War?

Ok, so we have established that Waltz believes that an “effective” world government would lead to the cessation of war. But obviously an international government of perfection does not exist in or time or maybe it never will. So why bother writing a book on something that could never be achieved; or that could only be achieved by way of an alien invasion http://academictryst.blogspot.com/2005/11/alien-invasion.html. Well, perhaps the answer lies within the question. Perhaps Waltz knows that no such thing as an effective world government so planning for one would be a fallacy. War exists because there is nothing to stop it. So could anything ever stop it, probably not or at least not at this moment in time? So the reasoning is cyclic but the point is still there; war would cease with an effective world government but an effective world government doesn’t exist. Well, lets solve this problem of anarchy then…remove the anarchy then we can remove war. Yeah, for some reason that doesn’t seem to be quite so simple a task.

Another point that I wanted to touch on was this whole idea of war vs. conflict. I think the only difference is that war is fought between states and conflict between people and groups. Yeah, they may not be the same in theory but they can both be just as devastating. It’s true that not all conflicts are actually fought but some are, and that’s the point. Killing is still killing and there’s no philosophy or theory that can change that. Perhaps I’m Hobbesian in this instance. A person can make war on another person, and if that person is killed, what difference does it make it they were sent to die by an indifferent government or by their best friend who shoots them in the head. Who on earth does this person have to appeal to then, once they're dead. But not many people want to take it to a level this personal.

Ok, so then lets look at war vs conflict by distancing ourselves away from this personal level. Is there even any such thing as war anymore? Governments are now more logical or illogical, whatever way you take it, in fighting. Battles are no longer clear cut fighting out in the open. The enemy is no longer even recognizable in many cases. A country now can fight a particular group of people, say Al Queda, or even an ideology…hmm lets take terrorism, or even drugs. To avoid going to war governments, or agencies within that government also create covert operations to handle “minor” international disruptions in national policy. For example if a foreign President doesn’t seem to be supporting the United States in certain policies then why not send in the CIA to ruffle a few feathers and while we’re there why not just take out the root of the problem and get rid of that President. So, governments don’t really fight governments, per se, any more. They fight loose transnational social groups or idealogies. Now when I have mentioned “governments,” I have been speaking about particular parts or sects of the government and not the country as a whole because, as in America, these "conflicts" have not been ratified by the democratic process. I don’t remember voting on sending my fellow citizens to fight in Iraq? Can we then say that we have eliminated war? Sure, why not? So now that we have effectively eliminated war the world is sure to be much more peaceful and safer.