Warmongering From the Austrian Perspective

Miscellaneous General
1

Warmongering From the Austrian Perspective

No, I do not mean “Austrian” in terms of Hitler or Skorzeny. Since I am often accused of being a statist for my advocating the merciless beating of actual statists, I feel I may as well explain the use of violence from as non-statist a perspective as possible.

Growing up, I think most of us had mothers who told us to always walk away from a fight. Well, it doesn’t take too many kidney punches before you realize that Mom had never been in a fight in her life. Force had to be met with equal force if one expected to survive past the second grade. In today’s nanny state, our leaders tell us they will solve these kinds of problems with anti-bullying laws. Tell me now, which solution is more “statist”?

Many point to Switzerland as a shining example of a nation that can remain neutral regardless of what antagonist is lurking in its back yard. What most fail to acknowledge, however, is that the Swiss have enjoyed this luxury not because they host peace talks, or that they stay out of international intrigues (which they certainly do not). Since the 14th century, Switzerland has adopted the kind of militaristic outlook that would make Lycurgus proud. Every citizen is a member of their local military unit (which we might label a “militia”) and every house, by law, has an assault rifle. Target shooting is a national sport. A single rifleman in the right mountain pass could keep an entire division pinned down for days. This is why the Nazis never went through with “Operation: Tannenbaum”. Invading Switzerland was not worth the price of victory (and besides, France surrendered early anyway). That, and the fact that it would likely put the kaibosh on the German army’s payroll. The Knights Templar taught Switzerland two very important things needed for an independent country-- sound banking and ass-kicking. It turns out that if you’re both well armed and extremely rich, you can actually get other countries to do your looting for you, but that’s another topic entirely.

Thus it follows that if you desire peace, you must prepare for war. This has been a famous quote credited to most great military men throughout the ages, ranging from Sun Tsu to George Washington, all of whom have their own unique spin. There will always be war and the threat of war, and those who are unprepared for it will always find themselves at some tyrant’s mercy. Such a condition of servitude and living in constant fear cannot be called peace. Or, for a more concise explanation, see the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n1NOY_iQtU

There is also a difference between a free people at war and the statist/collectivist/Keynesian at war. Free people will actually want to finish the war, and will desire to do so by means of winning it, so they can continue with honest commerce. Keynesian theory demands long and pointless war, followed by a mild but badly handled peace, which always leads to another war. This is toady’s mentality, where there is perpetual, managed conflict with no decisive outcome.

Wars should also be brutal enough for people to remember it. General Sherman is famous for saying that the bloodier a war is, the sooner it will be over, and for the most part, this has held true. Most people never see war, and this is not a good thing. Politicians find wars easier to start and to prolong, since most citizens are sitting on the sidelines. The people, while they may not agree with a war, make no move to end it because they seemingly have no stake in it-- and no, marching down the street with a “Bush is Hitler” sign is not a convincing argument against the war. Having participated on the frontlines of a major conflict used to all but guarantee someone political office, but this has long fallen out of fashion in American society. Those who have seen battle truly know what war is. They are less likely to start a war and more likely to finish one.

Most importantly, war needs to be on a budget. This more than anything else ensures that war is not entered into lightly, and that it will be finished quickly. A nation that cannot pay for a war is unlikely to start one. Africa might be at peace today if third world dictators didn’t have AAA credit ratings. The U.N. might actually be useful if it just helped ensure that countries paid their own way in wartime, instead of helping them get financing. But again, their idea is to manage war, not to actually end it. Ever since FDR proclaimed that war is “too important to be left to the generals,” the free world has been on a downward spiral. In their quest to make war follow a set of bureaucratic rules, politicians only make it longer and more costly.

Anyway, that’s my perspective. Comments are welcome; that’s why it’s here. If you would like to end wars all together, I too would like nothing more. So please go and put your ideas into action, since writing about peace in forums does absolutely nothing.

2

Have you ever read the book Ender’s Game? The book’s main character, Ender Wiggin, follows the brutal logic that says, in order to truly defeat an enemy, one must exterminate him. So let me ask you, if someone steals your car, do you think he deserves to be killed? What about if someone hits on your girlfriend? Or if someone gives you the finger after you mistakenly cut them off on the highway?

Also, why stop at actions? Why not also wage war against people whom you think are threats? Of course, everyone is ultimately a potential threat, so in order to truly “win the war” in this sense, literally everyone else must be killed.

That’s the lesson Ender learned, the hard way.

3

Wow, that is so completely the opposite of what the post was about. Let’s see… nope; I don’t see the word “exterminate” anywhere. All men have a right to life, liberty, and property, but unfortunately others live to trample on those rights. Those not prepared to defend their liberties quickly lose them. Even Benjamin Franklin abandoned his Quaker ways when he saw no other alternative way for his countrymen to reclaim their rights.

4

Okay. I guess I latched onto the whole concept of “winning the war”. I was afraid you were talking about “winning at all costs”. Thanks for clarifying. I stand corrected.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the Latin phrase “Si vis pacem, para bellum.” (“If you desire peace, prepare for war.”) A more general phrase would be “Si vis pacem, para defensionem.**” (“If you desire peace, prepare for defense.”) I see no issue with this. One should be able and willing to fight for what he has, IMO.

The only issue is whether a given reaction is just. Again, if Dave steals John’s car, and John subsequently tracks down Dave and kills him, was justice served? Or did John overstep his bounds in killing Dave?

On a more political note, General Sherman’s “march to the sea” was done to end the so-called Civil War more quickly. Yet it involved razing the countryside, depriving the local civilians of their livelihood, along with (relatively) indiscriminate killing of civilians. While there are many other problems with the so-called Civil War, I challenge the notion that General Sherman’s “march to the sea” was justified. But maybe you agree and I’m arguing a moot point. Either way, let me know.

5

Ultimately this is not a question of ethics, in the sense of “what is the right thing to do”, but rather of utilitarianism: can you fight statism by violence? Does it pay? Will fighting endless wars not make you worse of than your enemy? It’s a pragmatic question.

Turning to history, I do not want to place such a big emphasis on the Swiss militia. Perhaps, and I say again- perhaps- back in the day before paratroopers holding passes could work. But I doubt that anyone today would be too discouraged form attacking a country simply because it has a few untrained, demoralized villagers with guns. Napoleon didn’t even have to fight to conquer , and logistically the feat was impossible back than.

proves this point, to a degree. The Afghanis are both heavily armed and enjoy a very rough terrain, much worse than the Swiss (the Swiss cannot flee into the , the Afghanis can). Yet has been marred by conflict, either aggression or internal, since one can remember.

Ultimately I find Mises’ argument convincing: a country might be an asset to neighbors, or a liability. No one will be willing to let your government stop free trade for long: too much taxable income is lost. If you do not partake into the division of labor, than it’s a matter of time before someone kicks your ass. The people who are alive today are those who where willing to trade back in the day. Savages have been exterminated.

Now, I’ll not say that free trade is a 100% guarantee against aggression. If had been located in some flaty terrain, Hitler probably would have bothered, but as things sttoo back than attacking the only country that traded more or less freely with you was not an ingenious idea.

I’m a huge fan of nukes because they practically outlaw war, no matter how capsized odds are. But still, I’d rather be a defenseless free trader (basically ) than a well-armed fascist regime. Of course one need not chose nowadays. Better safe than sorry. But spending a few bucks on nukes is one thing, and spending millions on conventional armies is quite another.

6

I think Sherman behaved like a general should. His job was to win a war, not to consider the ethics of either why it started or how it should be fought. Civilians can play armchair general, but it is only the military that can make the decision because they are the ones who have to fight-- and the ones who will likely die if they screw up. Ultimately, though, the South had to be rebuilt in order for the United States to reassimilate their countrymen, so a “slash and burn” campaign should be absolutely necessary before it is considered. If the war was ended faster as a result, this may have actually saved money and lives in the long run. A decision on the battlefield must be left to the commander present, and no one else, not even a nation’s sovereign.

7

I certainly do not advocate fighting an endless war, but when war is upon you, you have to win it quickly and get back to business, as befits a free state.

That may be fine until some psycho gets ahold of them, as is happening now. Nukes only work to prevent war when everyone agrees not to use them, and the more countries there are in the nuclear club, the harder that is to control.

8

That would be like saying, that the more people have guns, the harder is to prevent civil massacres. We know that not to be true. Now, it does not mean that the occasional madman will not mow down some kindergarten class every now and than, but yet the more guns lay around, the more peaceful, ceteris paribus, a society seems to become.

The very same reasoning applies to nukes. If only a few countries have those, than they can pretty much do as they please. Israel has been bombing its neighbors (not Gaza, that’s another story) for decades with impunity. If you where a Syrian, would you be fine with it?

I look forward to a world where nukes will be cheap as hell, and ever bock could afford one. Sure, perhaps the occasional madman could murder hundreds of thousands every now and than (I do not believe this would happen, but let’s load the dice), but the conventional wars that would be forsaken would save many, many more. If nukes had been around for WW2, 60 million would have survived. If the Iraqi reactor at Osiraq would nto have been bombed in the 80’, 600’000 Iraqis would be alive today.

9

This is what I believe too. There are two reasons people don’t get attacked: (1) they leave everyone else alone, and (2) they know how to fight back if provoked.

Good post.

10

Civilians can play armchair general, but it is only the military that can make the decision because they are the ones who have to fight

And I think this is the main point which ought to refute what you said. To speak of a bunch of Koreans or whoever about war being a good option when you have nothing at stake in anything is an uglyaesthetic to have. This is lefty intellectualism at its worst and most barbaric if you ask me.

11

Merlin, the folks from taliban pay very little attention to accuracy and don’t use guns that would stimulate that either.

The Swiss use accurate guns and they praise markmanship. When such a big chunk of the population are potential snipers, thing’s get much more grinding for an invading army.

12

Merlin, the folks from taliban pay very little attention to accuracy and don’t use guns that would stimulate that either.

The Swiss use accurate guns and they praise markmanship. When such a big chunk of the population are potential snipers, thing’s get much more grinding for an invading army.

I wouldn’t agree.

First, the Swiss have SIG 556 rifles, which are indeed very good but are just that: .556 caliber. Talibans, on the other hand, employ the famed 12.7mm, which has forced the NATO allies there to scramble into service new (and old), powerful round, as the 7.62 NATO or 6.8 SPC. The point is, talibans are very accurate, and prefer to pick soldier from hilltops. Read any report if you don’t believe me. If there’s any people that will snipe your ass out, its the Afghanis.

And further, the Swiss could snipe, but they cannot flee into their alps, while Afghanis can flee into hilltops, caves and mountains. At those altitudes, no choppers work. You have to fight them on their own terms. The Swiss you can blow away by gunship or starved out in cities.

Mountain passes make Switzerland very easy to isolate. No outside help could come to the Swiss, as it did to the Afghanis who got enough Stingers to get themselves some nice air cover.

Afghanis are poor, and have nothing to loose. The Swiss have very much to loose, and would be less wiling to fight. Albanian Kosovars where willing to take on the Serbs in 1999 when most where farmers. Now, with some degree of wealth having crept in, I doubt many would be willing to defend their country if NATO troops fled tomorrow.

And finally, the Swiss have not seen a real war since Napoleon (where they capitulated as only the French know how to). The Afghanis live by war. There is no substitute for practice.

So, Afghanistan is the hardest enemy you can pick,. Switzerland is nothing at all in comparison. If they can do Afghanistan, they can do Switzerland. No one is abstaining from attacking Switzerland due to fear.

13

That doesn’t make sense. Mechanics and plumbers don’t make the decision as to whether or not a car or toilet is in need of fixing. If they did, every car and toilet in the world would be permanently broken.

Warlords make their money from fighting, and you’re suggesting they should be the ones who decide when to fight…? Lol.

14

" First, the Swiss have SIG 556 rifles, which are indeed very good but are just that: .556 caliber. Talibans, on the other hand, employ the famed 12.7mm, which has forced the NATO allies there to scramble into service new (and old), powerful round, as the 7.62 NATO or 6.8 SPC."

I think you mixed up some stuff. The 12.7mm is the .50 caliber, the one used for heavy machine guns, it’s not mobile at all without vehicles, even the ammo is already quite heavy to carry in any meaningful amont. Some american and canandian snipers employ the 12.7mm for very long range.

What taliban uses the most is the 7.62x39, that although it may pack a little bit more punch than the 5.56x45, it doesn’t have any more range. Nobody expects low quality 7.62x39 shot out of worn off AKs to be accurate past 300 meters. It doesn’t compare to the much more powerful 7.62x51(NATO).

And you also have to remember that a lot the insurgents live in very harsh conditions and many of them never visited an ophtamologist, and many who need glasses doesn’t know that, this has been noted by the troops.

And the Swiss has plenty of 7.62x51 guns, specially since before the SIG 550 the standard rife was 7.62 and they are well kept, and I would imagine they now also have some .338 Lapua (8.6x70) guns, besides that, the swiss have much better anti-tank guns than the standard RPG.

Of course that Switzerland is not unconquerable, specially given it’s size, but Finland in the Winter War that true markmanship makes the enemy think twice.

15

If you’re not going to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, then you’re necessarily taking a statist/collectivist approach to waging war yourself. At that point, all total-war options are on the table, including exterminating all potential threats – which, in the limit, means literally everyone else.

16

And you also have to remember that a lot the insurgents live in very harsh conditions and many of them never visited an ophtamologist, and many who need glasses doesn’t know that, this has been noted by the troops.

Lol, didn’t think of that.

And the Swiss has plenty of 7.62x51 guns, specially since before the SIG 550 the standard rife was 7.62 and they are well kept, and I would imagine they now also have some .338 Lapua (8.6x70) guns, besides that, the swiss have much better anti-tank guns than the standard RPG.

Sure, but neither 7.62s nor anti-tank weapons are, to my knowledge, held by the population as the SIG 556 is. do you really think that one could get meaningful amount of these weapons to civilians in case of an emergency? Would they even try? Afghanistan is so hard not because it has splendid weapons, which are indeed inferior to what any decent army can field nowadays, but that such weapons are held by many civilians. Albania right after 97 was a case in point: you could find civilians with AAA guns in their backyards (I have no idea how they managed to get those to their mountain homes). Can it get more dangerous that that?

Of course that Switzerland is not unconquerable, specially given it’s size, but Finland in the Winter War that true markmanship makes the enemy think twice.

Again, due to poor weapons being held by civilians, I would not fear Switzerland too much. Afghanistan would seem infinitely tougher to me, and yet here they are, fighting again.

17

Well, every military is by definition a collectivist organization, just like every government is in varying degrees. Like government, it is a necessary evil, only to be invoked and given authority only in matters pertaining to a nation’s survival. If a particular sovereign disagrees with how a general is handling a particular conflict, he should relieve that general, not micromanage his army. Most elected leaders no absolutely nothing about how to win a war. Lincoln made a good wartime president because he hired and fired his generals based on their ability to win-- and thus, ultimately, to END-- the Civil war. One can disagree with Lincoln’s choices, but I cannot blame Sherman for executing the strategy he thought best when face to face with the enemy.

The ethics of war are a purely academic matter that the military should not have to concern itself with. They are the executioners, not the judge or jury. They would not be there in the first place if not sent by someone else. The military cannot be blamed for doing its job any more than an attack dog can be blamed for attacking a trespasser on its master’s property. The profession of arms requires one to be ruthless if it is to carry out its duty effectively, and giving soldiers conflicting orders from thousands of miles away only fills more body bags. Blame the politicians who start wars if you feel the outcome too horrible, not those whose job it is to fight it.

18

I have had a rethink about why Switzerland has stayed out of conflict, and I don’t think it is because everyone is armed. I think it has a lot to do with their political neutrality and importance (traditionally) as a banking center.

There are much easier ways to conquer a people than with violence.

19

First, by admitting that every military and government is necessarily a collectivist organization, I take it that you’re implicitly conceding my previous point. This means you admit that your position is inherently contradictory. You cannot reconcile individual rights with collectivist rights. An example of a collectivist right is the right of a “nation” to “defend itself” against “outside aggression”.

To make it clearer, while you earlier claimed that you believe in certain inalienable individual rights, you now claim that those rights are alienable in the face of “winning the war”. Otherwise, you would necessarily recognize that the individual rights of non-combatants are inalienable. So again I point you to Ender’s Game and the brutal logic it expounds.

Second, by claiming that militaries should not concern themselves with the ethics of war, and that they are the executioners of others’ decisions, you are invoking the Führerprinzip. This is otherwise known as the Nuremberg Defense: “I was only following orders.” However, it takes two to “tango” – one to give the orders and one to carry them out.

20

A standing military under the direction of a republic is considerably different from a warlord. A military should not-- and does not-- decide when to fight. It should, however, be the only entity deciding how to fight. If some in Washington might find the outcome of a war regrettable, they shouldn’t have sent men to fight it in the first place.

To best explain this, I quote Sun Tzu: “Your servant has already accepted the position as commander, and when in the field, the commander need not obey all the orders of the sovereign.”