Fighting the inevitable

A Frenchman once said with characteristic Gallic humour, that the British always enjoyed a good war… provided it was fought far away from home. That was the 19^th century. This principle probably applies to other nations as well. Irrespective of the size of their empires and the fact that many of the wars they fought against one another and against the natives was for control of colonies, they exhibited uninhibited avarice and often extreme cruelty. Around the year 1900, the opposition changed identity. First, it was the anarchists, on a relatively small scale in parts of Central Europe. They said all government was unjust and iniquitous. To press their cause, they went around exploding bombs in restaurants and crowded markets. Then, it was the communists on a much, much larger scale with tentacles spread across the continents of Asia, Africa and South America. They perfected the art of guerilla warfare. Then it was al Qaeda, allegedly led by a tall man with one kidney who lived in a cave in Afghanistan and was accused of masterminding the attack on the Twin Towers. This terrorist organisation employed a weapon that had been used, albeit occasionally, by the Palestinians and the Tamils in their struggle for freedom. This is the suicide bomber, who believes he is going to heaven by sending his enemy to hell. And now… it is militancy in the form of the ISIS. This is the mother of all militant organisations, which are giving Western leaders a king-sized headache.



If one examines the scene in the United States and Europe dispassionately, and in the cold light of history, it certainly looks as if there will always be some enemy or rebel organisation to challenge the authority of the West. Of course, wars are jolly good for the armament business and help to keep unemployment figures low. Nevertheless, unofficial sources point out that Western soldiers no longer have the stomach for fighting on the ground and Western governments are increasingly being tempted to adopt Barack Obama’s foreign policy, which consists of striking only from the air. Some of them probably read those trenchant lines of First Lieutenant Michael Roomey, who expressed the feelings of American soldiers who participated in the Vietnam War. “We are the unthanked/doing the unnecessary/for the ungrateful/led by the unqualified.” Frankly, I think Obama’s policy makes a lot of sense. Save lives by taking lives. During the Second World War, generals inevitably bunked in underground shelters, smoking cigars and drinking black coffee. They pored over maps with colourd pins protruding from the surface — a permanent scowl on their faces, while foot soldiers struggled in freezing temperatures or hot and humid insect-infested jungles. After retirement, they wrote their memoirs. It was different in the old days when kings rode at the head of their army in full regalia, swords drawn, bugles blaring, pulses racing. It was a case of honour.

The sad thing is wars will continue as long as human beings exist. They will just get deadlier and deadlier and continue to produce further misery. Che Guevara, the Argentine revolutionary and confidante of the Cuban leader Fidel Castro put it rather nicely when he wrote: “After every foaming wave of political action, a fructifying deposit remains behind from which a thousand stalks of common struggle shoot forth.” The ISIS is just another phase in the history of violence, though these rebels are not preaching the religion of peace. If it fails, there will be something to take its place. Nobody can fight the inevitable.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 19^th, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.