Lessons Learned From War - Essay Example

 Lessons Learned From War There are numerous reasons why nations go to war including economic, religious, territorial, and political issues. Stoessinger takes a historical look into why different nations went to war and how problems such as economics, and politics issues had an impact on the outcome of each war. In his book, he explains eight different cases of why nations choose to go on war. The reasons why nations go for war vary from one country to another, but the lessons learned are closely related and to some extent generic. It is said that those that fail to earn from history are condemned to repeat it again or even get worse experiences. This paper will explore some of the lessons that can be learned from wars and the manner in which these lessons can be helpful. It is also going to discuss whether leaders learn the right reasons or not from war. Conceivably one of the most major lessons that can be learned from wars is that only the dead experience the end of the war. When the war starts between two or more nations, it takes time before the two states can take diplomatic actions and negotiations to end the war (Worrell 27). Meanwhile, it is the soldiers at war and innocent civilians who die or suffer casualties while the leaders keep on giving orders on where to attack next and what actions should be taken to protect their territories. In the war front, it is only the dead who do not experience the war since they are already dead. The rest of the people whether soldiers or civilians are put in a position where they worry about their life. They are at war and every move that their enemy makes becomes a threat to their lives. Stoessinger asserts that, despite the large sum of people that perished in the Vietnam War, it was just a passage of history and it was in vain for the combatants and civilians to suffer or land becoming devastated (132). The lesson derived here is that even as the war keeps on consuming the lives on the innocent it will still continue until the political leaders settle their differences. To this end “unless communist belligerency was deterred promptly and effectively, a third was between Communist and the non-Communist states were inevitable” (Stoessinger 68). This shows that it is until when leaders come into agreement that wars do end. Unfortunately, during all this time it is the innocent civilians and the soldiers at war that suffer. Over the years, wars have shown that the impact is hugely felt by the civilians but only a fewer leaders pay the price of their mistakes. Millions of civilians and hundred thousand soldiers died during World Wars with many others getting wounded. Regrettably, very few leaders suffered as a result of the war. Some like Hitler, Heinrich, and Hermann committed suicide before they could be punished for their mistakes. The people who made ultimate sacrifices end up to be counted as the numbers in historical books and are never recognized. Since the leaders are also he presidents or the supreme sources of power in their countries, they continue to enjoy state protection (Worrell 45). They also get acknowledge in the historical books, but people who suffered are only counted as numbers. In analyzing the lessons learned from the wars, it is quite evident that war is done in a team that requires some authority from above to initiate. Generally, for war to start both the legislature and the executive must declare and finance it. Without these two branches agreeing as a unit, the war will probably fail. For instance, when Kaiser laid down his plan to Moltke on the way he planned to storm France with very many soldiers, Moltke refused and advised him that leading an entire army to the East in a way it will not be an army but a “disorganized mob or armed men with no arrangements for supply” (Stoessinger 21). In fact, it took approximately an year before they could plan for the attacks and ensure that there was unity between the various branches of the government. Another lesson that can be learned from wars is that leaders rarely learn from their predecessors. Many scholars have pointed out that the World wars, Vietnam War among other wars were mistakes in the first place. Yet, different leaders continue to make the same mistakes and initiate new wars with their previous enemy or new countries. It is unfortunate how political leaders tend to sacrifice tens of thousands of young people to a project that is deemed to fail. In particular, Vietnam War showed that political leaders can boldly and blatantly lie to win the mandate for the unnecessary war. In fact, the Vietnam War has been noted “the most useless war in the American history and the most divisive conflict domestically since the civil war” (Stoessinger 103). This is a war in which America was defeated for some reason that their soldiers were betrayed. During the aftermath of Tet in 1968, it was politically impossible for the president to increase the number of troops going to Vietnam. In 1969, when Richard Nixon was the president, he pondered the fate of Lyndon Johnson by following the advice of his political advisors to withdraw troops. Although Nixon and Kissinger were determined to win the Vietnam War, the withdrawal of the troops made it difficult to accomplish this. As an alternative to this, they tried Vietnamization but this only led to the defeat of America (Worrell 157). In later years when Bush attacked Iraq, it became clear that all options were dangerous and the most humanitarian thing to do was to withdraw. This shows just how leaders fail to learn from what the mistakes of their predecessors. Having seen that war is not really proper way to solve disputes, it would be practical to hear new ways being implemented but this is not the case. Also, the quality and efficiency of soldiers, including all the branches of service keep on improving over the years. In America, the volunteer army has produced very brave and smart men and women soldiers. In addition, technology and army leadership skills have improved over the years leading to better committed and effective troops. Armies now use more dangerous tactics and better weapons, and there are ongoing researches to improve the weapons even more. Different nations are spending considerable amounts of money and efforts to developing better and improved weapons of war. It is in this wake that Iran developed and test-fired “an improved version of its most advanced missile capable of reaching Israel and other parts of Europe” (Stoessinger 375). This made other nations to do research and develop even better missiles as a measure in case war ever breaks out. Lastly, history has shown that wars rarely solve any disputes as it does destroy lives and land. In actual sense, it is diplomatic measures such as dialogue and arbitration that solves disputes between nations. In spite of all this, many political leaders still view war as a measure of settling disputes or getting certain solutions. The phrase that war is inevitable has been used by many of these leaders to start a war. To some extent war can be said to be inevitable, but this is not always the case because it is the same leader who make the decision whether to attack or look for other measures. In fact “no event in the affairs of states has ever been inevitable” (Stoessinger 418) For instance, in 2003 there were three major concessions that were meant to stop the Bush administration from attacking Iraq. However, since all the plans had been laid down it meant that there was no turning back. It is not because the war was inevitable but because the administration chose to go ahead with the attack. In conclusion, Stoessinger states that it is unfortunate“human species learn so slowly and at such terrible costs” (420). Perhaps the reason as to why countries such as Germany and France were able to establish peace after a century that witnessed the Holocaust and three horrendous wars was because they produced leaders that were able to say no to war once and for all. Such leaders include Jean Monnet and Konrad Adenauer, who saw peace reign in the two nations. Furthermore, leaders such as Nelson Mandela have been able to prevent war and bloodshed in South Africa. The reason for this is could be because they have learned over the years that war does not solve anything. Therefore, if leaders learn from what history has provided, it is possible to avoid war and pursue other means of settling disputes. Works Cited Stoessinger, John G. Why Nations Go to War. 11th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage - Wadsworth, 2010. Print. Worrell, Mark P. Why Nations Go to War: A Sociology of Military Conflict. New York: Routledge, 2011. Print. Read More