SYRIA

Why do nations go to war?

 
 
300 dpi SW Parra color illustration of dove with olive branch sitting on lit bomb "egg" in nest. The Fresno Bee 2007<p>

hatching peace illustration bomb middle east terror dove olive branch diplomatic diplomacy war bird nest krtpolitics politics, krtwar, krtworld world, krtworldnews, paz ave bomba nidal guerra terrorismo aspecto aspectos ilustracion grabado, 2007, krt2007, krt, mctillustration, parra fr contributor coddington mct mct2007 2007
300 dpi SW Parra color illustration of dove with olive branch sitting on lit bomb "egg" in nest. The Fresno Bee 2007

hatching peace illustration bomb middle east terror dove olive branch diplomatic diplomacy war bird nest krtpolitics politics, krtwar, krtworld world, krtworldnews, paz ave bomba nidal guerra terrorismo aspecto aspectos ilustracion grabado, 2007, krt2007, krt, mctillustration, parra fr contributor coddington mct mct2007 2007

MCT / MCT

Elblogdemontaner.com

Two serious falsehoods about war, very hard to uproot, are embedded in the minds of people.

The first is about motivation. Why do the powerful go to war? The most frequent explanation is that they want to seize another country’s resources.

In reality, that’s almost never true. For it to be true, it would be necessary for those nations to be governed by elites or leaders intent on improving the collective quality of life by means of bloody and costly actions unleashed against other peoples.

That may have been true when humans lived in caves and hunted in small groups, but not when the species evolved, developed agriculture and created the bases of modern societies.

It is absurd to think that the United States went to war in Iraq to seize the oil. The war in Iraq has already cost the American taxpayers $784 billion. If we add the Afghan conflict, the price tag exceeds $1 trillion.

That figure is higher than the cost of the Korean War at current prices. To buy energy from Iraq and resell it is what oil companies do. It is good business for everyone. To seize it through firepower is unaffordable.

To intervene in Syria to plunder that country would be, in addition to a crime, supreme folly. Syria exports fewer than 150,000 barrels of oil a day, and its annual per-capita income is barely $3,400. It is a very poor society, badly managed.

The notion that the motivation of Washington or Paris is to steal the few belongings of that dusty corner of the Middle East is absurd. It would be like killing a blind beggar to steal the pencils he sells.

If the United States wanted to seize a very rich oil-producing country, it could turn north to Canada, but no one in his right mind would consider such madness.

The second falsehood is that wars are useful to energize the economy, which even some famous people subscribe to. Fortunately, others like Nobel Economics Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz don’t, and he’s right.

In addition to annihilating thousands of people, wars destroy material property, pulverize infrastructures, provoke inflation, inhibit the formation of capital and perversely assign the available resources.

It is possible for arms manufacturers and merchants to enrich themselves, but that happens at the cost of pauperizing 99 percent of the country’s productive fabric. The money spent to build an aircraft carrier is enough to start up 5,000 enterprises that can generate wealth and create jobs.

It is absurd to think that the recruitment of soldiers is a reasonable way to contribute to full employment. The ideal is not to have a society with millions of uniformed people who produce no goods or appreciable services but to have a dense and diversified entrepreneurial apparatus with millions of productive workers. Switzerland has become the world’s richest country by avoiding wars, not by participating in them.

John Maynard Keynes thought that World War II had contributed to end the Depression caused by the Crash of 1929, but his confusion was likely due to the fact that he didn’t have adequate information.

When the United States entered that conflict, 12 years had passed since the start of the crisis and the world was in full recovery. To think that the war helped to strengthen the U.S. economy is like thinking that the earthquake that devastated San Francisco in 1906 or that Hurricane Katrina, which in 2005 flooded New Orleans and killed 1,831 people, helped revitalize the country’s general economic picture.

So, if wars are so bad, and if in reality almost no one benefits, why do leaders resort to them? The answer must be found in the complex human psyche.

Leaders go to war for obscure reasons concealed behind eloquent moral and patriotic speeches, for power and glory, for the pleasure of ruling, for ideological daydreams, for arbitrary constructions — theoretical and strategic — that almost always turn out wrong, for avenging wrongs, because of religious, political or ethnic superstitions, or to defend themselves from some aggression. It’s the strangeness of human nature.

Read more Carlos Alberto Montaner stories from the Miami Herald

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category