Can modern war ever be won?

[Kaimani]

i suppose the structure and wording of the question does show i don't think it can.

 

by 'won' i mean a range of things.

1- by the jury of 'the masses'. can any nation now ever 'win' a war in this time of globalism, multiculturalism and instant media? can any nation now ever wage the 'honorable' wars of yore? what, with so much known, read and seen near enough as it happens and armies unable to fully control news and leaks.

2- with most of the wars being fought now, and for the foreseeable future more ideological wars with no 'nation' enemies with defined borders and no one to sign a ceasefire or surrender than nation-to-nation can they be 'won'?

 

sorry, forgot the rest now. but will think of them.

what do you think, can war be 'won'?

[Cavegirl]

I read somewhere recently that as the technology of war has 'improved' over the last century or so there has been a corresponding increase in the percentage of civilians killed within modern conflict. However, the rise of embedded reporters has gone a long way to sanitizing the image of war and so it is possible that a war could be perceived outside the warzone as being honourable even if the situation on the ground is far from it. People need to search beyond the mainstream media to get the real images of war and many unfortunately don't.

 

With regard to the second point, it does seem to be the outcome of neo-conservative mythologising about Islamic terrorism that has led to this idea of no 'national threat' but a 'web of terror' that has gripped the public imagination. This has enabled the US to fight a war in Pakistan whilst never declaring war on the state itself. Historically they used the threat of communism as the great myth in order to invade Cambodia without declaring war on the country.

 

The main issue with this as the prevailing ideology of warfare is that everyone becomes a threat, anyone with a grudge against the state becomes an enemy combatant and therefore tighter controls on the civilian population are always necessary.

 

There main winners in war are the companies who make and sell the weapons. It may also be argued that the acquisition of precious resources, such as oil, through war leads to winners and losers, but I think there's always a price for the winning side. The price is the awakening of the people to the fact that the state that controls them is murderous and immoral by nature and that there will soon be a new generation of people in another country that hate your country for what it did to them.

[Kaimani]

I read somewhere recently that as the technology of war has 'improved' over the last century or so there has been a corresponding increase in the percentage of civilians killed within modern conflict. However, the rise of embedded reporters has gone a long way to sanitizing the image of war and so it is possible that a war could be perceived outside the warzone as being honourable even if the situation on the ground is far from it. People need to search beyond the mainstream media to get the real images of war and many unfortunately don't.

 

With regard to the second point, it does seem to be the outcome of neo-conservative mythologising about Islamic terrorism that has led to this idea of no 'national threat' but a 'web of terror' that has gripped the public imagination. This has enabled the US to fight a war in Pakistan whilst never declaring war on the state itself. Historically they used the threat of communism as the great myth in order to invade Cambodia without declaring war on the country.

 

The main issue with this as the prevailing ideology of warfare is that everyone becomes a threat, anyone with a grudge against the state becomes an enemy combatant and therefore tighter controls on the civilian population are always necessary.

 

There main winners in war are the companies who make and sell the weapons. It may also be argued that the acquisition of precious resources, such as oil, through war leads to winners and losers, but I think there's always a price for the winning side. The price is the awakening of the people to the fact that the state that controls them is murderous and immoral by nature and that there will soon be a new generation of people in another country that hate your country for what it did to them.

 

I think there's always a price for the winning side. The price is the awakening of the people to the fact that the state that controls them is murderous and immoral by nature and that there will soon be a new generation of people in another country that hate your country for what it did to them

 

that, above all, is why i think modern warfare can't really have any winners. leaks, 'civilian footage', 'blabber blogs', as they're called, work to counteract the sanitization of news by the authorities.

in the end, whatever reason for a war, the greater powers invariably come out looking like bullies, incompetent, aggressors etc for the most part, regardless of 'results'.

[Vague_Boy]

i suppose the structure and wording of the question does show i don't think it can.

 

Depends what you mean by war.

 

The so-called "War on Terror" has a conveniently nebulous, ill-defined enemy which means that the war can go on forever.

 

Good news if you're part of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his final speech as US president.

 

Eternal profits for the arms industry and those who feed off of them on Wall Street. Taxpayers? Let 'em have austerity measures, our profits must not be touched.

 

 

War is a Racket

 

War is just a racket. 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 masses.

 

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

U.S. Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler (retired)

[flamingjimmy]

It depends entirely on what the objective is.

 

State's don't just go to war to do a bit of war, they go to war in an attempt to achieve something. If as a result of the war, then they achieve that objective, then the war is 'won' regardless of how many lives are lost or what state they leave things in.

 

A cynic might say that America won the Iraq war, because many Americans got rich out of it and they ensured a supply of oil. The fact that Iraq is now screwed is neither here nor there, they achieved their objectives. This is of course presuming that the stated objective of 'bringing freedom and democracy' is a lie.

[radar]

In which case America indeed won the war when GW Bush declared it to have been won and confirmed the rhetoric of freedom and democracy in effect to have been a lie.