Very interesting post, not least because it pertains to one of my on-the-side research projects. If the instrumentalist interpretation does not work, then what is war? Obviously more than an instrumental application of force for a rational goal.
Christopher Coker discusses this in one of his books and points out that this instrumental notion of war is actually something very Western and that other culture see war more as an ontological or existential expression of their being. Some ideologies/cultures fight for their Self's sake, which is different from for their own sake.
Makes sense for the Nazis too, when you think about it. For them, life was war, politics a continuation of it. Similar interpretations might hold for contemporary 'terrorist' movements. And, perhaps, for the USA, pace Coker's argument. Any thoughts?
As for your assessment of the Schlieffen plan: I think that is a bit generous. The "almost" after all means in reality a huge failure, both in execution and result. My dear ancestors got stuck in trenches pretty quickly, never closed in on Paris, and never able to relief those division to the Eastern front. Ironically, they weren't needed.
And arguably the German spring offensive of 1918 had already run out of steam, when Pershing entered the picture.
Finally, you offer a very interesting assessment of the American intervention. The Road to Hell is paved with good Intentions?
A comment - when discussing the costs of war to a country, remember that the political/economic/social/religious leadership are not the same as the schmucks in the mud. Taking the Iraq war as an example, the GOP political leadership has profited quite a bit, a number of their 'private sector' partners have pulled immense profits, the GOP religious leadership got to preach war sermons and Armaggedon, while the media got a nice spectable (at first). Maybe, after screwing the war up beyond belief, and having the justifying frauds made public, the GOP will suffer. A little. Maybe.
The costs are born by the Iraqi people, and the American people.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" refers to intentions that are not followed by action. In a way, the old adage would actually encourage entering WWI, or invading Iraq. At any rate, it would not discourage action in those instances.
In regard to Dan's point that the "next few decades would almost certainly have been much better for humankind ... if the United States had not intervened on the side of the Entente" in WWI:
This is a counterfactual exercise, and the appropriate question is where best to locate the "counterfactual" event. Instead of proposing the U.S. stay out of WWI, how about proposing a counterfactual in which Germany does not play the key role in causing WWI? How about proposing a counterfactual in which the period following WWI is guided by a more realistic liberalism that prevents WWII?
The best use of the counterfactual tool is when the historical change proposed is most easily conceived. The U.S. staying out of WWI is much more difficult to conceive than a prevention of WWI, or a better-managed peace.
Andrew,
I'm curious about why you think a world in which the US stays out of WWI is a less plausible counterfactual than the one's you've proposed. My own sense is that we have two relatively manipulable counterfactuals here:
1) the US stays out of WWI.
2) the US joins the League (e.g., Wilson allows Lodge's reservations to the Treaty)
I'd think both of these involve fairly "manipulable" decisions, unlike some of the other examples you give...
There is yet another theory to be considered: The "immaculate conception/something-from-nothing-beginning-of-the universe" theory. A classic example that comes to mind--although not a war--that illustrates the process is the tale of the MLN(Multi-Lateral Nuclear Force)which arose as a central part of US foreign policy during LBJ's reign. For those too young or with short/faded memories(due to booze, drugs, bad marriages, brain farts contemplating the implications of the pregnancy of Britteny Spears--whatever) the MLN was an attempt to solve the anti-nukes movement in Europe while saving the deterrent factor of nukes on NATO soil by moving the weapons offshore onto ships manned by mixed NATO crews.
This concept came to not only occupy the better part of the time for the Johnson Administration as a centerpiece of our Cold-War foreign policy, it also served (don't ask for the details--NO ONE ALIVE TODAY has the patience)to pull off the miraculous feat of alienating not just the Soviet Union; not just EVERY SINGLE ONE of our NATO allies--but simultaneously causing discord among(or AMONGST, if one is an Anglophile--I've just GOT to slip WHILST in here somehow) every govt. bureaucracy with even the most tenuous connection to the policy--especially the Pentagon, who was charged with making this intuitively obvious, unworkable-in-the-real-world policy/concept--work.
ALL OF THIS thrashing around--the gobs of countless hours of planning; the millions of hours worth of consultations with our allies; protracted and contentious negotiations with the Soviets; the outright murder of countless thousands of trees and Squid to provid pen and ink for all the position papers and newspaper editorials; the vast amount of brainpower devoted to the topic--all of THIS based upon the "Gyro Gear-loose", light-bulb-above-head, inspiration of some inspired "thinker?" Or even the cold, cool, rational plotting/brainstorming of some "think tank?" Or perhaps an even more su(b)tle/nuanced level of analysis which sees the decision as the resultant output of some secret cabal buried in the bowels of some govt. agency?--oh no,no,no, my friends, the explanation reads like an old 50's Sci-Fi movie poster: "IT CAME FROM NOWHERE!" Yes my darlings, I would defy you to produce one SINGLE INDIVIDUAL or analytical body OF ANY KIND that has, to this day, identified the exact source/individual/policy group (WHEREVER--in govt or out)that authored the original concept. And this search has not been limited to those who might CLAIM authorship, but also to those ideological adherents who might be hiding from the detritus of a failed policy. No, NO SINGLE PERSON or GROUP OF PERSONS has EVER been identified by ANYONE as the originator of this policy/concept.
So-----the question must be raised: "How did a feeble concept/policy arise from seemingly nowhere, and despite heavy criticisms from all concerned, (almost from the outset) become the central focus of our governmental
P.S. Somehow all of my "missive" didn't take. The rest of my post should read as : ..." concern for well over a year and formally, officially, approved by the President himself--despite anyone claiming original authorship pushing hard for the policy. If anyone can answer THAT question, we will be a long way toward finding a new Rossetta Stone with which to hopefully explain the actions of Governments and their involvment in countless conflicts starting from the time when man began building complicated social constructs."
PPS: Well, Ward Churchill-like, I'll blame it on spell-check. Please subtract one "s" from "Ros(s)etta Stone."
Signed: An old, retired, IR/Decision-theory Geezer
(Almost as extinct as "IR" is as a definably, separate and distinct academic discipline)
I think Germany could rather easily have told Austria it wouldn't have its support in July.
And, I'm not sure the "U.S. joins the League" counterfactual is inconsisent with what I wrote.
The easiest, and most likely, counterfactual would be no assassinations in Sarajevo.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
