21 lessons for 21st Century

Chapter 11:
War
Participants:

M.irtaza Bashir15546
M.Rabeel
 There was a time when wars made sense to some
politicians – it was when wars were profitable and easy. In
1914, the British controlled the Nile Valley and the Suez
Canal for decades without much push back. The U.S won
the war against Mexico, gained a landmass equivalent to
Western Europe, for the price of only 13,000 men.
 But these days, war is not an attractive proposition for
large nations, although it still is one for non-state actors.
The amount of wealth that can be gained by war is a
fraction of what can be gained from a technologically
advanced economy engaged in free trade.
 If we look at the world, we will see that those who have
waged wars in recent history have seldom benefited.
 The Iraq-Iran war greatly harmed the Iranians and discouraged
them from entering other direct confrontations. Iranian influence in
the Middle East today is a result of the U.S war with Iraq which
destroyed Iraq and pushed the U.S towards loosening their grip on
the country, serving Iranian interests in the process.
 Similarly, Israel has avoided direct confrontation with Syria, as they
understand the damaging consequences of war. Capturing an oil
field or arable land is not the prize it used to be. Today, it is far
more exciting to build the next Google than it is to capture another
oil field. The shift in value towards a silicon-based economy of bits
and bytes has contributed to a more peaceful world.   
 Yet, human stupidity is to never be discounted. Otherwise rational
leaders can make poor decisions simply because the world is too
complex, and they do not properly understand the ramifications of
their ideas.
M. Rabeel
The view from kremlin
 So far the only successful invasion mounted by a major power in the twenty-
first century has been the Russian conquest of Crimea. In February 2014
Russian forces invaded neighbouring Ukraine and occupied the Crimean
peninsula, which was subsequently annexed to Russia. With hardly any
fighting, Russia gained strategically vital territory, struck fear into its
neighbours, and reestablished itself as a world power.
 However, the conquest succeeded thanks to an extraordinary set of
circumstances. Neither the Ukrainian army nor the local population showed
much resistance to the Russians, while other powers refrained from directly
intervening in the crisis. These circumstances will be hard to reproduce
elsewhere around the world. If the precondition for a successful war is the
absence of enemies willing to resist the aggressor, it seriously limits the
available opportunities.
 Why is it so difficult for major powers to wage successful
wars in the twentyfirst century?

 One reason is the change in the nature of the economy. In the

past, economic assets were mostly material, so it was
relatively straightforward to enrich yourself by conquest. If
you defeated your enemies on the battlefield, you could cash
in by looting their cities, selling their civilians in the slave
markets, and occupying valuable wheat fields and gold mines.
Romans prospered by selling captive Greeks and Gauls, and
nineteenth-century Americans thrived by occupying the gold
mines of California and the cattle ranches of Texas.
March of folly

 Human stupidity is one of the most important forces in history, yet we

often discount it. Politicians, generals and scholars treat the world as a
great chess game, where every move follows careful rational
calculations. This is correct up to a point. Few leaders in history have
been mad in the narrow sense of the word, moving pawns and knights
at random. General Tojo, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il had
rational reasons for every move they played. The problem is that the
world is far more complicated than a chessboard, and human
rationality is not up to the task of really understan