BroadSnark

Let’s set aside for just a moment the horrors of war.  Ignore the cost in human lives, the suffering, the destruction.  Ignore the repercussions that are felt for generations.  And let’s ignore any debates about what it means to declare “victory” in a place like Iraq, where people continue to fight and die long after we supposedly won.  Ignore questions about whether or not there can ever be a winner when millions die.  Ignore all of that and just ask yourself this:

How do you win a war?

You win a war through strategy.   You win a war by controlling supply chains and by having access to more energy (oil).  You win a war by controlling transportation and mastering communications.  You win a war by having more people on your side.  You win a war by propaganda.  You win a war by being willing to keep fighting after your opponent has quit.

In other words, you win a war by being smarter.

People who scoff at the idea of non-violence do not stop to consider whether or not the side willing to be the most violent and ruthless is the side that wins in a war. If they did stop to think about it, they would have a difficult time making the argument that England was more ruthless than Germany in WWII or that the colonists were more ruthless than the English in the American revolutionary war.

The reason military strategists study prior wars and battles is to learn tactics.  The reason that our military focuses so much on psychological operations is because they know that force is often impossible.  The government needed to trick us in order to get people to support invading Iraq.  The military strategy in Iraq is to “win hearts and minds” because they can only stop fighting if the citizens of Iraq let them.

So if wars are won through strategy, through tactics, through smarts – and not through ruthless violence – why not focus on the strategy without the violence?