The following has been inspired by a paper written by Edward Luttwak, 1999.
An unpleasant truth often overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. Either way the key is that the fighting must continue until a resolution is reached. War brings peace only after passing a culminating phase of violence. Hopes of military success must fade for accommodation to become more attractive than further combat.
Since the establishment of the United Nations and the enshrinement of great-power politics in its Security Council, however, wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural course. Instead, they have typically been interrupted early on, before they could burn themselves out and establish the preconditions for a lasting settlement. Cease-fires and armistices have frequently been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting.
Cease-fires enforced by the United Nations arrest war-induced exhaustion and lets belligerents re-arm. This intensifies and prolongs the struggle once the cease-fire ends. This was the case during the Arab-Israeli War, which may have drawn to an end in a matter of weeks instead of a year had two cease-fires not been ordained by the Security Council, which allowed the combatants to recuperate.
The most disinterested of all interventions in war - and most destructive – are humanitarian relief operations. The UN’s humanitarian relief departments were established after the Arab-Israeli War, and have created a refugee nation. By keeping post-WWII European refugees in Spartan conditions the Red Cross et al encouraged rapid emigration or local resettlement and helped disperse revanchist national groups. UN refugee camps in the Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip provided, on the whole, a better standard of living than most Arab villages could offer. The camps thus became more desirable places to live, as opposed to eagerly abandoned transit camps. They turned escaping civilians into lifelong refugees whose descendents are also refugees.
Lastly, but not least, proliferating, feverishly competitive non-governmental organisations perpetuate the refugee problem. Like any institutions, these NGOs are interested in sustaining themselves, which means their first priority is to attract charitable contributions by being seen to be active in high-visibility situations. War refugees can win significant press coverage if concentrated in reasonably accessible camps. To keep refugee nations intact and preserve their resentments forever is bad enough, but inserting material aid into an ongoing conflict is even worse. Many NGOs that operate in an odour of sanctity routinely supply active combatants. Defenceless, they cannot exclude armed warriors from their feeding stations, clinics and shelters. Sometimes NGOs, impartial to a fault, even help both sides, thus preventing mutual exhaustion and resulting settlement.
An unpleasant truth often overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. Either way the key is that the fighting must continue until a resolution is reached. War brings peace only after passing a culminating phase of violence. Hopes of military success must fade for accommodation to become more attractive than further combat.
Since the establishment of the United Nations and the enshrinement of great-power politics in its Security Council, however, wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural course. Instead, they have typically been interrupted early on, before they could burn themselves out and establish the preconditions for a lasting settlement. Cease-fires and armistices have frequently been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting.
Cease-fires enforced by the United Nations arrest war-induced exhaustion and lets belligerents re-arm. This intensifies and prolongs the struggle once the cease-fire ends. This was the case during the Arab-Israeli War, which may have drawn to an end in a matter of weeks instead of a year had two cease-fires not been ordained by the Security Council, which allowed the combatants to recuperate.
The most disinterested of all interventions in war - and most destructive – are humanitarian relief operations. The UN’s humanitarian relief departments were established after the Arab-Israeli War, and have created a refugee nation. By keeping post-WWII European refugees in Spartan conditions the Red Cross et al encouraged rapid emigration or local resettlement and helped disperse revanchist national groups. UN refugee camps in the Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip provided, on the whole, a better standard of living than most Arab villages could offer. The camps thus became more desirable places to live, as opposed to eagerly abandoned transit camps. They turned escaping civilians into lifelong refugees whose descendents are also refugees.
Lastly, but not least, proliferating, feverishly competitive non-governmental organisations perpetuate the refugee problem. Like any institutions, these NGOs are interested in sustaining themselves, which means their first priority is to attract charitable contributions by being seen to be active in high-visibility situations. War refugees can win significant press coverage if concentrated in reasonably accessible camps. To keep refugee nations intact and preserve their resentments forever is bad enough, but inserting material aid into an ongoing conflict is even worse. Many NGOs that operate in an odour of sanctity routinely supply active combatants. Defenceless, they cannot exclude armed warriors from their feeding stations, clinics and shelters. Sometimes NGOs, impartial to a fault, even help both sides, thus preventing mutual exhaustion and resulting settlement.
