Political Realism: The Glorification of War

 

Political Realism: The Glorification of War

Peter Schultz

 

                  Political realism facilitates, embraces, and affirms war(s), including nuclear war(s). As one realist argued, “If we back down [from war] and let the challenge go unheeded, we will suffer losses of prestige, we will decrease our capacity for … deterrence… and we will encourage [further aggressions].” Moreover, “If … deterrence for some reason fails, then the only way to avoid perilous humiliation is to … drop atom bombs….” [The Wizards of Armageddon, p. 190]

 

                  To understand this affirmation of war, it is necessary to understand that central to political realism is what may be called “the threat.” In the 1950s, 1960s, and thereafter, the threat was Marxist communism, but the threat could and does take other forms as well, e.g., Islamic fundamentalism. The threat is as central to political realism as is the concept of original sin for Christianity.

 

                  If sin is original, that is, if humans are conceived in sin, then humans must not only be prepared to battle sin, to make war against sin, but those battles, those wars may be seen as divinely sanctioned. And this is how John Foster Dulles, et. al., understood the Cold War. “Dulles viewed … superpower competition as a titanic struggle between freedom and slavery, shining beacon and the web of darkness, God and the Devil.” [181] Thus, the Cold War and even nuclear war was divinely sanctioned. Nations and peoples prove their virtue, their piety by being willing and able to engage in apocalyptic battles, to “stand at Armageddon and battle for the Lord.” In other words, there must be battles, there must be wars because they are signs of our virtue(s), signs that nations and peoples are principled. It isn’t too much to say that nations and peoples should be looking to wage war(s), perhaps even going out of their way to make war in order to prove they are godly. Appeasement proves that nations and peoples are not virtuous; making war, even nuclear war, proves that nations and peoples are principled. Making war in order to avoid humiliation, to avoid the loss of prestige is what good and decent folks do, even if that includes dropping some atom bombs.

 

                  Of course, in a nuclear age “victory in the traditional sense cannot be a proper goal” because “nobody desires self-annihilation.” [198] Wars in a nuclear age should be “limited,” which means that the “proper aim on the battlefield is sustained stalemate.” [198-99] So, “playing for a stalemate … would … seem to be desirable.” In other words, wars should be endless; at least that’s what rationality recommends. “We are asked to make sacrifices and then cheer lustily for a tie in a game that we did not even ask to play.” [199] The iron cage of rationality is, in fact, characterized by, permeated by endless war(s). Rationally considered, the political is defined by endless war(s). Or as Clausewitz put it: War is what politics becomes. In a nuclear age, limited or endless war(s) is as good as it gets. Ironically, endless battles, endless war are the best possible outcomes. The best regime is permeated by war. So it goes.