War: A Rationale

Because my work of late has kept me from any protracted posts, I've decided to begin blogging some of Sydney J. Harris' essays from his various collections (which I'm able to read during bathroom breaks!). This one is from Pieces Of Eight, and was written sometime prior to 1982 (the essays aren't dated).

Clearly, it was written before the end of the Cold War, as atomic warfare is somewhat of a centerpiece in the essay. While some of this still applies today -- considering the proliferation of nuclear weaponry in North Korea and (possibly) Iran -- I was most drawn to the idea that war, a "conservative" solution judging by the miserable failure's agenda, contradicts conservative ideas in that the youngest -- those who would otherwise be around fifty years hence -- die first.

War: The Revenge of Age on Youth

I do not think we can explain the recurrence of war on a political or economic or social basis. These elements make war possible; they do not make it inevitable. But war has been as certain as death and taxes in human history.

It has long been my conviction that deep irrational impulses are at work in the promotion and perpetuation of war, in every century, in every society, in every part of the world. We can see it most clearly now, in the atomic age.

Atomic war has been proclaimed "unthinkable," but we are far from giving up thinking about it. Indeed, the atomic powers seem embarked on a collision course of building up such arms that nothing will avert a confrontation. But a war fought with nuclear weapons can only end in mutual destrutcion.

The main impulse I perceive, hidden well below the level of consciousness, is the envy of the fathers toward the sons. Nothing else fully explains why the fathers are willing to see their sons slaughtered in battle in nearly every generation.

In the past they might have justified it by victory -- but there can be no victory now, as every leader on every side well knows.

I think that as men grow older and feel life and sexual vitality and power beginning to slip from their hands, they develop a death-wish for the young and vibrant who are about to seize the reins and control the future. They do not want a world to exist without them.

So they send to war the best, the healthiest, the youngest, the most capable, while they remain behind to pick up the pieces, if any. If war were rational and if men were rational about it, then the oldest, the weakest, the most dispensable for the future would go first. The freshest and strongest would be preserved for the ultimate need.

Can anyone explain why people everywhere, who profess to love their children so deeply, have at all times sent them forth to battle in wars that benefited only kings and chieftains and munitions makers? Why after each war was it seen to be "unnecessary" if only the right few steps had been taken -- and they never were taken? All the historical interpretations fail, one by one, and we are left with the frightful suspicion that we do not love our sons as much as we fear and resent them; that perpetual wars are the revenge age takes against youth; that other "reasons" and "causes" are mere camouflage for a hate that dares not speak its name.

An atomic war, precisely because it threatens universal annihilation, is the perfect "final solution" for this demonic urge.