Politics are highly influenced by war and military geopolitics. How have recent terrorism influenced global policies? This article will explore war thinking and its influence in our leaders…

The philosophy of war is not a recent mindset. It has been introduced in world leaders debates, plans and speeches as an answer to the impression of lack of decision-making capacity of governments in a liberal world. The war leader can easely be associated to a leader that takes decisions.

François Hollande is a good example of this phenomenon. President of France from May 2012 to May 2017 he experienced a continuous decrease of the satisfaction and trust rate during his whole term (starting from 61% and finishing at 22%). This decrease was probably not deserved if we analyze how France survived to financial crisis compared to the majority of his European neighbors. But it is interesting to notice that French society only increased their trust in Mr. Hollande when he raised as a military leader, when he took war-related decisions. As you can see in the graph below (in French, source JDD), we notice three major steps in trust level:

January 2015. Following Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, François Hollande decided to increase his military presence in Syria in the frame of international bombings against ISIS. During a solemn march with numerous international leaders on January 11th 2015, French president announced the detachment of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier in the middle west region to support air force bombings. A few days later, he strengthened his links with Vladimir Putin to better coordinate bombings in the area. November 2015. Following November 13th, 2015 terrorists attacks in Paris, François Hollande strongly deployed a visible military presence in major cities (increasing the “Vigipirate” counter-terrorist program), he requested a Constitution modification to allow president to maintain a long-term urgent status. This gave the president, extended powers to act as a military leader. July 2016. Even if the popularity rate step was not so important as the two previous examples, we can notice again a slight gain following Nice terrorist attack.

And even if France is composed by a society strongly linked to the military sphere (the distance between civilian and military environment is very narrow in terms of industries, government and social mindset in general), the “war leader” effect is also applicable in countries such as the United States, China, the United Kingdom, African governments, North Korea…

The war school of thought is not only referred to international conflicts but also internal conflicts. In this context, instead of military forces, civilians face police officers. However, the background remains equal: the answer to a conflict is force, demonstrating that a government is still able to react, even in a liberal context. A context where governments seem (I insist, “seem” but not necessarily “have”) to have lost its decision capacity.

Following, we are going to analyze the reason of the choice of force by leaders to demonstrate their decision-making capacity.

The origins

September 11th, 2001. Occident sees a massive violence coming from outside. Almost twenty years after (after Afghanistan, Irak, Yemen…), the emergency state is still our unique horizon. Continuous controls in airports, more and more militarized streets, police officers aggressively equipped, the war is even subcontracted to military companies (the military business)… Where is the phylosophical and effective origin of this school of thinking?

In the 80s, a conservative politist named Samuel P. Huntington raised a theory called “Clash of Civilisations”. As a brief summary, he explains that history is structured by the before mentioned clash of civilizations whose nucleus is based on religion. Nowadays, this clash opposes “The Occident” (economically dominant and demographically declining) to “The Islam” (economically dominated but in a fast demographic expansion). Mr. Huntington continues his reasoning from a survival perspective. Given the above mentioned situation, “The Occident” has to ensure its survival basing its development on its values (liberalism) and organizing its defense around military development. He recommends the use of occidental technologics privileged status to dominate the remaining areas of the world. Unfortunately, history demonstrates that a stronger army is not equivalent to victory. Specially in current conflicts.

The step from the “clash” to the “war” of civilizations came fast following September 2001 terrorist attacks. George W. Bush declares that the United States are in a state of war. It is important to notice that any other president announced a “state of war” since the end of WWII in the US. Even the Vietnam campaign was considered as a conflict by American presidents. Mr. Bush announced, both verbally and by the facts, a new step in occidental approach to war.

Following this came the “Patriot Act” approval in American congress, many war-related laws followed. These laws restricted freedom rights in the name of defense, protection and war.

We can find a recent example of this war and dominance philosophy in the proposal of middle east borders revision. Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters proposed a revision of Sykes-Picot borders in an article named “Blood borders”. A new example of the inherent philosophy that Occident has towards the rest of the world (see picture below).

Besides and in the civil rights approach, European Union, and in a minor level the other occidental countries, have continued applying liberticidal laws in our societies. Inspiring a feeling of fear, need of protection and worst of all: acceptance of the loss of rights in the name of a military defense.

Have these actions been useful?

The answer is not easy. War and conflicts have changed: internal and external wars are very difficult to discern; intelligence has been replaced by counter-terrorism; victims are mainly civilians (90% in 2016); difference between military forces and police is narrowing… But the results are still pending. Twenty years after the establishment of a more militarized state, terrorist attacks remain a real risk (even a reality) for the entire world. The ISIS attacks shown that occidental societies preferred to analyze the social reasons that led minors to enlist the ISIS instead of challenging government strategy and approach to international terrorism.

Analyzed with perspective, occidental governments seem to have selected the “easy” way (attack and destroy; good against bad; you against me) instead of considering local problems around the world. This local analysis integrated in a worldwide approach could have led to building a global diplomatic, military and social solution to solve current situation. I am convinced that unless we consider the effects of globalisation (not to stop it but to understand it) and its related disproportionated differences between persons, a root solution cannot be find.

Are these actions acceptable from a moral point of view?

The specific current situation, from a conflictual perspective, is the result of a succession of elements. The removal of Saddam Hussein dictatorship in Iraq, the de-stabilization of sunnite and chiite power balance, the international expansion of Iran, the religious trend of Turkey, the middle east control tension between Russia and the United States… All these elements were detonated by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Instead of adopting a diplomatic approach combined to specific military interventions (as made for US embassy attack in Kenya), George W. Bush adopted a global conflictual approach and engaged his country and allies in a global war.

This philosophy instilled a supremacy feeling in the attacked countries, installing a submission mentality in the middle east. A favorable situation to develop movements against international occupation… Following the twin towers attack, the US government was forced to adopt a strong answer influenced both by the clash of civilizations philosophy and by the need to provide an answer to its society. This decision placed apart what could have been the long-term solution that could have respected middle east identity, avoided an almost 20 years continuous war and reduced human crisis around the world. The impact of this conflict will ballast human development, social rights and lifes during the entire 21st century.

What is society really thinking about this war philosophy?

Occidental society seems to not clearly position itself in one or another side of the equation. People seems to undergo when they face the long queues at the airports due to the security controls. Movements against wars are soft and do not change governments background philosophy. Watching more and more militaries in cities does not seems to disturb persons… Consequences of the continuous emergency status seem to be integrated in our mores. Maybe a sign of simple acceptance, indifference or maybe support.

However, some particular social claims start to emerge around the world. Focusing in the use of military drones, Ground the Drones campaign is requiring the grounding of all attack and surveillance drones used by the US armed forces. Both outside and inside American borders. At this time, they refuse the standard answers, promising more transparency and ethics.

More generally, this campaign is led by “Voices for Creative Non-Violence” association. A sign that should be the start of a new social empowerment movement whose objective would be to counter the war philosophy. Excluding the specific terrorist attacks, the core of war human disaster is far from our geography. I am convinced that society is not yet engaged in this topic in a moment where financial crisis has just impacted our daily lives. But this initiatives can bring a hope for the future, specially considering that economic indicators seem to announce that financial crisis finishes.

My opinion:

I deeply think that this “war school of thoughts” can be directly linked to lack of politicians ideas in a context of financial governance and macro economics trends. Past decisions to completely free economy and current neo liberal mindset substracted manoeuvre capacity do democratically elected presidents. When the subprimes crisis lashed occidental societies, governments were deprived of a large capacity to decide specific and short term actions.

However, this is not an excuse for mediocrity… As Catherine Tricot mentions in her Regards edito, we can clearly say that “la guerre est la politique faute d’idées”. It could be translated as: wars are politics without ideas.

Moreover, the Clash of Civilizations and its associated classification in groups is, from my understanding, a reductionist approach to humanity. It restricts the identity to a single facet. A human can be an American, living in California, proud of San Francisco, working as a truck driver, with brown hair, blue eyes, disliking beaches, engineer, whose parents are Italian and Canadian… Instead, the Clash of Civilizations reduces this human identity to the single fact of being American and catholic. Which can mislead as not only catholic live in the United States of America and offers a poor vision of a person’s identity.

More extensively, Samuel P. Huntington proposes a conflictual approach to society as our origin is not selected. “I am this, you are not. You are therefore different to me” (and you cannot change it). Instead of proposing an open identity (as the European Union proposed during its expansion phase), it forces a closed and restrictive vision of identity.

Inserted into a government philosophy, Clash of Civilisation tends to increase the possibilities to treat a conflict via armed forces because in the background, the nature of differences will not be solved by an agreement (as nothing can be changed to the fact that both sides belong to a different civilization). Closed identity is currently more important than open equity. Everything starts by clearly defining the country borders. If a menace raises, those borders are defended. If this menace extends and becomes unpredictable and indiscernible, this identity logic drives to clash and to the war status. And when a war is declared, “bye to naive”. New moral, confused with realpolitik, allows to do everything to win the war. Even what cannot be defended. From my understanding, societies dangerously closer to Carl Schmitt vision of democracy.

In 1992, before the global deployment of this philosophy, the United Nations estimated that a worldwide reduction of military expenses of 3% could generate 1.500 billions of dollars as “peace dividends” until 2000. Reality is very far from this estimation: global military investment has overpassed 1.800 billions of dollars in 2014 compared to 1.100 at the beginning of the 21st century.

Revert this situation is still possible. Not so long ago, worldwide societies were against this continuous conflictual status and the constant fear feeling. Movements against Vietnam war, the 90s European Union integration philosophy are examples of past engagement in peace and social economy… However, if we want to change things today, our values (deeply adapted to current conflictual approach) will have to change. This may take time and need support but if we change our values, our roots will lead to a robust tree, aligned with a different view of identity, and finally, as the fruit of our thinking, leaders will steer their approach to international relations.

A social movement for equity and against racism, different and innovative leaders with a wish to change things and a global economic model for social development can be the seed of a less conflictual world. Not so long ago, Barack Obama started diplomatic relations with Iran, a necessary step to reduce middle east tension. Demonstrating that a leader can act without bombs, even in an economically liberal system. The global warming problem can align the world under a coherent economic model that answers both the financial growth need and the social empowerment and equity development. The social movement should start to cluster all these initiatives with our support, creating therefore the demand.

References

Regards. Autumn 2016 edition. Catherine Tricot edito, p8 and 9