To the "realists" who responded to my last post:

Oh Ye of little faith! Actually, you don't even need faith. You merely need to know the facts, as my supposedly naive students do. Civil wars--like those in Iraq, Sri Lanka, Darfur, Colombia--have declined in number over the past decade. And war between established nations is becoming quite rare. The world has just gone for more than three years without an international war. (Israel’s incursion into Lebanon last summer doesn’t count, because the Lebanese army did not fight back.) This is “the longest episode of interstate peace in more than half a century,” as the scholars Charles Kurzman and Neil Englehart point out in their recent essay “Welcome to World Peace.” This, as my student Chris says, is definitely a trend, and something we can and must build upon. We are dealing now with what the political scientist John Mueller calls the "remnants of war." The one great good that will come from the catastrophic U.S. conquest of Iraq (NPR just said today was one of the bloodiest days yet) is that it will hasten the end of war by demonstrating its fatuity even for a nation with every possible advantage. Mark my words, you pessimists. You think you're realists, but you're not. I and my hopeful students are the realists. War must and will end.

Comments

[Hiro Protagonist]

John,

Here are two intellectuals you might want to interview for your book on war:

John Hartung
Christopher Boehm

Also, try to stick to intellectuals with backgrounds in the evolutionary sciences, or at the very least, allow them a chapter. These folks can shed far more light on these issues than postmodernists and military historians.

[JJD]

Hey, John -

Ever hear of Africa? Know what has been going on in the Congo during the last few years?

You can quibble about whether the numerous bloody conflicts going on in Africa are "interstate" affairs, but it would not be difficult to find big powers lurking in the shadows. The Sudan is a client of China, for example, which makes it awkward to squelch the goings-on in Darfur. A bomb dropped by a proxy or a pet thug is still a bomb.

Primates won't be around on Earth forever, so I have to agree with the basic conclusion: war will eventually end.

[endless_science]

Sure, civil wars and 'war been established nations' may be on a decline, but I would bet there has been a corresponding rise in violence on a smaller scale: terrorism, murder, and violence against self and community.

Don't think you're winning anything. Everything that allows man to make war against others is still here. And probably won't go away until the entire human race takes an evolutionary step in its understanding of what we really are.

[James McWilliams]

I sure hope you and your students are indeed right. I would like nothing better. So heres to world peace. :) In my defense I am by no means a cynical person, in fact I have a lot of faith in humanity overall. However I am wary of predictions that we are entering a period of world piece (or any other 'utopian' scenario).
I feel it a little premature given the current state of affairs. I sure hope you are right though.

However, haven't there been quite a few periods down the ages where the world settled into a state of relative stability for a significant period? Pax romana, Pax Britannia, etc etc.

"hasten the end of war by demonstrating its fatuity even for a nation with every possible advantage"

I'd would have hoped that vietnam would have done that. :D

However, the Iraq situation is quite frankly a quagmire of trouble that I don't think will be ending anytime soon. It's heartbreaking really.

I'm 25, and I sure hope that by the time I pop my clogs there will be no people killing each other. But I won't be holding my breath (I don't have great lungs as it is).

Interesting discussion though :)

[nc]

"The world has just gone for more than three years without an international war." - John Horgan

It's like forest fires. The longer the interval between fires, the more severe they are when they do occur, because more dead wood and thus fuel accumulates on the forest floor.

In the case of war, people forget some of the horrors of war during long intervals of peace, and the result is that when wars do occur, they are more savage.

See http://www.uh.edu/engines/wars&deaths.jpg [from Richardson, L. F., Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. (Quincy Wright and C. C. Lienau, eds.) Pittsburgh: Boxwood Press, 1960] for a plot of number of wars versus number of deaths.

As the frequency of wars falls, the average number of victims and damage per war is likely to rise.

Ivan A. Getting's article 'Halting the Inflationary Spiral of Death' in Air Force/Space Digest (April 1963) gives statistics of wars from 1820-1963.

In the 40 years 1820-60 there were a total of 800,000 killed in 92 wars, or ~0.08% of the world's population.

In the 40 years 1860-1900, there were 4.6 million people killed in 106 wars, or ~0.35% of the world's population.

In the 50 years 1900-50, there were 42.5 million people killed in 117 wars, ~2.1% of the world's population.

The latter statistics are skewed by WWI and WWI which cost 36 million lives.

Quincey Wright's "A Study of War" (University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., London, 1965) compiles statistics going back further still.

In the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries there were 63, 64, 38, and 89 major wars per century, respectively (defined as wars which were either legally declared or involving over 50,000 troops).

The mean number of nations involved in fighting such wars at any given time during those centuries was 2.4, 2.6, 3.7 and 3.2, respectively.

I hope John Horgan is right and that war has ceased, but if so, where is the mechanism for the required change in people's tribalism and bigotry? Sorry, I don't see it. Please don't tell me that economic interdependence of nations is stopping war, as that was claimed to discredit war before WWI. Perhaps nuclear deterrence due to increased proliferation is helping, but is it a long term cure?

[John Horgan]

NC, great, sobering statistics, thanks. I keep hearing about the book Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. Gotta get it.

But your pessimism is unwarranted. You make the mistake of assuming that a world without war must be a utopia or even paradise with no conflict whatsoever, no racism, tribalism, religious disagreement, lions lie down with lambs and so on. That of course is a fantasy. I wouldn't even want to live in such a world. It would be too boring. The world I envision would still roil with conflict and passionate disagreement and racism and sexism and religious and political divisions, but people wouldn't resolve their differences by blowing each other up by the dozens or hundreds or thousands or millions. The U.S. is proof that such a cacophonous society is possible. It's not a utopia, but it ain't bad.

[nc]

Hi John,

Thanks for that analysis! If terrorism and offensive dictatorships can be averted, then yes, the normal disagreements and conflicts would not escalate into wars.

But 9/11 shows a problem there. You can't seek justice from successful suicide bombers, so you either do nothing or you have to start a war against the regimes which sent them.

Your post links to http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0830/p09s02-coop.html which states: "Last week marked 1,000 consecutive days with no wars between nations anywhere in the world, since the night in November 2003 when India and Pakistan instituted a cease-fire."

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons now, which is probably enforcing the peace. They simply want to avoid a situation which could escalate to war. If nuclear deterrence will stop serious conflicts as the bombs proliferate, it will prevent most wars. The problem is that the very careful control and safeguards that big states have may be missing from small nuclear armed states with Heath Robinson bombs.

What role do you envision for the military and the military-industrial complex in the future? Samuel Cohen, the RAND Corporation inventor of the "neutron bomb" (which was briefly stockpiled in Europe during the early 80s to deter the 3-to-1 tank superiority of the Warsaw Pact), has written a controversial free online book at http://www.athenalab.com/Confessions_Sam_Cohen_2006_Third_Edition.pdf which argues that America should deter all wars by using the threat of kiloton yield yield neutron bombs in place of both conventional weapons and higher yield nuclear weapons.

The opposite approach is to place great hope in the usual "cures" for war like conventional weapons and economic sanctions, which have been tried and tested for centuries, but have always failed miserably.

[BWV]

NC Wrote:
"As the frequency of wars falls, the average number of victims and damage per war is likely to rise.

Ivan A. Getting's article 'Halting the Inflationary Spiral of Death' in Air Force/Space Digest (April 1963) gives statistics of wars from 1820-1963.

In the 40 years 1820-60 there were a total of 800,000 killed in 92 wars, or ~0.08% of the world's population.

In the 40 years 1860-1900, there were 4.6 million people killed in 106 wars, or ~0.35% of the world's population.

In the 50 years 1900-50, there were 42.5 million people killed in 117 wars, ~2.1% of the world's population."

Not sure where the 19th century numbers come from - the more conservative estimates of Taiping Rebellion in China (1851–1864) put casualties at 20 million, more than your entire 19th century number.

[Alex]

Yes,i do think the war in the world will have a end but not now,you see the war had always linked with poverty in which poor countries struggle to find a solution to reach its established independent nation or battle for the oil profit as well as other valuable things.violents frequently happen in lessdeveloped countries in late 20th century and now ,why? do you see lots of nations of fortune want to commence a war with others?

[Whirl]

Please read the Human Security Report 2005:
http://www.humansecurityreport.info/

The first Human Security Report documents a dramatic, but largely unknown, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuse over the past decade. Published by Oxford University Press, the Report argues that the single most compelling explanation for these changes is found in the unprecedented upsurge of international activism, spearheaded by the UN, which took place in the wake of the Cold War.

[James McWilliams]

Here to play devils advocate: A decade is but a flutter of the eyelid in our time line. There have been peaceful times in the past that have been MORE than decades. Just because you suddenly get a lull in the violence doesn't mean "the end of wars".

[Andrei Kirilyuk]

In the above additional comment on this post (discussion with NC) John provides a more clear idea of his “world without wars”. But I would say that it is still a utopia, the “American utopia” this time, which is not as ideal as a paradise (for some Americans, it probably is!), but is still too simple as a real model for the whole world, the one we actually have today (or can have in a near future). It's true that USA is so big and diverse that they could be considered as a reduced (but big enough) “world model”, but there are also essential distinctions, where the most important ones with respects to conflict perspective are the “developed” (rich) country structure of the USA and the general absence of anything like (compact) “national states” in that structure. If you consider other, “national” states and their persisting development levels and “national mentalities”, the conclusion about war-like conflicts will be much less optimistic, if one is based on really dominating, now visible tendencies.

One could express a “general” hope for the EVENTUAL victory of reason practically everywhere, but if one wants to remain “objective” and “realistic” (which should be our case here), it is practically impossible to see any clear anti-war, “humanistic” tendency in such huge and important entities as Russia and its surrounding countries, or Middle East, or many places in Africa, and maybe also Asian regions around China and India. Nukes and economic development possibilities provide some “general” hope for peaceful solutions, but these factors were not always efficient in the past and one cannot observe a real growth of “civilised” attitudes in various “difficult” regions, rather the reverse. Despite any “utopian” hopes (and the attached ideological doctrines), the world as a whole does not show the tendency to follow at least a limited, “nonideal”, e.g. “American”, version of a more civilised development and conflict resolution. In many places, some locally weaker countries can only RELY UPON American military force (ready for a real intervention!) in order to protect their PEACEFUL existence (we didn't forget the previous wars against Iraq's aggression or unstoppable Serbian atrocities in Europe, did we?). Some “international” efforts and forces could, in principle, solve such problems, but it practically never happens... And if it is difficult to imagine the dominating degree of “tribal”, cruel attitudes of certain national entities from the point of view of internal US habits (one can understand why!), let's ask ourselves why, for example, the highly educated Jewish and related “fundamental” Christian communities in that “most democratic” and “civilised” country continue to support unconditionally the evidently unreasonable (for everybody!) Israeli occupation, “concrete walls” and various bloody “collective punishment” methods in the middle East, leading only to conflict escalation. Isn't it finally also that basic, stupid but unavoidable “tribal voice” that determines real attitudes, behind all “geopolitical” and “economical” justifications?

On the other hand, we always have the continuing domination of straightforward, BRUTE FORCE in every, including most “civilised”, part of the world and externally “peaceful” life conditions. Isn't war only a particular, and not even always most devastating, manifestation of that omnipresent and omnipotent “rule of the game”? Here, in countries like Russia or Ukraine we had around 10 % loss of population during the last, generally “peaceful” 15 years, i.e. not far from 1 % per year, which can easily exceed losses from a local war. And if one thinks that such losses still occur in less “cruel” forms and conditions than those of a war, one is mistaken. In other words, having such “peace”, many people in such countries are actually not far from war-time suffering and therefore can accept war much more easily, especially with the promise that it will help to make their life better (e.g. the last Chechen war in Russia, the general “climate” remaining the same today). It is important that the occurring “economical growth” does not bring about the expected changes for better in such kind of “half-developed” country; sometimes things can even get worse, also because of arms race and military elite interests. Real world life is simply much more diverse and complicated than its “American model”. That's why it would probably still be reasonable to relate hopes for sustainable peace to a deeper kind of change, not towards another “utopia”, but still a different kind of “real” world and human attitudes, without the dominating role of rough force everywhere and in all aspects of life. One cannot really separate (genuine) “peace” idea as such from those other “features of violence” and their “human” origin. And I am not sure that one should regret that “difficulty”. The “American utopia” idea has indeed something basically limited, reduced in its basis, despite all its external advantages (and that's exactly why it is not accepted in certain “traditional” cultures): it's like an infinitely extended modern “epoch of the end” of everything (in “developed” countries), where people would remain at basically the same, current level of development and simply infinitely and vainly turn around the same, typically “unsolvable” problems, dominating “physical” pleasures and “basic” instincts (i.e. “utopia” gradually becomes “anti-utopia”). It's not a war, of course, but still something deeply disappointing... After all, can't we say, maybe with certain exaggeration, that Monica Lewinsky's case can be considered as the ultimate “direct” origin of 9/11 and today's Iraqi war? (i.e. “without her lips” modern American history would probably take a different turn that wouldn't involve the actually occurred “conflict between civilisations” and all its victims).

And finally, we already do have today a very strong change of all those “ends”, the end of “history”, of religion (“remnants of religion”), of science, of art, of morals, of... this kind of civilisation, then? Irrespective of that change interpretation and its further development, it is rather evident that it can simply “supersede” any particular aspect, such as the war-peace problem, in the sense that all existing problems either disappear or at least are seriously “reformulated” simply as a result of that embracing, global process. From that point of view, discussing the war problem in its usual form today can be as senseless as plunging into details of a “string theory” or “anthropic principle” while knowing perfectly well that it is to be replaced as a whole within a completely different vision and level of understanding. It follows that the “struggle for peace” can rather provide an additional, powerful motivation to look for a better version of “real utopia” in general, resolving simultaneously many externally different problems (similar to a new level of science solving multiple, visibly “unrelated” problems).

[truth b. told]

war is the direct failure of politics.
we will continue to have wars until religeons assimilate and bigotry doesn't exist. What is the root cause of most wars? solve that problem.
Demonstrating war is futile is futile. The machine gun was supposed to end war as only a madman would send troops against it.
Populations are growing fast than sustainable food and water, this will drive the next world conflict.

[John Horgan]

I really appreciate the responses, pro and con, and additional information provoked by my post. This is what makes this damn blog worth while.

[Pedro Serrador]

I think you can argue there is less war now than at any point in history. Even in the Pax Romana or Pax Britannia there were likely countless unrecorded tribal wars in Africa, South America, Asia, Pacific, etc. Studies of I believe virtually all human societies shows warfare was a part of those cultures.

It's amazing really, considering that humans and human societies probably evolved in an environment of frequent group warfare and conflict.

I think we can give credit to organizations like the UN, NGOs and the media for publicizing conflict to the world. I also think we need to give credit to European powers and even the US for occasionally willing to be the world's policemen.

[James McWilliams]

Yes, thats a good point Pedro. I mentioned pax-romana and it's ilk more to point out that although we may get peace for a while under a certain regime or system, we have no guarantee that the system will not collapse at a later date.

China seems destined to become one hell of a superpower in the coming years and the Chinese government has not always been too good concerning human rights. The west might not be quite so capable of policing the world if the 'other sherrif' has contrasting ideals and objectives and may even have an itchy trigger finger. :)

Thoughts?

[bwv]

ISTM that war has very little to do with bigotry or religon. The main cause of war is that some group decides that war is the best means to further their interests. The complexity and interconnectedness of modern economies and the increased destructive power of modern warfare have in most cases made warfare a losing proposition for any rational power.

Powerful, unified and entrenched religions such as Medieval Catholicism or Islam were actually great contributers to the reduction of warfare, as they unified disparate populations and enhanced the political credibility of rulers. War appeared when religions collided, such as the crusades or fragmented, as in the Reformation. But it is naive to think that the world would have been a more peaceful place without Religion.

[Adriana Cordal]

John,
Thank you for directing me to this blog.
After reading all the above postings, I can't avoid thinking how each person looks at this interesting issue from a different framework. As a psychiatrist, I look at the sociological "evolution" of our species by comparison to the growth and develepment of a child. I think it's very helpful to use that metaphor. We are still tied to our ancestral instincts. Our biological and instinctual evolution is by far slower than our "moral" evolution. And to make things more complicated our technological development exceeds all other lines of development. So humanity finds itself as a child with a powerful gun.
The tendency to violence is an evolutionary advantage: the strongest, most violent group will prevail over the weak. So we are all to some extent, descendants of the strongest, most violent representatives of our species. Unfortunately, what was adaptive and allowed survival of the tribe, may now be a threat to the entire species. But we are still bound to the same basic survival instincts. How we handle them is the issue at hand. A 2year old may fight for an object that he/she wants, while an adult will (hopefully) think about it first and possibly restrain from the use of violence most of the time. Now, groups don't act exactly as individuals but there are clear parallels. The question is: if we were to use the metaphor of the developing individual, how old are we?
I think that different social groups may be at different ages. In some parts of the world the "stress" (poverty, famine, repression, poor public health, lack of freedom, etc.)is so high that the group hasn't quite developed as much or has regressed. One would expect that developed countries, where the relative lack of stress allows for people to disengage from the needs of survival, would have the ideal conditions to develop morally. And I think to some extent the trend exists: concerns about peace, human rights, the environment, other species, etc, etc, are relatively new to humanity and activism develops where people don't have to fight for their survival everyday. At the same time we have the problem of the planned use of violence for material gains. This is the bully story, the sociopaths that manipulate their groups for their obscure gains. Whether the gains are economic, power, territory, or just the caprice of a narcissistic tyrant, crowds can be mobilized and manipulated in the name of religion, idealism, self -defense, or whatever story allows for the "masses" to engage.
There is much heterogeneity around the world. Whether driven by survival instinct, or by abuse of strength (bully), there is still much conflict to get through before we can hope for peace. Unless some sobering event brings people to a halt and there is a unified effort to establish peace uniformly across the world. In spite of this "gloomy" perspective, and as an optimist, I think that the trend is going in the right direction. We just can't expect an overnight change. It will probably be gradual, with steps forward and some backwards, and perhaps some precipitating event that can expedite the process at some point in the future. Most likely some natural disaster that will bring people together.
I personally choose to celebrate every little step forward that I can identify. We just have to be patient. Very patient...
Sorry for the rambling. I hope we can all contribute somehow to achieve that Utopian dream.