On Anzac Day, reflect on wars of the past – and steel ourselves for wars of the future
Anzac Day signifies tragedy. It speaks to futility and loss, the death of young Australians in their prime. We try to make sense of this ‘senseless loss’ by honouring their courage and extolling Anzac values. We comfort ourselves by intoning that their sacrifice yesterday secured our today.
Thanks largely to Anzac Day, Australians tend to frame war in moral terms and as something that is in our past. Today, Anzac Day, the dignitaries gave their sombre speeches and laid their wreaths, saying we best honour those past sacrifices by living the full lives that the fallen were denied, ‘lest we forget’. They would also have said no to war – ‘never again’.
This is understandable. In absolute terms, war is tragic and hideous. Pope Leo XIV is right to remind us that war is a descent into darkness and that it is the peacemakers who are blessed. He is also right to preach that war should be judged in moral terms.
In viewing war as the domain of blind passion, mindless hatred and irrational enmity we shut our minds to the reality that wars are fought for a reason and that they should be conducted according to the laws of war – which dictate that armed force should be used only out of necessity and proportionately, with non-combatants being protected, as far as possible.
For as long as perpetual peace on earth is absent, war will be, regrettably, a viable instrument for the violent pursuit of policy objectives that otherwise cannot be attained. In addition to raising moral questions, war therefore also raises strategic questions.
It is the continuation of politics by other means, as Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz wrote in On War (1832).
The idea of the utility and necessity of war is put out of mind on Anzac Day, understandably so. However, the solemnity of the day also tends to put war out of mind for the rest of year. We convince ourselves that our sole responsibility in reflecting on war is to look back in sorrow.
Regrettably, war is also in our future. If two powers are in deep disagreement on an issue and if either or both expect to prevail in a war, with costs that are bearable and that outweigh an unsatisfactory status quo, then future wars will be fought. If both sides genuinely wish to avoid war, it will not occur.
Rather than being bewitched by the ‘senselessness’ of war, we need to consider that a potential adversary may be calculating the odds of waging war, whereby Australia may be attacked for rational strategic reasons (for example, to deny the use of Australian territory by US forces).
War remains for some a means of conquest. It was used so in living memory by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and imperial Japan. Russian leader Vladimir Putin is embarked on a war of aggression in the pursuit of conquest. China also may embark on wars of conquest in Asia, as soon as early 2027.
War is also a legitimate instrument of self-defence, as is recognised by the Catholic Church in the doctrine of the just war, which St Augustine (354-430) did so much to develop. The church has long accepted the right of self-defence in the face of grave danger and where peace efforts are likely to fail or have failed. It also recognises that the moral evaluation of these conditions belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for governing for the common good.
Instead of attacking the Pope for promoting a message of peace, the Trump administration should take the high road of explaining the need to wage its current war with Iran in just war terms.
Sober explanation in the lead-up to the war even might have laid the basis for the building of an allied coalition to meet the grave danger of Iranian aggression.
Self-defence need not be limited to responding to an attack after it has occurred. Had France and Britain attacked Nazi Germany in 1936, after it reoccupied the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, would we be mourning that now as another ‘senseless war’? Or would we see it as a ‘good war’, fought against the monstrous tyranny of Nazism?
We may think that war is in the past. The dignitaries on Saturday would have us believe so. It gives them an alibi to avoid the uncomfortable discussion of how future wars may be both necessary and justified in the right circumstances.
Five years ago I set out to explain this to the staff of the Department of Home Affairs in an Anzac Day message when I was serving as a departmental secretary. It was a public service staff message that gained an unexpected level of notoriety and global attention. I was criticised and counselled (not that I cared much).
Today, with the world at war, that message reads prophetically.
Of course, we should seek to prevent war through diplomacy. In an era of nuclear weapons, we need to work even more resolutely to head off war. For once hostilities begin, no war is ever smooth or easily executed. The storm of war is unpredictable, and while we think we can master it through reason and will, too often in war we become the slave of unforeseen and uncontrollable events.
We must therefore always approach questions of war and peace with sober and prudent minds. Going to war should be the subject of careful consideration. The case for war should be publicly explained in detail.
We cannot, however, start from the premise that war is to be avoided at all costs. Therein lies the path of self-deterrence, which aggressors will seek to exploit.
The better path is to change the calculation of the aggressor. We can change their odds by rearming, building deterring alliances and strengthening national resilience and civil defence.
Unfortunately, in the West – wishing to avoid war at all costs – we are, with the exception of the US and Israel, self-deterring.
After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, this self-deterring attitude took hold. As is often the case, Hollywood set the tone.
In Crimson Tide (1995), the younger executive officer (played by Denzel Washington) of a US ballistic missile submarine debates the nature of war with the older captain (played by Gene Hackman). In a gripping scene in the wardroom, the executive officer agrees with Clausewitz that the purpose of war is to serve a political end, but he argues that in a nuclear world the true nature of war is to serve itself. The true enemy is not, therefore, another power but war itself.
Unfortunately, Chinese President Xi Jinping thinks differently. He has made clear that war is a legitimate instrument in the pursuit of the ‘great rejuvenation of China’, central to which would be the subjugation of Taiwan.
Today, the most credible threat to peace in Asia is an undeterred China that is prepared to go war in the pursuit of conquest.
Under Xi, China is calculating the odds. If Xi perceives that the dangers of peace outweigh the costs of war, and that risking war is preferable to living with an unacceptable status quo, then the chances of war are increased, even if his preference may be for a grand peace bargain, struck while China is preparing for a war that Xi probably prefers to avoid. His reading of US and allied resolve will be crucial to his calculation.
Taiwan’s own actions will have a bearing on these calculations, especially if Taiwan significantly stiffens its defensive capabilities.
US actions will have an even more decisive bearing. US willingness to shore up Taiwan’s capabilities, enhance its own forward presence, disperse its forces (including to northern and western Australia) and continue to build regional deterrence with allies will decisively affect Xi’s calculations.
Xi also will have to calculate the actions of others, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and possibly NATO.
Of course, it may be that the US decides that its vital interests are not sufficiently engaged in the Taiwan question and that going to war with China will not be worth the effort and the risk.
For Australia’s part, we are not doing nearly enough to prepare for the possibility of a war in the Pacific in the near term.
Even if we judge that likelihood to be a 10 per cent chance, we need to be doing more now to get to a war footing. Having placed our bet on the noble cause of peace (‘war has to be avoided at all costs’), we will not be ready in time to defend ourselves if a war breaks out in the Pacific.
Will we have the fortitude to calculate the odds of war and to prepare accordingly, even as we abhor war? Will we have the moral clarity to calculate the cost of war and the price of peace? Will we be prepared to make the same sacrifices that we rightly honour on Saturday, for the sake of future generations?
Odds are, we may be tested soon enough. If we are to be ready, strategic and moral rearmament will be necessary. Or, in saying ‘never again’, are we really saying that such sacrifices are always senseless and unnecessary? Are we really saying we would not be prepared to make the same ultimate sacrifice in a just cause?
On Saturday, we need to steel ourselves for the wars of the future as we reflect on those of the past.
This article originally appeared in The Australian.
No comments:
Post a Comment