A History of Warfare by John Keegan

In this densely written and closely argued book, renowned military historian John Keegan poses questions that have dogged philosophers for centuries: What is war? Why are wars fought? What lies at the heart of mankind's seemingly insatiable penchant for bloodshed?

The book's title is somewhat misleading. While Keegan does provide in-depth analysis of the changing face of warfare over the millenia, his examples are more selective than exhaustive. It would be more accurate to call this work a study of warfare, and how culture and human nature feed off each other to make it so terrible.

Keegan begins with a lengthy introduction in which he takes issue with the conventional wisdom that war is "a continuation of politics by other means." This rather limited definition of human conflict was first offered by the 19th-century Prussian military strategist and author, Carl von Clausewitz, in his hugely influential book, On War. Clausewitz was a product of his times; a veteran of Waterloo, he viewed war through the prism of European Enlightenment philosophy, which holds that social ills--including war--are the result of political defects, and, consequently, can be remedied by political action.

Keegan's view of war is more bleak. Noting that war predates politics and government--the sources of conflict in Clausewitz's analysis--Keegan instead points to culture as the most important determinant of war. For evidence, he delves into some of the world's most primitive cultures, where combat is highly ritualized, deliberately restrained, and fought for decidedly non-political reasons. In a more modern example, Keegan shows how the advent of nuclear weapons has irrevocably discredited the Clausewitzian mandate of a decisive, all-or-nothing battle. If the overriding purpose of all governments is to perpetuate themselves through the intertwined means of politics and war, how then can the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction be explained? In this case, success depends on the inverse of Clausewitz's "decisive battle" theory; only by avoiding the battle altogether can political governments hope to survive. This strategy of avoidance through strength is more in line with the theories of the ancient Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu.

Keegan's account of how the vast expanses of the Eurasian steppe--the land of origin for the Huns, Turks, and Mongols--have shaped European, Middle Eastern, and Oriental military history and theory is both highly original and endlessly fascinating. Keegan traces the ferocity of combat to these horse peoples, whose long-range weapons revolutionized warfare by making the act of killing an easier, less personal affair. This dehumanizing regression in war left the great civilizations on the steppe's periphery gravely shaken, and in turn forced them to further militarize their own societies in order to avoid extermination. In some areas (Russia, for example) the deep-seated cultural fear instilled by the hordes of Mongolian cavalry centuries ago lingers to this day.

In the end, Keegan concludes that war persists--and will always persist--due to a combination of human nature, cultural forces, and the sheer influence that thousands of years of habitual warmaking has had on mankind. This is not to say that war cannot be avoided, or its effects unlimited. But the need for professional armed forces, ready to enforce peace, and, when necessary, to deal out death and destruction on a horrific scale, will tragically always be with us. The sooner we accept this disturbing truth, the safer we will be.

A Deadly Combination

What some of us first feared has now been confirmed: At least three of the four terrorists who struck London were not foreign-born, but were homegrown.

This is important for two reasons. First, the predictable canard that terrorists hate us because of Western "imperialism" can be put to rest. These terrorists were not poverty-stricken, or living in occupied territory, or victims of American bombs. They were long-time residents of England, surrounded by the very people they planned to kill indiscriminately. It was not American foreign policy that drove them to kill; it was their own ideology of hate.

Second, the revelation that it was homegrown British Muslims who carried out these attacks is a scathing indictment of the self-loathing, multiculturalist blather that has allowed virulent, radical Islam to fester in the midst of Western societies, especially in Europe. When cultural assimilation is viewed as inherently racist, it removes any reason for immigrants to integrate into Western culture. Minorities become increasingly isolated and alienated. Throw the religion of peace into such a cauldron, and you have a breeding ground for terrorism, right in your own back yard. In London, the combination of feckless multiculturalism, open borders, and radical Islam proved to be deadly.

Elsewhere in Europe, one terrorist is coming clean as to his motivations. Was it allegations of Koran-flushing at Gitmo? US support for Israel? The invasion of Iraq? Abu Ghraib? The Crusades? US support for the Shah? His impoverished conditions? Was it any of a million excuses apologists for terrorism always give after each atrocity?

No, the terrorist claims it was his religion, of all things, that drove him to kill. Imagine that.

As long as the West continues in the delusion that the terrorists have tangible, legitimate grievances that can be appeased by anything other than total capitulation, it will handicap itself in a war against an enemy that has no such self-imposed inhibitions.

Uncomfortable Truths

There are times when the fog of politics and war clears in an instant, only to reveal a reality far more disconcerting than the obscured one. Last Thursday was such a time.

In London, as many as 40 people were killed when terrorists (almost certainly Islamic) detonated several bombs nearly simultaneously in the subway, and on a bus. Hundreds more were wounded. This butchering was just the latest in a string of attacks that has stretched around the world: Madrid, Beslan, Bali, New York, Washington. Our enemies kill for killing's sake; they are driven by a murderous ideology of hate, intimidation, and fanaticism. They have no qualms about killing civilians; indeed, it is their goal to kill the maximum number possible. They do have political aims, as all terrorist groups do, but that does nothing to change the fact that they are sadistic, cruel, and fundamentally evil. It is an honor to be hated by such monsters.

These attacks were undoubtedly designed to drive the British out of Iraq and Afghanistan, much like last year's Madrid attacks were successful in forcing Spanish capitulation in Iraq. As if any more confirmation were needed, the Madrid and London attacks reveal the foundation of al-Qaeda's strategy: Launch terrorist attacks, kill as many as possible, and then wait on leftists and other sympathizers to force the government to capitulate to terrorist demands. In the case of Spain, this strategy worked perfectly. Al-Qaeda's goal was to remove the pro-American prime minister in Madrid from power and replace him with an appeaser who would retreat from Iraq. The terrorists launched their attacks, and the leftists did the rest. The common (but not coordinated) goal of forcing Spanish capitulation was achieved. The Spanish people were tested, and promptly they threw up their hands in surrender. Judging from early indications, I don't think the British will be so easily moved. The people who stood alone against Hitler for a year are made of sterner stuff.

Well, some of them are, anyway. Even as the bodies of the victims of the London attacks were being pulled from the charred wreckage, pro-Saddam MP George Galloway, a hero to American liberals, faithfully took up the terrorists' cause:

We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

If this statement sounds familiar, it is because it mirrors the tapes periodically released by al-Qaeda, demanding the same thing.

It would be one thing if Galloway was just a harmless British nut who had no American following. But even a cursory look at American liberal websites belies that hope (try here, here, and here).

For an even more revealing look into what the Democratic Party has become, click here. The language is coarse, as leftists often are, and the hatred sickening, but as you read through the comments, ask yourself, do you want these kinds of people protecting you against terrorism? How much can you trust a party that compares American soldiers to Nazis, but is always the first to defend the rights of detained terrorists? What does it say when a party uses harsher language to describe their domestic poltical opponents than they use to describe our foreign enemies? What does it say when Osama bin Laden quotes from the liberals' favorite movie, Fahrenheit 9/11? What does it say when the director of that movie is given the seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention?

It says a lot. Western civilization is engulfed with a war against radical Islam, but there are large segments of Western society that want no part of it. Let the leftists equivocate and apologize for terrorism (it is, after all, their right), but let's not forget that our enemies feed off such displays of Western decadence and weakness. As Winston Churchill once said:

Do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.