Perpetual war
Perpetual war, endless war, or a forever war, is a lasting state of war with no clear conditions that would lead to its conclusion. These wars are usually situations of ongoing tension that may escalate at any moment, similar to the Cold War. From the late 20th century, the concepts have been used to critique the United States Armed Forces interventions in foreign nations and the military–industrial complex such as the Vietnam War and the Soviet-Afghan War, or wars with ambiguous enemies such as the war on terror or war on drugs.
"Forever war" redirects here. For the novel, see The Forever War. For other uses, see The Forever War (disambiguation).Causes[edit]
Poor military planning is one of the major reasons that a forever war can occur. If the territory gained in a war is not occupied or controlled properly, this can allow a deadly insurgency to occur, potentially stretching out a conflict that never ends.[1] Similarly, warfare that is fought irregularly, such as rebellions in Africa, do not have a set of military objectives in mind, usually because these rebel groups intend to commit war crimes against the civilian population. Thus, the lack of actual military goals can in itself be a reason that a forever war can occur. A very large defense budget may also be a factor in the transpiration of a forever war.[2] As of 2018, the United States has an inflation-adjusted military budget that is greater than its budget for World War II, which enables it to fight continuously in Iraq and other countries.[2]
Civil wars are prone to military stalemate which can prolong the war indefinitely.[3] A lack of democracy is associated with an increased risk of civil war.[3]
Forever wars can occur in order to keep money flowing into institutions, such as the military–industrial–congressional complex (MICC).[2] Thus, forever wars can serve as domestic political engines, as policy makers promote policies of continuing and expanding wars.[4]
Forever wars can be to the benefit of small armed groups, who may achieve political goals by wearing down a larger group or country. For example, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of the war on terror, Al-Qaeda aimed to involve the United States in a prolonged guerrilla war in Afghanistan, challenging its will to fight such a long war.[5]
Wars between ethnic or ideological groups can become forever wars, as such wars are harder to end with a negotiated peace deal due to the different interests of the two sides.[3] An additional barrier may arise in the case of religious wars if one or both parties believe that the other must be destroyed.[3]
In current events[edit]
The concept of a perpetual war has been used since opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. James Pinckney Harrison argues in The Endless War: Fifty Years of Struggle in Vietnam (1981)[6] that the Vietnam War was "endless" due to the success of the communist revolution in nationalizing the people.[7] The concept was used by Trần Văn Đôn, a general in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, in his book Our Endless War: Inside Vietnam (1978).[8]
American historian James Chace argues in his book Endless War: How we got involved in Central America (1983)[9] that US policy in Central America is based upon the assumption that US hegemony is threatened within the region. According to Chace, US involvement in Central America worked towards resisting the domino effect of the spread of a "communist take-over", largely through establishing the credibility of US military.[10] Though these policies were meant to deter conflict, they themselves created the conditions for instability in the region, which furthered a US response. This resulted in a self-perpetuating, or "endless", loop. He additionally argues US investment in pursuing an expanding military presence in Central America reflects an endless preparation for war.[11]
A key argument of Chace is that much of this military involvement stems from a logic of US paranoia in reaction to the Cuban Revolution. A similar argument is put forward by David Keen, political economist and Professor of Complex Emergencies at the London School of Economics.[12] His book Endless War? Hidden Function of the 'War on Terror' (2006)[13] argues that the United States' strategies and tactics in the war on terror use a "militaristic state-cased framework". This framework, though "counterproductive", has an "inner logic" and a "psychological function" of responding to the trauma of September 11 attacks.[14]
Noam Chomsky posits that a state of perpetual war is an aid to (and is promoted by) the powerful members of dominant political and economic classes, helping maintain their positions of economic and political superiority.
British journalist Robert Fisk, a critic of Western policies in the Middle East, argues that recent Western conflicts against the Middle East, after the end of the Cold War, have been part of a new perpetual war.[15] He suggests that former U.S. President George H. W. Bush launched attacks on Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan to distract the population from his domestic political problems. In addition, he claims that despite victorious claims after the first Gulf War that Saddam Hussein had been "defanged", he was again the target of Western attacks until his execution in 2006.
Similarly, Ted Koppel described the war on terror as "Our Children's Children's War".[16] Critics of Western policies have used the term "perpetual war" in reference to non-military "wars", such as the "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", "War on Cancer", Lou Dobbs's "War on the Middle Class", the "War on Terrorism",[17] the "War on Women", or Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas".
Views of influential writers[edit]
Sun Tzu[edit]
Ancient war advisor Sun Tzu expressed views in the 6th century BC about perpetual war. The following quotation from chapter 2, Waging War, of his book The Art of War suggests the negative impacts of prolonged war: