As I follow the recent discussions, I'm not convinced that animals engage in what we refer to as "war." They may fight but I think that war is more than a battle or two; it's a prolonged sequence of engagements directed at specific goals, and as such, is a uniquely human endeavor. There is a tendency for some people to ascribe human qualities to animals where no such quality exists. As for a "war gene," I doubt it. Human aggression can escalate to a state of war but it doesn't always.
Which got me thinking about North Korea, their state of mind, and that maybe the chubby little guy is a big fan of the Peter Sellers movie The Mouse That Roared. Do you guys remember it? When the Grand Duchy of Fenwick was in dire straits, they decided to wage war with the US, knowing they will lose and will become the beneficiaries of the largesse that the US has shown to it's former foes. Germany and Japan made out pretty well, why not the Grand Duchy of Fenwick? The plan went awry, of course, due to the Q Bomb as I recall, and the US surrendered. Maybe I should watch that movie again to make sure I got the story straight.
-----
Are you guys familiar with Joseph Medicine Crow, the last war chief of the Crow tribe? There are four tasks to become a war chief (from Wikipedia): touching an enemy without killing him (counting coup), taking an enemy's weapon, leading a successful war party, and stealing an enemy's horse. He did all four against the Germans in WWII; a great story.
Take note of the task of counting coup. Not being injured while doing so held a higher honor than being hurt; simply touching the enemy was a kind of victory in itself and you didn't have to kill the guy. Tag, you're it!
As a side note, despite the horrors of modern warfare, there are still rules of engagement and proscribed weapons, at least among the "civilized" nations. No chemical or biological weapons, and no exploding bullets for example. I don't know how much weight the Geneva Convention really holds, but it's something at least, and it lends a sense of honor to the proceedings. I don't think opposing combatants really hate the other guys, but it's their job to kill them, nothing personal, but if they could beat them without killing them that would fine, too. I'm a terrible military strategist.
-----
I acknowledge that my view of war is simplistic in that it deals mostly with armed conflict, but that's how I see it. Other reputed wars (war on obesity, war of drugs, et al.) are marketing ploys designed to give greater significance to issues that could better be described in other terms. Instead of "war" I'd like to see something that describes a plan to achieve the intended goals, i.e., a Plan Against Poverty, a Plan Against Terror, a Plan Against Cancer. It seems to me that a lot of wars have been waged without any plan or clear goals, but the great deciders have to do something, and that's the best they can do: start a war. End of rant.
-----
Want to see a French beaver?
https://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/animals/after-4-years-trying-beaver-lover-photographer-gets-his-shot/
No comments:
Post a Comment