Tue 29 Apr 2008
Stop the World, I Want to go Down
Posted by Oren Gulasa under Book Review, Current Events, History, International
But before I go down, Can I get another chance to make the world a better place?
The world politics and current events forced me to take a look into the past. A good book and some spring romance gave birth to my peaceful mood.
The First World War began because many sovereign super-powers had to protect their foreign interests, mainly in colonies or other occupied land (rather than their own). In the magnificent new book by Niall Ferguson, a Harvard distinguished history professor, entitled “War of the World”; historical events are given a different perspective. The main idea is that, the 50 years from 1905 to 1955 were actually one global war. These first five decades of the twentieth century were the bloodiest ever; “The Second World War was the greatest man-made catastrophe of all time”. The main conclusion to be drawn is that it could repeat itself, if we would not change our beliefs, thoughts and actions.
Ferguson claimed that although a magnitude increase in average GDP occurred around the world’s nations during the early 20th century, it was the most violent time, stemming from war and terror inspired by humanity. None predicted this war. From a financial standpoint, even the capital market in late July of 1914 “were caught sleep, in awaken of a global war” according to Ferguson.
Was the war of 1914 a complete surprise? The history tells us that it all geared up into a great conflict, involving many powerful head of states exchanging diplomatic messages about the navigation of armed forces. The Russians threatened the Austrian-Hungary alliance by defending Serbia sovereignty, while the Germans had to interfere because of the Austria-Germany alliance. Meanwhile, France attacked South Germany in it attempt to re-capture Alsace territory. The English had to follow, which meant that the Balkan War of 1914 escalated into global war.
While reading the book, it amazed me how many things are relevant today. I just can’t stop thinking of these same patterns that developed on the international stage, on daily basis. Financially, we are better off, GDP rises in many areas which does not compensate for poor populations in other areas. More then half of the world population earns less then $2 per day. Yet, in those countries defense budget and army spending increases every year.
The West against East conflict is culminating in front of us. Globalization has had a second-round revival, but differences between these two societies are hard to overpass. Conflicts all over the world threaten many lives daily, and similarly to the bloodiest times of the early 20th century, these conflicts share the same characteristics. Moreover, it holds the risk where it might group together into a one global conflict.
We can’t stop the world, but we can make it abetter place; or try to. Stop the War; Talk.
Popularity: 16% [?]
April 30th, 2008 at 12:57 am
So Oren, are you suggesting that World War III has already started, or that we are gearing up for some sort of international crises that will spark it?
And what would that crises be?
April 30th, 2008 at 9:08 am
All I meant that it is a possibility of West-vs-East conflict, which will take form in few several coflicts in many unrelated (geographicaly) teritories.
When powerful nations have too many interests in other nations’ land, rather of their own, that’s a problem.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Do you think America, and other countries, should move towards a more isolationist stance in regards to their military efforts?
The best of offense is good defense?
April 30th, 2008 at 10:44 am
See I still think there is a critical difference between the situation. At least the two Great Wars we could understand our enemy better because it was western ideology fighting amongst themselves for regional dominance.
Now we face an enemy (eastern) which lives life in a completely different manner with completely different motivations compared to our own. Our lack of understanding of them and their lack of understanding of us leads to much of the conflict. In a sense we are in many ways two species of humans that are the byproduct of millenia of social darwinism in segregated regions.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
The key to international success is definitely not becoming isolationist. In a more globalized world that would only hurt us. Unfortunately, there will never be peace, its not in humans nature. Whether it is GREED or RELIGION people will always be motivated to fight. The U.S. is just greedy (as necessary as that might be) and the East will always fight to protect their religion.
WWI and WWII were definitely interesting times, when the world was being reconstructed and the U.S. was catapulted to the top of the world power nations. The U.S. had to become a superpower to protect the western capitalistic ideology and had to compete with the U.S.S.R. (communism) during the Cold War.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
As North Korea has demonstrated, isolationism isn’t even possible in the 21st Century without converting your media so that it blocks access to the outside world. Thats a whole ‘nother topic altogether.
But I was suggesting isolating our military. I probably used the wrong wording. What I meant was to only use our military as a homeland defense, and avoid offensive strikes at all costs.
I’m just throwing it out there for the sake of conversation. I’ve never read the “Art of War”, and I don’t know jack about military strategy.
It just seems like the best strategy when fighting against people that don’t have their own established land. How can you have an effective offense when you can’t even find the target?
Wouldn’t it just make more sense to save money and lives. We could reroute the money currently spent on offensive efforts into developing a more elaborate homeland defense system - including more accurate checks at airports and seaports and borders.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
But Andrew, it becomes the history old question of what to do with a standing army? Even in times of peace our system is designed to have a great many soldiers positioned around the globe. If we bring them home, what do we do with them? It becomes a catch 22.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Well with the current troops, they’d just have to integrate into society as all past troops have had after the end of all wars.
But if we were going to enact the policy of a standing army, I see two ways of avoiding the catch 22 you stated above:
1) Integrate the standing army into local police forces. They would perform the same duties as the 5.0, but also act as a special unit which received periodic training to keep their skills up to par.
2)Take advantage of the second amendment - require all citizens to take gun training courses in high school. If families didn’t want to keep guns in their house, then each municipality could have a cache for emergency attacks on the country. We’d go back to having a civilian militia to protect their local areas.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:35 am
I agree with Andrew. Switzerland can be a model for this type of policing. It involvement with the community is very efficient. I remember having an officer visiting my college regularly and advising us on weather / environment safety issues for international students who were not fimiliar with the area;
the army in Switzerland also helps a lot in severe weather conditions rescue.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am
Andrew, there is nothing to enact if we want a standing army - that is what we have. Also let’s face it militias are undisciplined and unreliable. We cannot maintain super power status standing on the slackened soldiers of militia men. Sure they were brave and Lexington, Concorde, and Bunker Hill … but that was more of an anomaly than anything else.
Militia is appropriate for minor defensive measure on a very small and sporadic scale. They fall apart over long-term engagements on account of lack of discipline.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Lack of discipline, training, equipment, and other resources…
And, let’s remember that the last time militias were used was in a time when soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder 50 yards apart shooting at each other in lines. The militias fought guerrilla style and were effective as a result of undermining the British line-style fighting strategy.
So, as a modern militia man, are you going to shoot your rifle at a bomber, fighter plane, tank, Humvee, etc? Go ahead, the rest of us will watch you get 2 rounds off before you die.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I’d actually shoot a slingshot. Just for the effect and entertainment value.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Haha, nice. Claire happens to own a slingshot…
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Claire is well prepared for when the sh*t hits the fan.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Haha…all I ever think about when I hear sling shot is Dennis the Menace causing havoc.