End of Force

The evolution of war has culminated in a tragic cycle. Warfare is no longer the cessation of discussion or diplomacy but an exercise in force. War saves face, it promotes national interests, and it is now the cornerstone of foreign policy for the global superpower. New war is an industrial application. Essentially, war and armed conflicts, have transformed from honourable battles into traumatic experience for any it reaches.

Nations with the most international power and the largest military forces are, generally, richer, fatter, more decadent, and more reliant on technology for daily life. Technology defends, preoccupies, and controls the population. As a consequence, these people are less fit to survive without this technology. This reduced fitness is the hallmark of an age in which technology supercedes humanity. Humans, thus, serve the technology and its interests unquestionably.

The subordination of humanity and the evolution of warfare began with the industrialization of death and the Great War. Armoured vehicles, machine guns, massive artillery, and mustard gas were some of these early "innovations." Consequent to this leap forward in death engineering, people began to suffer post-traumatic stress, then called shellshock, as a testament to the devastating new forces of war.

The evolution of war continued throughout World War Two. This was achieved both in the air, with fighting aircraft, and on the air, with communications media such as radio. On the ground, it was achieved in armour and armament. This war was the most pervasive in history. It was a battle for land, for minds, and for ideals. Each side pushed for their own brand of justice. Fascist justice involved genocide, destruction, and an ethos and politics of superiority. Allied justice followed an ethos of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. How tragic and traumatic, that sixty years later, these same ideals would be subverted for so fascist a path.

On the Eastern front of this same war, advances in aerial warfare, mass communication, and armaments gave Allied forces a distinct advantage. Later, as the home islands of the Japanese empire burned with both conventional and atomic fire, it became clear the type of war that this had been. In contrast to the European theatre, the Pacific theatre of war was much more sterile. The war fought against Japan was one, not for ideals, but for punishment. American forces avoided integrating responsibility for actions during the war. Consequently, and in contrast to the experiences of the European powers, America has denied the pervasive trauma that comes with taking responsibility and maintained the rate of evolution of warfare that the rest of the world has declined.

The evolution of warfare throughout the post-1945 period is easily characterized by the growth of the American empire. America was given a head start on militarization, mechanization, and the advances of a post-industrial revolution. This was the virtue of being the only powerful nation not destroyed, in whole or in part, by World War Two. America engaged in military police actions, state interventions, conflicts, and secret wars. Each one was a meticulous example in denial, sparing the American people the trauma of the cost of their freedoms. The few realities that did surface in the public mind -- the Vietnam conflict, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Korean War -- were, simply, the largest instances of engagement. All of the others are not classed as "wars" by America, especially because the fight was against a "much weaker enemy." This pacified any latent sentiment for other humans in other places. The American Goliath could have no sentiment for David.

Further, the American empire exported the trauma of the experience abroad. Abroad, where all American fights have taken place, the next generation of weapons was employed: jet fighters, heavily armed helicopters, new chemical agents, and wireless communications systems. Powerful corporate forces used television to support the ends of the empire, manipulating television coverage of each conflict. The heavy trauma inflicted on the world as a result of the blind exportation of such violence only served to harden the world and to root an anti-American sentiment that, then as now, served as yet another threat.

The Vietnamese taught all who followed them that, to contest an overwhelming force, one must be willing to sacrifice all. It is in this sense of desperation that the tactics of contemporary guerilla warfare and modern terrorism were born. Massive forces could not be mounted for a frontal conflict. Warfare had to be conducted from within the subversive element. The "battle for hearts and minds" formed a new front.

The physical trauma remained abroad and, with a battle for hearts and minds, psychological warfare -- a cornerstone of the fascist doctrine -- had begun in earnest. With the realization that global anti-American sentiment was credible and veritable, the war machine started to lose its moral authority. Warfare began to take on its current guise, that of a private enterprise and conducted for profit.

Private security contracts and the militarization of the security sector are signs of a definite shift in the conduct of business. Big business, profitability, and private warfare have battle lines that are as blurred as those between corporate interests and national interests. If flags were still flown on battlefields it would only be fitting for them to near the logos of the corporate sponsors. The interests of warfare have changed. This is the new, modern face of warfare.

The greatest trauma of the evolution of warfare is the sacrifice of trust. Treaties, agreements, and the needs and desires of smaller members of the international community are constantly crushed by bean counters of heavyweight multinational corporations. Primarily, the international means of trust is vested in currency. Sacrifice of happiness, security, justice and other intangible values is a fiscally responsible thing to do. Humans are a second class to dollars.

To secure the illusion of supremacy, national security/corporate interests have combined with morally ambiguous authorities to engage a series of “much weaker enemies” in warfare. These interventions, battles, conflicts, or police actions -- entitled wars when serving a discrete purpose – are, now, political tools and economic necessities. Propaganda-laden media outlets sedate and spare the public. Above all, there is a paradoxical belief that the tools of war, now deadlier than ever, can protect us; this, at a time when explosives are standard issue weapons. The final analysis, the trauma experienced by a warrior in 2007 is exponentially greater than the warrior of 1914: physically, psychologically, socio-politically, morally, economically, and in the eyes of history. This trauma is spread to all humans, everywhere, as every person is touched by the consequence of warfare.

There are blessed few places in this world that are spared the trauma of contemporary warfare. Many of these places are veiled in the illusion of technological or geographic security. The occluded truth is that ANY determined individual, anywhere, can kill thousands at any moment. It is this that the war on terror seeks to win using war and trauma; the battle for every heart and mind on the planet, quashing dissent once and for all. As one alternative, humans might outlaw warfare and undertake a different sort of struggle, the one to sustain what fragile life there is.