Dear Friends,
It seems to me, history records that in war, the side that commits the most war crimes, loses. During WWI Germany was pretty decent, as far as war goes, but they allied with Turkey, that committed genocide against the Armenians. Which doomed them both. In the war between the states, as much as I agree with many of the points of the South, their war crimes in Andersonville undid them. The crimes of the Nazis are well documented, and again, damned them too. How do I explain the historical examples? I’m not saying the side that’s good wins, nor am I saying the side that’s the defender wins… no, I’m saying the side that respects human rights, has an advantage. Because war is a complex system. In such systems subtle inputs often makes all the difference. Like the fluttering of wings.
My understanding of complexity theory is that it seeks to explain complex systems. Such as ecologies, economies, bird flocks, etc… as well as war. Complex systems have a few attributes in common spanning the multitude of regimes complexity theory is applicable. A complex system is made up of individual parts, interconnected, interdependent, with a lack of hierarchy and are self organizing. From these basic components arise an astonishingly effective analogue of reality. Complex systems are resilient, and adaptive. From them are born “emergence.” Explaining the wax and wane of species in an ecosystem, the boom bust cycle of the economy, and the uncanny movement of flocks of birds. In this analogue, war is both an emergent phenomenon and a complex system in itself.
When war emerges from the complex system of international politics, it is emergent and itself a complex system. We look at the obvious in war, winning battles. Yet wars have been lost with every battle won. Instead we should look at the intangibles. The will to fight largely depends on the justness of the fight. In the minds of the contestants as well as bystanders. Because in complex systems like war seemingly small inputs can have out sized effects. War crimes have a negative effect on the will to fight of the side that commits them, and enhances the will to fight, in the side that’s victim of them. Plus they turn public opinion against the criminal. To sharpen the point, in a fight between a wolverine and a grizzly, the grizzly will always back down, because the will to fight in a weasel is unmatched.
How can war crimes effect the will to fight of people who don’t know about them? Quite easily if you agree with Jung’s collective unconscious. In his theory of collective unconscious, Jung asserted that there is a deep layer of consciousness, the collective unconscious, or as the Kabalists call the unconscious, the super conscious… that’s the foundation of human cognition. We see it manifested in art, literature and iconography. A paleolithic fat woman statue for example. Crimes against humanity then, must be recorded in the collective unconscious… if it exists. Making the knowledge available to everyone. If only as a vague feeling of unease. Intuitive people will understand this more intuitively, than sensing people will sense it, but intuition is available to everyone.
What are we to make of this then? Was Jesus right in saying turn the other cheek? Even as he told his disciples to hammer their plowshares into swords? Righteous fighting in war bestows an advantage. An edge that’s subtle and impossible to quantify. Yet cuts like a razor. War crimes lurk in the collective unconscious… nagging at us. Not just at yours, and not only mine… but mankind’s. Every war crime is a butterfly’s flutter in the hurricane of war. As is every act of humanity. History agrees with me. The short term advantage of barbarity becomes a liability. When reality agrees with hypothesis, that hypothesis must have some merit. Else it wouldn’t agree with empirical examination. War crimes are detrimental to a war effort. Unless war crimes are the point. Which would make victory a secondary goal.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
