The thing is, states where the military has effectively insulated itself from civilian control have pretty consistent records of awful decision-making. The classic examples of this are Germany, 1871-1919 and Japan 1920-1945. 4/14
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Gat spends quite a lot of time on the reasons which impel humans to war and what he comes up with are essentially political concerns: access to land, resources, mates and security. Classic grand-strategy statecraft stuff. Even in very early societies.
It's easy to see it all as feuds and vendettas, but 1) it isn't, and 2) even the feuds and vendettas are actually strategic and policy oriented, aimed at establishing and maintaining credibility in an environment where a reputation for fierceness is the only form of deterrence.
-
-
Weird, I interpreted him as saying the causes are NOT political. A guy killing another guy over a woman is not, on my understanding, a political act. People are impelled to violence by evolved psychological motives. Gat’s take is that the ultimate causes of war are these, no?
-
But then he gets into the 'web of desire' and we see rank, status, prestige, honour, retaliation to eliminate and deter and he's well into the sets of motivations we would understand as politics.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.