People Like War
This chart reveals a deep tragedy, a natural feature of human politics which has led to incalculable death and suffering.
There are several peaks, seemingly correlated with economic good times and a lack of major internal division, but there is no obvious connection between 1986 and 1999 that a policy maker could reproduce. The bump after 9/11 represents a real phenomenon, that people respond to tragedy with support for the regime that was in power during tragedy, but this a property that is difficult to exploit. However the peaks in 1991 and 2003 are exactly connected. These are the two points when the American government decided to invade Iraq. War makes people feel good. This is not why the United States went to war, but the principle continues to lurk even in these civilized times, and its exploitation has yet to come to an end.
For aspiring politicians of Rome, the door to truly dominant power was through the Triumph. Parading captives and spoils through the streets of the city, witnessed by the citizens who wielded the important votes, was crucial to a future chance at a consulship or more. The senatorial class knew this, they all went into the military. They forged strong connections with their soldiers beyond loyalty to the state with their soldiers, allowed them the plunder of conquered nations, and distributed land after the campaign. But to gain real power through the support of the people, they had to deploy the loyalty of their troops for the purposes of earning a parade. Triumphs were obviously intended as part of martial honor, but in the waning days of the Republic they became jealously guarded assets withheld or granted based on the positioning of the different factions. The symbol of unified military pride became a shameful object of infighting. The Empire’s stability came partially from regulating the competition - triumphs were only granted to the Emperor or his successor. The height of the civilization would have been under Trajan because he is the one who conquered the most. The column which still stands in Rome today comes from his second one.
Many Chinese Emperors chose the name Wu (武), meaning warlike. Indian kings were drawn from the warrior caste, modeled after the conquering Rama, and their success in battle was considered proof of their virtue. Christian rulers demonstrated God’s will through conquest. Islam is partially the story of uniting a people consumed by internal conflict in a great outward invasion which was supposed to swallow all the world in the name of the one God.
All this enthusiasm for war is strange because war is bad. Killing and theft, the deepest means and ends of war, are evil and regarded as such by nearly all major systems of morality. This has not stopped war from coexisting with all moralities and quite a bit of moral reasoning is devoted to how we can preserve basic principles of civil decorum while allowing for the expression of our deep lust for conquest. Pretexts for wars, as old as civilization itself, are the great compromise we’ve made to resolve this tension.
But in addition, war is a fundamentally negative activity. Killing, stealing, conquering, occupying, are all net negative transactions, humanity as a whole always ends up worse off. It is the exact opposite of an economic trade where both parties get something they wanted, and yet in terms of classic caste systems the traders are immoral and the soldiers are highly honored. For war to be good, it has to rely on our strong group identification such that our profit to the greater loss of others feel good. It may even be that it is worth sacrificing just to hurt our enemies even more.
The consequences of war are rarely hidden. A great portion of the humans who have existed have lived under war. They have died, been starved, been sent into exile. Even the victors have to deal with their sons dying. And regularly enough, victory is only temporary and victimhood is visited upon those who thought they had triumphed. Empires such as China and Rome were able to exploit the positive effects of war on their people most successfully because keeping conflicts at the border kept the material consequences distant for generations at a time. But the centuries of decline and ruin attending the slow contraction that follows any conquest keeps them from being exceptions to the tragic norm.
War often goes poorly. Although people love going to war, people dislike any consequences of war other than parades and spoils. Increases in taxes, supply shortages, soldiers deaths, all are obviously bad. Successful anti-war movements start from the fact that the thrill of invasion gets old and the material consequences eventually overwhelm the immaterial gains. The patterns have been evident for as long as there has been history. But we never stop. Every nation began the Great War with extreme enthusiasm and every nation left permanently scarred and broken by what they all knew would happen to at least some of them. Some rulers have been forced into war by public demand and then regretted it once the obvious consequences transpired. Iran and Iraq’s recent conflict began as opportunism for each leader to earn legitimacy and triumph, but the years of war caused untold suffering and losses until the only motivation left for the rulers was to avoid a loss of legitimacy, and it ended in a draw.
In more recent times, certain elites and diplomats have taken a different attitude towards war. Perhaps conscious of the fact that all long wars eventually sour in the mind of the public, they have attempted to hide them, making necessary moves in world politics without having to worry about backlash. Isolationism always melts at the first sign of a good war, but it can still be a powerful force especially against a long and waning war. The United States has been deeply involved in the armed conflicts of many nations without any public celebration at home. There has always been the possibility of a regime failing at home propping itself up through a needless invasion, but the elite focus on quiet management seems to have checked any such impulses.
Both invasions of Iraq were exceptions to this late pattern, both were celebrated, the presidents whipping up modern triumphs. One war was successful: a quick demonstration of American might with no longterm consequences for the public to regret. The other, a failure: a quagmire of goals and justifications, none consummated. Both regimes took a severe dive in their popularity as the public moved on. But it was the failed president who was reelected.
Those who see war for what it truly is and see that it should never start have always existed, and may be growing larger. The socialist left of Europe who decried the artificial borders dividing working people from each other largely backed their own countries in World War I, but a few stuck to principles. Each war now has its resistance. As a child in an elite liberal bubble, I remember receiving the feelings that Iraq was sadly necessary, but recall no celebration.
The bureaucracy now in control of the state’s outward forces shows signs of a future without war. The new weapons of sanctions and diplomacy seem to be effective creating an environment of less open warfare. The countervailing forces of the military industrial complex still demand their sacrifices, but can sometimes be overcome with negotiation. But the people will always long for war. And there will always be the temptation to give them what they want.