The Morality of War

The Morality of War was written by Vladimir and published in the Francoist Papers on the 12th of November 2008 alongside articles by Z'ha'dum and Cortath. The article attempts to find an "objective basis for what could be termed 'morality' and apply it to the battlefield."

The Morality of War
Not all opinions are worthy of the same consideration. In one corner we have analyses deriving from a solid material base, led by logic and understanding, and in the other we have knee-jerk reactions deriving from petty idealism, mysticism and emotive agendas. Unfortunately the latter continues to infest intellectual discourse across Planet Bob. War – collective punishment – is undeservedly one of the longest running debates, and while it has been beaten back time and again in relation to specific examples, the idealists continue to reel it out as the central demonstration of their ideology and, ultimately, their ignorance. We will thus outline the materialist stance on the subject, dispelling the mystical idealist position and demonstrating the origins, logic and outcome of collective punishment.

The idealists posit that alliance wars are almost invariably the result of a transgression committed by a handful of individuals, with much of the alliance being wholly unaware of it. Indeed, who could argue with this premise. Has there ever been a war where it can genuinely be said that the entire alliance was informed and complicit in the transgression? One could argue over one or two individual cases, but even the most common cause for war – espionage – is almost by definition conducted by a select few behind the backs of the majority (if we are to assume at least some level of competence). Where we find ourselves in disagreement with the idealists is their conclusion: that where this is the case it is only morally justifiable for the individuals directly complicit to be held accountable and punished.

Indeed, more often than not this is exactly what happens. Are wars declared every time an individual conducts a rogue attack, or even every time a spy is discovered? Of course not, or the entire world would be perpetually engulfed in war. But we are not saved from perpetual war due to an arbitrary moral position; to claim that we are is superficial at best, and intentionally manipulative at worst.

Why is collective punishment used in some cases and not in others? In other words, why are wars declared and what purpose do they serve? These are the questions that the idealists artfully dodge, instead choosing to throw out ideological rhetoric and platitudes. They will simplistically label a war as 'imperialist' or 'conquest' without bothering to glance at the circumstances of war itself, and in doing so they miss the actual material reality of the world around them. War is an ugly and mutually destructive process. There is no quicker way for an alliance to slip down the ranks than to declare war – no matter how one sided it may seem from the outside, there is ultimately no defence against cruise missiles, and no way to prevent other attacks from making their way through.

Acknowledging this, the question of war suddenly becomes a lot more confusing. Unless it is one of the rare cases where the entire alliance is informed and complicit, why would an alliance engage in a mutually destructive war if they can get away with engaging relatively harmless individuals? Unravelling this is the key to bypassing the catchphrases of the idealist rhetoric and understanding the nature of war and collective punishment.

The first fundamental mistake of the idealist is their inability to comprehend the structure of Planet Bob, mistaking the events unfolding as perpetuated by a handful of independent nations existing in the state of nature. But in order to conduct a proper analysis we must examine what we are discussing: alliances. Only with a proper understanding of the nature of alliances can we begin to understand alliance war and thus collective punishment. Alliances are, at their most base, the apparatus for defending their member nations from external threats, thus protecting and advancing their freedom. That is to say: alliances are founded on the idea that they will provide security for member nations. We can therefore see, if we are predisposed to such language, that defending member nations to the best of its ability is the primary [i]moral duty[/i] of the alliance.

It is in this context that collective punishment must be viewed. War is not declared for the exotic (and self-defeating) reasons thrown about by the idealists, but rather because it is perceived to promote the security of the attacking alliance more than attacking the individual perpetrators would, and thus would better fulfil the moral duty of the alliance. If there is a genuine transgression committed by another alliance, and it is deemed that the security and freedom of the transgressed alliance would be better served through war against the entire transgressor alliance rather than the individuals pulling the strings, then it can only be seen as fully morally justified.

But the question remains: how does collective punishment better secure an alliance? When all is said and done, this is what the idealists fail to understand. It is impossible to detail precisely due to the dynamic nature of politics, but it is certainly possible to list a few circumstances. For example, it may be a case of setting a precedent to discourage the action in future – one might risk their own nation to carry out an offence, but would take that risk if they thought that their entire alliance was on the line? Or it may be the case that the transgression is deemed to be institutional rather than individual, and that the offending alliance will continue down the same road even with today's offenders cut out. Or it may be the case that the vast majority of the alliance is deemed to have been involved in some way or another, and thus every nation has made itself a threat. There are many such reasons that can be given, and through them all runs one constant, that single moral duty: security.

For the nations of the belligerent alliance it can only be said that they too are responsible for their own security. The nations are blessed with freedom of movement and conscious choice over which institutions they belong to. They entered into an agreement of collective security just as the transgressed alliance did, and with that one must accept responsibility for the choices made.

It is thus clear that the very question being asked here is based on a complete misunderstanding of the world around us. Alliances do not exist as abstract moral entities but in the real material world where their core moral duty is collective security. It is this that spawned their institutions, treaties and wars. Collective punishment is not something that is done by evildoers against the righteous, and indeed, the vast majority of the time it is something that is avoided in favour of less destructive solutions; however, where an alliance has been unjustly placed under attack in some way and war is necessary and productive in securing its member nations, it is the moral duty of that alliance to conduct it.