“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” – Barack Obama
It has been over a year now since I watched the movie, “V for Vendetta,” a Warner Bros. production directed by James McTeigue. It was an amazing movie that kept my eyes glued to the screen as I drank the plot and lost myself in the magical world of film. The plot revolves around an anarchist called V, who sets out to fight the totalitarian government in a future-retro Britain. The movie necessarily begins with a narration by a woman’s voice, a woman who falls in love with both V and his idea. V for Vendetta became memorable to me for this reason: that it explored the theme of war on ideas or principles. This theme had been explored in Joseph Conrad’s novel, “The Secret Agent” (1906), where an anarchist sympathizer explodes a major central building in Greenwich, London. Both V for Vendetta and The Secret Agent emphasize the concept of the immortality of war; especially, war against ideas or personal beliefs and principles. There can never be a more divisive factor than our own beliefs. History is wrought with examples of conflict induced by the lack of willingness to surrender one’s belief. Many people agree that the conflict between the US (and allies) and the Al-Qaeda is a confrontation of ideas. The Al-Qaeda attacks the Western philosophy whereas the West defends its commitment to democracy and justice. Seldom is the war on Al-Qaeda thought of as being instigated by the West, which would effectively shatter the notion of justice. But of course! The two are unequally matched strategically; thus, the party that controls most communication channels will try to disseminate a favorable outlook to the world. All this is an effort to win more sympathizers for one’s cause. The US has succeeded in portraying her cause as just, hence the war on terror. Ultimately, the war on Al-Qaeda is a war on a concept of terror, injustice and inhumanity. When the US went to war with Japan in the 1940s, the same principle was in play. The Japanese saw the methodology of war used by American soldiers then as ruthless. Whereas Japanese soldiers, motivated by their deep sense of duty, flew their planes into American camps and tanks, their opponents specialized in a “disengaged” conflict: air strikes. American pilots torched the Japanese from the air, maneuvered their planes back to camp and left a trail of destruction behind. The Japanese understood war on a more personal level: the sacrifice of every soldier was valued. In fact, it is recorded that before embarking on a suicide mission, Japanese soldiers devoted substantial amount of time meditating about death and obtaining some revelation or epiphany. To them, the American soldiers were like bullies, with profound disregard for the human lives. Although the American generals at the time might have wondered how stupid it was to intentionally crash oneself to death, their understanding of the conflict was remarkably different. To them, “death before dishonor” did not invoke suicidal strategies. The US-Japan conflict of 1945 is a candid example of a psychological division founded on differences of ideas. War, of course is a difficult subject to understand. Although it is perhaps the oldest form of human civilization, it is yet to be completely mastered. Even the greatest of minds have done little to limit wars or conflict. In fact, geniuses and great orators have always been at the center of major conflicts – Adolf Hitler, Robert J. Oppenheimer – to mention a few. However, it is clear that beneath all conflict is the inability to recant one’s ideals. People often enjoy debate, but when arguments fail to prevail over an opponent’s point of view, the unwillingness to compromise spurs division. Thereafter, persuasion becomes imposition of will. A weak mind will eventually comply with the stronger party, albeit begrudgingly. However, should there be some leverage on either sides, arguments could deteriorate into nucleated stand-offs and perhaps expressions of aggressions. The joining of external parties (often alliances) exacerbates the tensions and eventually the situation explodes into full scale confrontations. Given time, the conflicts grow and demand more resources. Warlords begin looking for more supplies and soldiers. Alliances become bigger and difficult to manage. Soldiers start to perish because of neglect as the warring organizations become large and hierarchies become established. The organizations expand their objectives for war into businesses and profits. Funding wars become a booming enterprise, as more finances are allocated to defense departments. Resources are allocated to search for new reasons and justifications for the conflicts: economic territories, democracy, faith… anything goes. Eventually, more effort is spent trying to prolong the war under the pretense of trying to win it, than is spent to end it. As the war itself is based on an uncompromised stand-off, trying to win it is an illusion. Instead, a truce would be a more suitable option. Today, war is a way of life. It is an economic activity. War reminds us that we are alive and that we need to struggle another day. War has not only become necessary to survive, but to stay ahead in a world that seems to favor the quick witted and the strong. Of course, the condemnation on war and other forms of human conflict is still very strong-willed and is justified. The world would be much better without conflicts, but it is just too difficult to wipe conflict, especially since most economies are supported by the war effort. Many technologies are inspired by conflicts. Science is devoted to developing stronger defenses against human and other invasions. Hence, it is most likely that wars and conflicts will continue to last for as long as there is the desire to win. However, the future of conflicts is more perilous than it is at present. With new technologies in weaponry, cataclysmic scenarios are more likely in the future than they are in the present. For example, weapons of mass destruction are capable of decimating large populations at once. Unless there is the desire to end wars, the future of war – and indeed, the oldest form of civilization – is hanging precariously on a thin thread, a thread that could snap at the slightest disturbance. An obdurate persistence of one idea over another is enough trigger to set the stage for long-term chaos. It is extremely difficult to check the progress of such conflicts, especially when one party demands that the other party denounce its ideals.
Thoughts on Wars and Ideas
25 Sunday Jan 2009
Posted Uncategorized
in