I read it more than a few times. Not because I couldn’t understand but because it seemed a somewhat preposterous question. It was in the New York Times, well it was on my phone, and it read, “Israel Bombed an Iranian Embassy Complex. Is that Allowed?” The subheadline mentioned “international” law, and I began to think a lot about war and warfare.
To use the words of a famous American, war “is the worst thing people do to each other.” I have been immersed in the history of warfare for large parts of my life, professionally and personally. I have met and gotten to know hundreds of veterans. Based on what I have learned, I don’t think there is a better way to put it. War is grotesque and barbaric. It is always so. The wrong people die every day. We use words like non-combatants. Or collateral damage. Sometimes civilians. We mean women and children. We mean the elderly and the infant.
All this reminded me of an essay Ernest Hemingway authored in 1935. It appeared in Esquire Magazine titled “Notes on the Next War.” Among the ideas he expressed is this, “They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for ones country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.”
I found myself wondering why we seem to think that war, the pinnacle of human chaos, can be governed by laws and rules. It is the breakdown of all those things. It is unrealistic to think civility can have any real influence on the absolutely uncivilized. Then, there is the apparent reality: we go to war. We cannot shake it.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
George Santayana,"Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies" (1922)
I’ve come to think we’ve been marketed a myth about warfare: that it can be palatable and minimal. I don’t think it can be. Perhaps it shouldn’t be. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to minimize the suffering of the innocent. But we overstate our ability to do so. And in our overconfidence, we might make war more likely by thinking it governable.
The best-laid plans for a civilized engagement that limit unintended casualties are betrayed by the words of those who know war. Here are a few examples;
"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." — Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
"In war, truth is the first casualty." — Aeschylus
"War is organized chaos, where the best laid plans quickly fall apart in the face of the enemy’s will." — General James Mattis
The most pointed words are unattributed, but I have heard versions of this from many, "War is chaos and confusion. It is a realm of fear, where the only certainty is uncertainty." Given the nature of modern war and its omnipresence, perhaps we should be frank about the cost and suffering. Perhaps a more honest acceptance of what will come when war is waged will make war less likely.
The Industrial Age marked a transformative period in warfare. The scale of weapons production, combined with technological advances, including flight, dramatically altered the scale and scope of warfare. Prior to this era, wars were typically fought by relatively small professional or conscripted armies, and battles were often confined to specific fields or regions. You’ve seen the paintings.
Be sure. Civilian populations did suffer. A passing army would rape and pillage. However, even with the legend of figures like Genghis Khan in mind, the scale of human suffering was limited compared to what would come in the 20th century.
For reference, consider America’s Civil War; from 1861-1865, estimates put the civilian death toll at 50,000. In comparison, about 600,000 soldiers were killed. Or about one civilian for every 12 soldiers.
Pause now to remember statistics like these are always inaccurate, but note the trend as you continue reading.
For many, World War One was a tipping point in the evolution of warfare. Old and new collided. Mass formations of men met with machine guns; aircraft bombed horses. The scale of mobilization was unprecedented, as was the scale of suffering and death. I won’t let you forget that statistics can be a damnation to the truth, but the numbers are important. During World War One, there were about 40 million casualties. Of those, about half died. Of the dead, about half were civilians and the other half soldiers. Or about one civilian for every combatant.
World War One was dubbed “the war to end all wars.” That phrase is drenched in hopeful human hubris. It was first written as war broke out this way by HG Wells, “the war that will end war.” His hope, the defeat of militarism would lead to a change in how the world was governed. For his part, in 1928, Wells wrote a collection of essays published in book form as, "The Way the World is Going.” Summed up, Wells didn’t see things as going well. He believed a second world war was highly probable.
The scale of death and destruction exacted on humanity during World War Two is hard to comprehend. Globally, when considering all causes, combat, disease, and famine, the death estimates are as high as 80 million. Only about 15 million of these were combatants. For every soldier killed, roughly five civilians died.
Over 135,000 civilians perished in just two days during the firebombing of Dresden, Germany. On March 9, 1945, the firebombing of Tokyo killed an estimated 90,000 civilians in a single night. Major General Curtis LeMay, who commanded the forces on that raid, once said, "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."
A World War II veteran shared his experience of the liberation of Rome with me. The city was taken without resistance; the German forces had withdrawn, and the Allies entered unopposed. This veteran, among the first to arrive, recounted how the military leadership was concerned about potential chaos as thousands of troops, eager for relief from the tensions of war, flooded into Rome. To mitigate this, one of the first steps taken was to reopen the city's largest brothel.
This strategy was not unprecedented; in the days of sail, towns expecting British naval ships, knowing the sailors would be seeking outlets for their pent-up frustrations, would send ships laden with alcohol and prostitutes to meet them. The aim was to "defuse" some of the sailors' energy in a controlled environment. Intriguingly, the term "son of a gun" originated from these encounters. It was used for children born from such liaisons when the father's identity was unknown. Due to the lack of privacy on ships, intimate activities often took place under sheets draped over cannon barrels.
I also learned about a more somber practice from another soldier. His unit's approach to handling prisoners of war depended on the timing of their next mission. If time permitted, prisoners would be taken to, sometimes distant, collection points. However, if urgency demanded, the implied order was to deal with the prisoners swiftly, often meaning their execution, to avoid delaying the unit's movement. This was not unique to his experience, unit, or side. This is common in warfare.
With the end of World War Two and the dawn of nuclear warfare, things changed. The idea of large-scale conflict presented the possibility of annihilating humanity. This introduced the concept of a cold war. The Cold War is a deliciously deceptive name for the period of time from the end of World War Two to 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. There was very little fighting between US and Soviet forces. But the language used obscures the truth. It was hot warfare across the globe. Proxy Wars, covert operations, and more meant this war involving the primary combatants was actually fought by people cast as lessers.
Waged largely after the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sought to limit the barbarity of conflicts, The Cold War indirectly resulted in millions of casualties through various conflicts:
The Korean War, with approximately 2.5 to 3 million casualties.
The Vietnam War accounted for 1.3 to 4.2 million civilian and military deaths.
The Soviet-Afghan War led to around 1 million Afghan civilians and up to 150,000 combatants killed.
Conflicts in Africa, such as in Angola, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, caused millions of deaths, but precise figures are elusive. What does that tell you of the concerns about the lives at stake?
Latin American conflicts, including in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I'll leave the arithmetic of suffering during The Cold War to you. I guess you could argue it might have been worse without the Conventions.
The fall of the Soviet Union ended The Cold War, but a new era of conflict was already unfolding. I suppose it's right to call it the age of media war—I’ve seen it called the video game war. Live satellite feeds and TV-guided bombs brought us a new view. Most importantly, victory in the ‘90/’91 Gulf War was swift.
It all seemed so clean and simple.
The numbers: 292 coalition deaths, including 147 Americans. The Imperial War Museum says that between 20,000 and 35,000 Iraqi soldiers lost their lives during the ground war. Estimates suggest civilian casualties from the conflict range between 100,000 and 200,000.
The 1990s brought the War on Terror. The 1993 World Trade Center Attack, Khobar Towers, The USS Cole, and several US Embassy bombings. After the World Trade Center attacks of 2001, we further embraced the concept of special operations. Air power and particularly armed drones were also ever-present. But we elevated these special operators to a sort of superhero status.
Part of that is a worthy and deserved notion. Having met a number of men who earned green or maroon berets and tridents, I can confirm many are, in fact, super. Heroes. Intelligent, strong of mind and body, committed like few people I have ever met. But they are just people. Flesh and blood. We wrapped them in myth and mysticism. I fear that led many to think they were, in fact, invincible. But for all their success, we were steadily reminded of their limits. Relative superiority, when a small force appears stronger than others, is fleeting, and small forces who suffer an unplanned loss, like bad radio communications or a helicopter being shot down, can quickly find themselves battling for their lives in an unplanned fight. Twenty years of warfare exhibited the limits of limited warfare.
More than 940,000 individuals have perished from direct acts of war violence since 9/11. It is estimated that between 3.6 and 3.8 million deaths have occurred indirectly in the war zones associated with these conflicts. This brings the overall estimated death toll to approximately 4.5 to 4.7 million. The number is still rising.
I began by wondering if we’ve been marketed a myth about warfare. That it can be palatable and minimal. Controlled by the same sort of law and order we embrace in peace. I speculated that it can’t be, and perhaps it should only be executed in a way that accepts it as the depth of humanity. I hope to convey that when we hear those in suits talk about boots on the ground and proportional response, remember that they mean war and warfare. That will mean death and destruction beyond what was planned and hoped. Warfare, like the future, has its own power, and we are not able to resist.
Boots have feet in them.
Why we fight isn’t something I’ve touched on; the complex interplay of political, economic, and social factors. There are causes worth fighting, killing, and dying for. The freedoms we enjoy are not free. They are bought at a price—paid by past, present, and future generations. Nonetheless, we must always consider warfare as the last resort. When war becomes inevitable, it should be approached as a Machiavellian exercise: victory must be the paramount goal, with all other concerns secondary. However, it is crucial to remember that Machiavellian tactics are not solely about ruthlessness and brutality. Indiscriminate violence carries repercussions. Ideally, it is best to be both feared and loved. Even in victory, we must grapple with the moral consequences of the actions required for success.
I don’t say this lightly. I have seen the film and the photos and heard the stories. I’ve spent a day with people who lived the horror: Kim Phuc, Bud Day, and many others. In 2022, over 70 years after the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations asserted that 90% of the casualties in warfare were civilians. They called for greater efforts to protect the “innocent.” Noble and just, but I fear near impossible.
Like so much we think we control the dark reality of warfare exists in a realm outside human reason or real influence. It makes good people evil and destroys the bodies and minds of victor and vanquished. It ends lives while leaving the heart beating. When we hear talk of war, don’t fall for the notions of glory and heroism without remembering the chaos war creates. The chaos takes the innocent as quickly as the enemy. War seems as inevitable as the sunset and sunrise. We can’t shed it. But perhaps we can stop pretending it will be anything other than the worst we do to each other. Maybe that will make the next one just a little less likely.
“No catalogue of horrors ever kept men from war. Before the war you always think that it’s not you that dies. But you will die, brother, if you go to it long enough.”
Ernest Hemingway, “Notes on the Next War,” Esquire, September, 1935