click here to read The Art of War, Part 2
Well, the final part in our epic series. To this point, loyal reader, we have discussed the origins of war, modern warfare, and now we get to the real meat of the subject – the hamburger of war.
Ok, ok, hee hee hee. I’m not actually going to talk about meat. Tee hee hee. Sorry, but it’s pretty much like us war scholars to titter like a schoolgirl when we make jokes. “Titter” – tee hee hee.
Ok, I’m sorry, I’m ok now…. ahem.
Anyway, where was I? Right! War! And bloody awful it is too. But war in itself is simply an instrument, a tool, an extension of the political will. Most scholars agree that a political leader does and must view war as simply another foreign policy option designed to achieve an end. As von Clauswitz said, “The extension of politics by other means.” I, as you may have noticed by now, am not like most scholars. To say war is the natural extension of politics is rather like saying that arson is the natural extension of lighting a candle.
The general strategy of war is to kick ass and take names, as they say. This is why war has been generally a disaster since the beginning. Why? Well, there is a lot of ass-kicking, but no one ever remembers to take any names and it’s just generally chaos. There’s everyone shooting, blowing things up, etc., etc. and there’s usually one poor guy with a notebook asking for names. But most of the time he’ll be right in the middle of writing one down and then he’ll get mowed down in a crossfire or something.
What does one gain from war? This is an age-old question that is frankly pretty stupid. What can you gain?! What _can’t_ you gain?! Money, power, territory, gold, jewels, vengeance, prestige, a sense of adequacy, world domination, love, happiness – my God, the sky’s the limit! That’s why no one wants this war lark to get out, you see? Sure, political scientists have been writing about the benefits of war for centuries, but it’s always been padded by 400 pages about the individual moves of every soldier who fought in the Hundred Years War and no one has ever managed to make it to the end to find out about all the good stuff.
In fact, I bet most people stopped reading this whole thing at the end of part One because I didn’t talk about big-chested women or motorcycle crashes. Well, that’s the ignorant for you. Meanwhile, the enlightened are doing all the real work – sending people to their deaths for oil!
So, as you come to the end of what – for T. J. Monkey’s – is an epic, Ken Burns-length essay, you must ask yourself – is John a maniac? Has he been honestly touting the virtues of war? Is John a genius comedian? Slaying us with his incisive and clever wit? Or is there a deeper, MASH-like maudlin to his writing – a heartfelt and morose condemnation of war buried within the light tap-dancing of his wit?
How the hell should I know? I turn out this drivel like it was nothing. Like anyone actually puts any thought into this stuff.
And in that way, I’m a lot more like a real political scientist than I ever dreamed.
Goodnight moon.