Gedachten
Saturday, June 05, 2004
the Utilitarianism of War by Liberal Democracies
There has been much talk about the war in Iraq lately, and about whether or not such a war was 'justified', and its chances of 'success'. This is hardly surprising, as all wars tend to bring out the strongest forms of anxiety in people, and besides, this is part of a new development in geopolitical relations, known as the "war on terror". However, it is important to consider that while 'justification' and 'success' are the key words when describing worldwide public attitude to a given war, both terms seem rather vague. The following describes the most amoral and utilitarian way to make a given war seem just and succesful to the people. Even the most liberal minded democratic governments will make use of these techniques to curry favor among the populace, and as a form of subtle propaganda. To be able to see through this ruse, understanding of its mechanics is crucial.
Fact is, all propaganda and nationalism aside, an informed or even half-informed public will only accept a war when it is both justified and succesful. However much opinions on what these terms mean may vary, these factors must always be present. Wars that, in the public eye, are considered just but unsuccesful, like the US incursion into Vietnam, fail. Wars that are succesful but considered unjust by many, like the French crushing of the Algerian rebellion, also fail.
Of course, in many nations the leaders have little regard or interest in public opinion, and this will not prevent their waging of wars. Whenever that is the case, an unjust war can be fought for much longer than an unsuccesful one. The Soviet leadership easily got away with invading East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia after each subsequent uprising, but the failed war in Afghanistan contributed significantly to the fall of the USSR. This is also why dictators like Saddam generally prefer to invade countries like Kuweit over invading countries like Iran if they want to stay in power; they can get away with unjust aggression, but only if they are very succesful. So the obvious solution for them is to aggress against smaller, weaker neighbors (and not make the mistake of choosing places that are within the direct sphere of interest of a group of much larger and much more powerful nations).
For democracies and free nations, however, this is not quite as easy, as they have to follow both requirements. Their only way out, short of being perfect and fighting only just and easy wars (if those even exist), is to use the fact that these values are subjective. If they want to wage a war and a succesful post-war stage, like in Iraq, they have to make the public consider the casus belli just and the war itself succesful, regardless of the actual circumstances.
Making the war look just is the easier part of the two. This requires obvious tools, like propaganda decrying the evils of the enemy in the war, explaining why it is the holy and eternal task of the country to be the one fighting that enemy, and encouraging everyone to give public support to the troops of the country in their fight against evil.
However, making a war look succesful is less easy.
Infamous about the Vietnam war are the pictures in Time magazine depicting the dead of the past week. Pictures of bodybags returning from Somalia made the incursion a recipe for failure. So the obvious thing to do is to get the media on your side. Now in most liberal democratic countries, the freedom of expression of citizens and the social status of journalists prohibit effective propaganda feeds to the media. So the best thing to do is exactly the opposite: cooperate with the media as much as possible, offer them scoops and inside views, and give press conferences as much as possible. In return, strike a deal with the editors of newspapers and magazines that in exchange for the valuable information, the news will be presented in a way that is as positive for the government waging the war as possible. Of course most editors will reject outright propagandist slants for reasons of morality, so the best a government can do in such a situation is to both bribe them in exchange for the information, and appeal to their patriotism and national feelings. This will not guarantee positive news but will certainly prevent the opposite. To add some extra pressure, every newspaper or news program that does not strike this deal must be refused any and all insider information and government cooperation.
With the support of the media making a war look succesful (or at least making it look like it's as succesful as could be expected), and with appeals to patriotism among the citizens of the country and a clear depiction of evil presenting imminent danger making the war look just, a democratic government is in the best position possible to wage wars of any kind against anyone they want, as long as their military power can sustain it. This has been utilized since Ancient times, when populist generals like Gaius Iulius (later known as Julius Caesar) could effectively channel the feelings of the populace towards any one target they wanted, which allowed them to defeat possible opponents outside the realm and all the while look like the undisputed heroic leaders within the realm. Later dictators, Emperors and Presidents have been able to use the same techniques, (relatively) liberal establishments notwithstanding.
