Why War Is Inevitable: Part I
There is really no need to rattle off a bunch of the same abstract numbers that have been barraging us for decades from every news medium in sight. CRIME IS UP! Wow! Big news! “Thanks a lot for telling us that, dude, otherwise we would never have figured that one out!”
Ok, ok, so you knew that already.
However, you may not realize the underlying reason for the rise in crime rates.
Of course, in sociology as in most other fields of study, it is virtually impossible to ascertain and associate a single cause to just about anything, but in this particular case there seems to be a very valid and vivid correlation which for some unfathomable reason, seems to have evaded the sociologists, anthropologists, law and order crowd, and just about everyone else.
Crime is up because war is down.
Warfare is an essential mammalian-human tribal tenet. It is essential to our existence, it is part and parcel of our lives, it is an inseparable part of the texture of what we are. If war was eliminated, we would be just as likely to flourish on this earth if we decided to pass legislation outlawing hearts and set armies of surgeons out to excise each one. The pacifists can point to utopian ideals and futures of love and kindness all they want, but the bottom line will always be that somewhere, someone will be butchering someone else. It has always been that way and it always will be.
The history of this race is a history of war interspersed with statistically insignificant periods of sporadic, geographically isolated accidents of peace. It is virtually ridiculous to listen to the morally indignant critics expressing their outrage that just months from the millennium, right in the heart of civilized Europe, mass graves with the bodies of dead children and elderly people were dug in the shadow of rape hotels where the soldiers came to relieve their combat tensions on captive Kosovar women.
Why should this era be any different from all the ones that came before? Why should human warriors today be held to a different standard simply because they no longer hold a splintered bone, but an AK-47?
What has changed? Nothing. And nothing ever will.
Every single effort made to contain the Kosovar conflict, the Zimbabwean regime, or similar ones in this century, simply spark others. It is like trying to keep a dozen tennis balls submerged in a tub of water with one hand. You hold this one down, but the one next to it pops up.
We cannot end war. We can transform it, re-position it, re-define it, re-name it, modify it all we want but it will still be war. The attempt to place restrictions, to impose the codex of the Rules of War is absurd in every possible description. There is only one Rule of War: Kill the enemy. That is the only rule that there has ever been and the only rule that will ever be. We can sanitize this rule, clothe it in the most politically-correct manner imaginable, but the essence will still be there. Kill the enemy.
It seems to stagger the “Western” mind to consider that, just to quote a single example, war criminals indicted by the International Tribunal in The Hague are cheered, cherished and protected in their homelands. “We” cannot understand that. “We” cannot conceive that these people are not acknowledged to be the brutal butchers who massacred countless innocents. Therefore, “we” jump to the woefully inaccurate conclusion that their compatriots have been misled by government propaganda and therefore have no knowledge of the actions of these warriors.
What century are “we” living in?
Is it not completely obvious to the most naive observer that government propaganda can no longer exist as an effective means of controlling the information stream to a population at large? Do “we” not realize that these supposedly “propaganda victims” are spending as much or even more time tuned to CNN on satellite or surfing the Internet than in reviewing their own government-controlled news channels?
They have access to all sides of the story, and they have made a conscious decision to back their own.
Therefore when the subject turns to some particular war criminal who has committed countless violations of human decency, murdering, massacring and raping hundreds of women and children, the response becomes:
“He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s OUR son of a bitch!”
The actions were taken as a part of the tribe, to protect the tribe, against the outsider. Women and children? Well, they were part of the enemy tribe. It’s either us or them. That justifies it all. Indeed it goes several steps beyond justification, all the way to glorification. This man stood up, and while the rest of us huddled like sheep in our safe enclaves, he took an active step at the risk of his own life to butcher enemies on our behalf. To save our culture and security and way of life. He is not a criminal. He is a hero. He deserves glorification.
The glorification of the warrior is a necessary element of the culture of war. It is necessary to bestow honors upon the warrior, not only to show the respect of the tribe, but also to encourage the next generation of warriors to keep on protecting the tribe.
We do not need to visit the jungles or savannas of our world to realize that most tribal rituals center around the preparation and honoring of warriors. The warriors are the ones that protect the tribe from outsiders. They are the ones that free up resources used by enemy tribes. They are the ones that ravish and kill and pillage others to maintain the safety and security of their own people. A warrior has as his ultimate goal the preservation of his tribe. The concept of the turncoat warrior who turns against his own people triggers such rabid revulsion in the base of our mammalian-human souls that to be called a traitor is still one of the most significant insults. Therefore all possible steps must be taken to secure the training and loyalty of the warriors, ensuring that they are skilled, effective, disciplined, reliable, patriotic killers.