The Folly of War is a Statistical Fact

"Peace will NEVER be the answer"

...is the title of a post on this site arguing against the anti-war position. Stunning to see set out as such a bold conclusion, isn't it? When I first saw it my jaw actually dropped.

Forget the fact that it neatly parallels such reversals of common sense understanding that are endemic in today's Republican party (new air-standard policies gutting clean air regulations are tagged "Clean Skies"; giving logging industry access to old-growth forests is policy creating "Healthy Forests" and of course, questioning abuse of power is Unpatriotic, Treason, Anti-American...ho-hum...but all that is fodder for another post).

No, "Peace will never be the answer" deserves it's own post. Going on, the writer states:

I've always taken umbrage with the anti-war protesters cloaking themselves under the flawed premise that if they seek pacifism and do not favor war, they somehow are more in favor of peace than us "warmongerers."

William Shawcross recently opined upon such in the LA Times.

For once, I urge one liberal to explain to me, with facts (not with relativism, legalities and their hearts) where this presented rationale is flawed. I await breathlessly. I'm sure I will wait awhile.

Hmmm...I thought, I know that statement is flawed...the 400 year war between England and Ireland immediately rushed to mind (there was a failure if ever there was). Not more than 5 mintues later a Google search returned a most fascinating online "book": KNOWING THE ROOTS OF WAR; Analyses and Interpretations of Six Centuries of Warfare (Collected Papers), Frank H. Denton, 2003.

Denton writes (in part):

This paper is the core of the study of Knowing the Roots of war. It evolved from the original subject of investigation – the study of the making of foreign affairs decisions in government. Pursuing that aim I found patterns in these data that on first discovery were extremely hard to believe.

Across all time periods, in all types of governments, for any power relationships other than big/small, the party making the decision to go to war, that is firing the first shot in a war, has for two hundred years had less than a fifty-fifty success rate, often much less, in achieving its objectives in firing that first shot. Time-after-time, year-after-year, conflict after conflict, political leaders took decisions to initiate wars in which they failed to achieve their objectives. Based on a listing of 500 incidents of warfare that took place in a two century interval this provides a hard to dispute validation of Barbara Tuchman’s statement in the first paragraphs of The March of Folly.

A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of almost any other human activity. In this sphere, wisdom...is less operative and more frustrated than it should be. Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not to function?

Why did successive ministries of George III insist on coercing rather than conciliating the American colonies though repeatedly advised by many counselors that the harm done must be greater than any possible gain? Why did Charles XII and Napoleon and successively Hitler invade Russia despite the disasters incurred by each predecessor?

Former Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara makes a saddened assertion in his memoirs of the Vietnam War build-up that is strangely similar to Tuchman’s:

Readers must wonder by now...how presumably intelligent, hardworking and experienced officials-both civilian and military-failed to address systematically and thoroughly questions whose answers so deeply affected the lives of our citizens and the welfare of our nation.

There is perhaps no better way of stating the results found here than to assert that Folly Marches Onward.

--snip--

The data I do have show that wars are commonly started that do not produce intended results, as often as three cases in four the initiator of violence fails. Digging further it is also shown that wars do not normally resolve the conflicts that brought on the violence. The prospects for re-fighting a war within a generational time period are very high. Wars are often even fought for a third time.

Extending the data some, I was able to produce indirect evidence as to a possible partial explanation for this pattern of failed decisions. It is not the direct evidence used in determining success rates, Rather, I used indirect indications to suggest that attaining the moral high ground is extremely important in the successful use of violence and that perhaps being attacked tends to give one an initial position on a moral peak, relative to the aggressor/initiator, accounting for some of the poor performance shown by aggressors.

So, righteous wars do a bit better. Hmmm--going into Afghanistan--righteous. Invading Iraq...take a guess.