Comments on: Peace Breaking Out All Over

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:16:26 +0000

Taiwan - depends on who is the gov. of the US and Taiwan, and the balance of military power. Right now Taiwan believes it could hurt China enough to delay it with a US Gov. that would intervene, and it has an pro-Taiwan President. In four years, hard to say. I see Taiwan culturally becoming more and more Taiwanese each year with increasingly democratic. Does China really want a true democracy to join it?

By: HerbEly

HerbEly — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:53:58 +0000

War is Declining: Part V

Outside the Beltway has a comprehensive posting on the decline of warfare over the past 20 years. For the moment, post Jame's Joyner's comment and add one of my own. Joyner summarizes the discussion:Mack and Bay are onto something with

By: jimbo

jimbo — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:14:38 +0000

Don't discount democracy and rising standards of living. This doesn't mean that poverty causes war, but when you depend on public opinion, the degree to which the public has something to lose or gain economically plays a part. A test case might be China and Taiwan. As China becomes more prosperous, even if not democratic, will the regime be willing to risk all out war over Taiwan? If China offered Taiwan a choice between certain invasion or reunification while keeping their economy as Hong Kong did, what would the Taiwanese choose?

By: ken

ken — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:04:31 +0000

Even though modern wars are fought with greater precision and far fewer casualties than their predecessors of even a quarter century ago, the Western public is increasingly hostile to war and its consequences. Seeing them unfold live and in color in their living rooms is surely a major contributing factor to that.

I think you give too little credit to peoples moral sense. In a just war civilian casualties are bad but understood as an unavoidable part of the fight. But in a war without justification civilian casualites become inexcusable, morally speaking.

By: DaveD

DaveD — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:42:38 +0000

As you've quoted, Malik's article suggests that the end of the Cold War is allowing the UN to better fulfull its destiny. Malik's article suggests that, more and more, the UN is arbitrating peaceful settlements to conflicts. I think this is perhaps a little naive, though. I ask how many countries are necessary for the world to achieve peace? For example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union we have seen the emergence of new (or long forgotten) countries whose geographic borders are established along ethnic lines. Yugoslavia is an example. It may be easier to broker a peace once everyone has gotten a piece of something. My local paper this morning had an article discussing how the Kurds in the Iraqi security forces would not hesitate to break ranks and fight against their Shi-ite comrades for an independent Kurdistan if the senior tribal leaders in the north of Iraq give the word. I am not so sure the UN could broker a comfortable peace until the Kurds have enough of what they feel is their own. The ethnic memory of these groups go back many, many centuries.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:06:45 +0000

Exactly---how clever of us to invade a country with such staying power!

More seriously, I am happy to see Saddam ousted, but think that it was for the Iraqis to do for themselves, possibly with the U.S. providing some mujahadeen-style assistance to the Shias. Probably we should've supported their rebellion in '91; bad call on Scowcroft's part.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:43:55 +0000

The major combat phase in Iraq took 21 days and toppled a brutal dictator. What we've had since has been, for all practical purposes, an internal war.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:40:40 +0000

Well, given this peace epidemic, the invasion of Iraq is looking better and better. Where will the U.S. stamp out peace next? The Onion, Jan. 2001:

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years. "You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

By: Running Scared

Running Scared — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:16:09 +0000

Is Peace the "New War" for this century? Be sure to stop by James Joyner's joint today for a long look at the question of whether or not traditional, full-scale war between nations is waning and very nearly a thing of the past. Joy...