The Culture of War describes the psychology behind war and how most common perceptions of war are incorrect. War is something that nearly all people at all times in history have enjoyed and wanted to engage in. The most outspoken pacifists often become the biggest proponents of war when the opportunity to fight arrives. Martin van Creveld is one of the best military historians in the world and he does a good job drawings lessons about mankind from his vast array of experience.
The section of the book which I found most interesting was Section Five: Contrasts. In this section van Creveld describes how the culture of war can broken down in a society. This does not mean that people don't fight any more--that will never happen--it means that the rules and traditions governing combat are destroyed. He desribes four ways that this can occur: two of them were particularly interesting to me.
- The Wild Horde: All discipline breaks down and so an army warriors or a society dissolves into a unruly mob which is only capable of pillaging not winning battles. Peasant revolts are an example of this.
- The Soulless Machine: Here the culture surrounding war becomes more important than war itself and hinders the army in combat. This can come from placing too much importance on traditions or deciding that war itself is something to be avoided. The first case happened in Germany before its defeats to Napoleon and the second happened in Germany after World War II.
- Men Without Chests: Here men begin to look down on themselves and refuse to defend themselves or their culture. An example of this is European Jews before World War II.
- Feminism: Here women's wishes and actions destroy a culture's warrior ethic by demanding to fight themselves or demeaning men who fight.
The Jews in Europe were brave, but they were brave at enduring suffering not defending themselves. They had suffered all sorts of tribulations from the Europeans before the Holocaust and decided it was better not to fight back. They held the same beliefs about themselves as the anti-Semites. This came to an end when the state of Israel was founded because the Zionists deliberately began building a culture for the new Jewish state which allowed fighting,honored warriors, and expected military success.
I can see this mentality in myself today. I don't think the US is worth defending. I don't begrudge anyone else the opportunity to risk life and limb for the government, but my loyalty is only to my family and personal friends. I think I could be a successful warrior, but I don't feel I there is much worth the risk of defending. It would be interesting knowing more about the mentality of these cultures: they seem to come from powerlessness and a lack of confidence.
Case 4: Feminism
Women are integral to any warrior culture. Women's sexual lust for warriors and disdain for men who won't defend them is a key factor in motivating men to fight to protect them. Two of the best documented cases I know of are the women of the Confederate States of America and the women of England during the First World War. In both cases the women promised not to marry men who didn't fight in order to shame those who saw the pointlessness of the wars into throwing away their lives. They purposefully wore articles of clothing signifying that they held these views.
One way women can destroy a warrior culture is to not love the men who fight to defend them. When being a warrior does not help get women, men won't become warriors. I think loving warriors is hard wired into women because on the most common turn-ons for women is a man in uniform.
The second way women can destroy a warrior culture is to demand equality in the military. Their demands will be met in one of two ways.
- First, men and women might are allowed to join the military but held to different standards. Women will enter the military forces, but they will not be seen as equal to men because they are not held to the same standards. They are given the same rewards as men for doing less which demoralizes the male soldiers.
- Second, men and women can be held to the same standards int he military. In this case all the women will be almost permanently on the injured list and never make it into the front lines. There are women who can meet the physical standards set for men but they are a very small fraction of the population.