Should We Give War A Chance?
Should the international community get involved to stop civil wars and ethnic conflicts? Inspired by the seemingly-intractable civil war in Iraq and the ongoing conflict in Palestine, an increasing number of academics are arguing that international involvement to end humanitarian crises is not always a good thing. Instead, they suggest, allowing violence to continue is sometimes a necessary evil to establishing a long-term peace.
Edward Luttwak, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has long advocated such a policy of non-intervention. In a Foreign Affairs article in 1999, he wrote:
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.
His theory is essentially that if we allow civil/ethnic wars to continue unhindered, one or both sides of the dispute will eventually “burn out” or be defeated, leading to a more sustainable and lasting peace. Luttwak, as far as I understand, has been advocating this approach for over a decade. During the 1999 conflict in the Balkans, for example, Luttwak argued for a policy of non-intervention, preferring instead to allow both sides free reign to attack each other.
Just a few days ago, in an article in The New York Times, Luttwak again decided to step in to the spotlight and advocate this strategy, this time towards Iraq. His argument? Let the civil war rage. Only through bloodshed will the conflict be resolved.
But does this theory make any sense? I respond to this question in a post at Foreign Policy Watch.
3 Responses to “Should We Give War A Chance?”
I’m not quite sure how I would address this–I tend to be rather isolationist, but that’s just personal preference as opposed to a well-defined policy.
I think it’s a good to keep in mind that both non-intervention and humanitarian intervention can be a “necessary evil”. The former may allow killing to go unchecked; the latter may also result in killing, as “humanitarian” interventions usually involved armed troops…and these weapons frequently get used.
Dave Schraub (I think that’s who it was) had a piece on this a while ago here in TMV. I think he felt bad about leaving his normal opinion on war in general, but frustration, like pain, is a harsh teacher.
Well Iraq is different in that it was not a spontaneous civil war. We removed their dictator, but also their police and other civic bodies that kept what peace and order there was under Saddam’s rule. Also, Iran is in a good position to make southern Iraq,with its oil fields, into Western Iran if given enough time and leeway. What we are seeing is the creation of a large power vacuum, and the resultant bloodshed of the region to fill that vacuum. I don’t think it would end as clearly or cleanly as Luttwak might have intended in the case of a naturally occuring civil war.