What is about war? What is it that triggers millions of soldiers lose their lives fighting? What is it about the power of one man to bring a nation to war with another? All these have been cliched questions oft discussed, but never answered satisfactorly to ever since time unknown......
The questions seem to find increasing relevance again, in such a war torn world today. More so in the American context. Since the end of the "great" war, by the end of late 40s, the wars that America has been engaging its soldiers in, has been very different from the conventional reasons that history has known. While its true that every time troops are mobilized to some distant land far from the political boundaries defining this country, threat to national security is cited, its difficult to believe that thousands of fully trained soldiers lose their lives fighting what is actually somebody else's war.Take vietnam, afganisthan(the one that created taliban first), somalia,gulf war 1 then and 2 now.... In all these cases, troops are engaged into mind numbing battles based on the whims and fancies of one individual......
Take an Indian soldier for instance(we are discussing india here, only because thats the only army from a democratically controlled country that I know a little about). The battles that he fights are those where he sees a direct threat to his own country. Its easier to put a group of soldiers into combat, when they are convinced into believing that their motherland is under foreign attack. Further, an Indian soldier is almost always within or at the political boundaries of his country. I do agree that some army units are engaged in UN peace keeping efforts elsewhere, but we are not talking about them here. In case of US, however, the story is different. There has been no attack on the mainland since its formation. Of course, 9/11 did happen, but that is only a single isolated incident by a terrorist who got extremely lucky with his plan.
But the point of the matter is that, how is it that the American policy makers, convince an ordinary soldier into fighting in foreign lands, to sort out someone else's problems? Take the Somalia issue for example.Or even the Vietnam war. America politburo, in each case, see a particular man getting powerful. And this power was orienting towards the other end of the then bi-polar world. So, they try to take rise internal disturbances, and offer military support to restore normalcy (at least this is how its widely perceived in the world, the truth of the matter would however be always under contention). While it maybe possible that military generals are fully aware of the real intentions of sending troops to such war torn places, what about the soldier on the battleground? Wouldnt he be ever wondering who the real enemy is? Under such circumstances, would the soldier consider it respectable to die in such a battle (which in normal circumstances is a moment of glory for him?)
It is interesting to wonder, that in every conflict the US offers support or tries to intervene, what would have happened if it never did, in the first place? Every time, the only answer is that the intervention was necessary to prevent further damage. But, did the damage really stop? Or did it only get worse? Applying the laws of thermodynamics, any system would always tend towards a region of minimum internal energy when left to itself(it may take time, but it is bound to return to a "good" state). An external force would only push it further away from this region. Military support, I believe is just this. In any case, military action can only make matters worse.
It is also interesting to see where the two largest democracies now stand in terms of military might they exert over their regions of political clout. While on one hand, we have had crazy people taking up presidencies (and then subsequently plunging their troops into wars that were not their own), on the other, it has always been an extremely dormant and weak government unable to plug the continuous acts of violence that the country it rules,was being subjected to. Both have their drawbacks. And both need to learn lessons from each other. India, should learn to take strong decisions when the situation calls for. US, for its own good, should stop thrusting so much power on a single individual.
The questions seem to find increasing relevance again, in such a war torn world today. More so in the American context. Since the end of the "great" war, by the end of late 40s, the wars that America has been engaging its soldiers in, has been very different from the conventional reasons that history has known. While its true that every time troops are mobilized to some distant land far from the political boundaries defining this country, threat to national security is cited, its difficult to believe that thousands of fully trained soldiers lose their lives fighting what is actually somebody else's war.Take vietnam, afganisthan(the one that created taliban first), somalia,gulf war 1 then and 2 now.... In all these cases, troops are engaged into mind numbing battles based on the whims and fancies of one individual......
Take an Indian soldier for instance(we are discussing india here, only because thats the only army from a democratically controlled country that I know a little about). The battles that he fights are those where he sees a direct threat to his own country. Its easier to put a group of soldiers into combat, when they are convinced into believing that their motherland is under foreign attack. Further, an Indian soldier is almost always within or at the political boundaries of his country. I do agree that some army units are engaged in UN peace keeping efforts elsewhere, but we are not talking about them here. In case of US, however, the story is different. There has been no attack on the mainland since its formation. Of course, 9/11 did happen, but that is only a single isolated incident by a terrorist who got extremely lucky with his plan.
But the point of the matter is that, how is it that the American policy makers, convince an ordinary soldier into fighting in foreign lands, to sort out someone else's problems? Take the Somalia issue for example.Or even the Vietnam war. America politburo, in each case, see a particular man getting powerful. And this power was orienting towards the other end of the then bi-polar world. So, they try to take rise internal disturbances, and offer military support to restore normalcy (at least this is how its widely perceived in the world, the truth of the matter would however be always under contention). While it maybe possible that military generals are fully aware of the real intentions of sending troops to such war torn places, what about the soldier on the battleground? Wouldnt he be ever wondering who the real enemy is? Under such circumstances, would the soldier consider it respectable to die in such a battle (which in normal circumstances is a moment of glory for him?)
It is interesting to wonder, that in every conflict the US offers support or tries to intervene, what would have happened if it never did, in the first place? Every time, the only answer is that the intervention was necessary to prevent further damage. But, did the damage really stop? Or did it only get worse? Applying the laws of thermodynamics, any system would always tend towards a region of minimum internal energy when left to itself(it may take time, but it is bound to return to a "good" state). An external force would only push it further away from this region. Military support, I believe is just this. In any case, military action can only make matters worse.
It is also interesting to see where the two largest democracies now stand in terms of military might they exert over their regions of political clout. While on one hand, we have had crazy people taking up presidencies (and then subsequently plunging their troops into wars that were not their own), on the other, it has always been an extremely dormant and weak government unable to plug the continuous acts of violence that the country it rules,was being subjected to. Both have their drawbacks. And both need to learn lessons from each other. India, should learn to take strong decisions when the situation calls for. US, for its own good, should stop thrusting so much power on a single individual.
