Scale.

This is coolbert:

In my previous blog I have commented on the article, "The Origins of War". And stated that I was not at all satisfied with the author's explanations as to the origins of war. For a variety of reasons.

It just seems that being able to define what exactly is war is part of the problem.

Perhaps it is wise in this case to remind ourselves of De Puy's verity of combat # 13. "Combat is too complicated a subject to be described in an aphorism [simple statement of truth]".

[When De Puy is speaking of combat he is speaking about the tactics and aspects of the operational art that will achieve strategic goals on the battlefield and in war].

Perhaps De Puy's verity of combat # 13 can be also be reasonably restated as, "WAR is too complicated a subject to be described in an aphorism!"

Perhaps the textbook definition of war as being two groups of people using arms, each to trying to impose their will upon the other is just too broad? As would be the dictum of Clausewitz, "war is politics by other means."

Using this definition, blood feuds, skirmishes, cattle rustling could be categorized as war.

This is not war as modern people understand war. Moderns think of war as an army invading the territory of the foe, defeating the foe's army, occupying the foe's land, and breaking the will of the foe to resist further. This is war as moderns understand it. War as understood by moderns DOES seem to imply a large scale organization of society with a political structure that has a leadership that can command resources and dedicate themselves to goals that have finite and realistic aspect.

But, then, what is in to make of say what is occurring right now in the Congo? Factions of heavily armed men, usually but not exclusively so organized along tribal lines, have been waging what only be called war for a number of years now [ever since the Rwandan genocide of 1994]. It is reputed that MILLIONS of persons have been killed in this little reported "conflict". However, organization, strategy, plans, goals, leadership at a high political level just seems to be totally lacking here. And yet, can anyone deny that this is anything but WAR??

If, then, aphorisms and dictum do not suffice, what does??

Perhaps rather than just looking at war, we must look at the war AND peace as part of a continuum?

Perhaps the best vehicle for understanding this subtlety would be what I would call the war/peace polar opposite sliding scale continuum. [yeah, I know that is mouthful].

Such a continuum is analogous to the yin and yang of Chinese daoist philosophy. NOT a religion, more a philosophy of organizing phenomenon observed in nature to an understandable format. [white and black, hot and cold, tall and short, on and off, male and female, light and dark, etc.].

At one end of the continuum would be absolute peace. Never actually attained, but approached. Epitomized by the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Open borders, cultures with a large degree of commonality, amicable relationship at the highest levels of government, little competition between the societies, but rather cooperation.

At the other end of the continuum would be apocalyptic war as perhaps epitomized by a global thermonuclear weaponry exchange of catastrophic proportions between the U.S. and the old Soviet Union.

In between these two opposites lie a whole range of possibilities for war and peace.

One example of a relationship that lies in the peaceful end of the continuum is the relationship between the U.S. and Japan. A state of peace and relative amicability exists while the two nations are in a state of serious international economic competition. The slide on the continuum is moving here from the peaceful absolute to a less peaceful state, although not excessively so. No one would rationally suggest that the current peaceful international economic competition between the U.S. and Japan could develop into armed conflict.

An example of where the slide on the continuum has moved far from the peaceful absolute toward the polar opposite [war], was the forty five year "Cold War" between the U.S. and the old Soviet Union. Constant tension, as evidenced by hostile and incompatible ideologies, an arms race, diplomatic wrangling and threats, a constant barrage of propaganda, jostling under the sea by submarines, etc., all these are indicators of a hostile situation that could in very rapid pace have gone from "peace" to "hostile" to a state of extreme shooting war. Competition AND hostility here could reasonably have led to an armed conflict.

The war/peace polar opposite sliding continuum does allow for a much more nuanced understanding of conflict and war. Sees the situation and describes it more clearly.

coolbert.