by Democracy Now! WBAI. New York. October 13.

INDEX

Acton (Lord).................................................................................................................................. 47

Adorno........................................................................................................................................... 40

Ambrose (Saint)............................................................................................................................. 37

Aquinas (Saint).............................................................................................................................. 38

Aristotle................................................................................................................................... 18, 26

Augustine of Hippo (Saint)........................................................................................................... 37

Becker............................................................................................................................................ 67

Benedict......................................................................................................................................... 42

Bishop of London (1914).............................................................................................................. 59

Blake ............................................................................................................................................ 65

Bush......................................................................................................................................... 36, 46

Butler............................................................................................................................................. 56

Camus............................................................................................................................................ 62

Capra.............................................................................................................................................. 66

Cicero....................................................................................................................................... 26, 37

Coomaraswamy............................................................................................................................. 66

Darwin........................................................................................................................................... 29

Deleuze.......................................................................................................................................... 49

deMause............................................................................................................................. 57, 62, 63

Deuteronomy................................................................................................................................. 22

Donne............................................................................................................................................ 65

Ehrenreich.......................................................................................................................... 16, 27, 59

Einstein.......................................................................................................................................... 40

Elshtain.......................................................................................................................................... 39

Engels............................................................................................................................................ 44

Enheduana....................................................................................................................................... 5

Erasmus.......................................................................................................................................... 48

Estes III (General)......................................................................................................................... 51

Euripides ...................................................................................................................................... 24

Exodus..................................................................................................................................... 21, 22

Fox........................................................................................................................................... 30, 57

Freud.............................................................................................................................................. 26

Friedman........................................................................................................................................ 66

Fromm............................................................................................................................................ 66

Galen.............................................................................................................................................. 26

Goering.......................................................................................................................................... 48

Goldstein....................................................................................................................................... 66

Griffin............................................................................................................................................ 60

Grotius........................................................................................................................................... 40

Guattari.......................................................................................................................................... 49

Hardt.............................................................................................................................................. 44

Hebrews......................................................................................................................................... 22

Hedges..................................................................................................................................... 38, 59

Hegel........................................................................................................................................ 33, 58

Heinberg........................................................................................................................................ 18

Hobbes........................................................................................................................................... 31

Homer.............................................................................................................................................. 5

Horace............................................................................................................................................ 45

Jefferson........................................................................................................................................ 33

Joshua............................................................................................................................................ 21

Kant............................................................................................................................................... 42

Kaplan.................................................................................................................... 32, 33, 44, 58, 59

Keeley............................................................................................................................................ 42

Keen............................................................................................................................................... 64

Kelly.............................................................................................................................................. 43

Kennan........................................................................................................................................... 35

Klare.............................................................................................................................................. 51

Leifer............................................................................................................................................. 68

Locke............................................................................................................................................... 5

Lorenz............................................................................................................................................ 27

Lowenberg..................................................................................................................................... 63

Luther............................................................................................................................................ 38

Machiavelli..................................................................................................................................... 35

Madison......................................................................................................................................... 27

Marx............................................................................................................................................... 44

Mill................................................................................................................................................. 46

Miller.............................................................................................................................................. 63

Montesquieu............................................................................................................................ 41, 50

Moore............................................................................................................................................. 62

More............................................................................................................................................... 48

More (Sir)....................................................................................................................................... 41

Morgenthau Jr. (Hans)................................................................................................................... 52

Muste............................................................................................................................................. 61

Negri.............................................................................................................................................. 44

Niebuhr.......................................................................................................................................... 44

Nietzsche....................................................................................................................................... 29

Rousseau........................................................................................................................................ 32

Rummel.......................................................................................................................................... 47

Runcie............................................................................................................................................ 24

Ruskin............................................................................................................................................ 65

Russell .................................................................................................................................... 15, 40

Samuel II....................................................................................................................................... 17

Sartre.............................................................................................................................................. 58

Stevens....................................................................................................... 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 57, 59

Stoessinger............................................................................................................................... 38, 48

Thucydides.................................................................................................................................... 31

Tiger............................................................................................................................................... 57

Traherne......................................................................................................................................... 65

United Nations........................................................................................................................ 25, 53

United States Strategic Air Command.......................................................................................... 45

Urban II (Pope).............................................................................................................................. 21

van Creveld................................................................................................ 15, 16, 32, 36, 58, 59, 63

van der Kolk...................................................................................................................... 17, 18, 27

Vegetius......................................................................................................................................... 45

Voltaire............................................................................................................................................ 5

von Clausewitz.............................................................................................................................. 34

von der Goltz................................................................................................................................. 23

von Treitschke................................................................................................................................ 33

Washington.................................................................................................................................... 45

Weil................................................................................................................................................ 15

Wilbur............................................................................................................................................ 67

Zinn................................................................................................................................................ 47

***