Advait Sinha Extra Essay

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

Advait Sinha

Prof. Pratyay Nath

A History of War Focused Only on Combat Captures only a Fragment of the Complex
World of War

For the purpose of this paper, war is defined as the realisation of conflict between two
distinct social groups- including but not limited to nation-states, seccesionist groups,
and religious groups. The conflict does not have to entail direct and violent engagement.

History serves as a reminder- of our best moments and our worst. Rather than a simple
timeline of events, it is an endless repository of lessons, open to directional
interpretation of its reader. As such, it becomes extremely important to have access to
history that paints an exhaustive picture of its focus area. Laying this context becomes
extremely important when it comes to war- which is perhaps most easily reduced to its
highlight events. To illustrate, one may be sufficiently pleased to know the countries that
constituted both sides of the World Wars, alongside key dates, statistics and
geographical facts about battles within the Wars that proved to be decisive in terms of
their outcome. This paper however, argues that, for example, it is also important to
study the military commanders of these countries, alongside their egos and complexes,
which served as driving factors for some of the most important decisions in history.
Additionally, exhaustively studying the stakeholders affected by war, including the
environment and fauna, alongside several other components becomes imperative, for it
is only this multi-dimensional approach which will ensure that the history of war truly
serves as a lesson- thereby determining our future actions.

While combat and its history has its own place in scholarship, it is important to not
conflate it with the entirety of war. Such an incomplete depiction puts us at risk of
getting lost in fascination with technological advancements and a glamourization of pain
and suffering. Additionally, combat only serves to represent a certain stage of conflict or
war, with several wars seeing only a small percentage of their temporal coverage actually
involving combat.

A dangerous aspect of war is that its history is largely narrativized by participants who
come out on top. While this is not to say that those powers on the losingside are rarely
morally culpable or- for the lack of a better word- evil; it does put us at risk of absorbing
an incomplete account. Tanner Mirrles and Taha Ibaid1, in their work detailing the
importance of cognizance in popular depictions of war, detail how the communications
and generalization of the ‘War on Terror’ has endangered millions of innocent Muslims
all over the world. Mirrles and Ibaid discuss how several video games in the 21st
Century are contributing towards a military-digital games complex by otherizing
Muslims as the target of patriotic aggression (Mirrles and Ibaid, 36). Their work sheds
important light on the importance of studying representations and popular culture
surrounding war, similar to how we study propoganda systems of the Nazis today.

An excessive focus on the combat element of war also sidelines some direct factors that
influence combat. For example, John. A. Hall and Sinisa Malsevic2 studied the
relationship between nationalism and war, aiming to find out whether the presence of
the former intensifies the latter in any way. Their findings, sprouting from study of the
Second World War, found that apart from Germany and Japan, there was no clear
causal relationship between nationalism and a more intense or aggressive combat style.
However, more contemporary scholars such as Veronika Prochko3 argue that this has
since changed, citing the US Pearl Harbour Attack and the 9/11 terror attacks as key
inflexion points.

1 Tanner Mirrless and Taha Ibaid, ‘The Virtual Killing of Muslims: Digital War Games,
Islamophobia, and the Global War on Terror’, Islamophia Studies Journal, vol. 6, no, 1 (2021),
pp. 33-51.

2 Michael Mann, ‘The Role of Nationalism in the Two World Wars’, in John A. Hall and Siniša
Malešević (eds), Nationalism and War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 172-
196.

3 Prochko, Veronika. "Is Nationalism Inherently Violent?" E-International Relations, University of St


Andrews, 2017.
It can be argued that a study of combat and the actions of war participants at the very
least give a good sense of the outlook and attitude to that specific war prevailing within
its constituents. However, this is yet another misattribution. While deployment of
soldiers and resources in war efforts give an indication of the official position of key
decision makers of a country/community, they cannot be said to represent the views of
the majority of their population, let alone the entirety. Given that there has been no
realisation of Kant’s War Referendum theory, dissent largely finds solace in popular
culture. Iconic singers and bands such as Bob Marley, Billy Joel, and Iqbal Bano have
resonated with people most for their songs condemning governmental and military
action. On the flip side, scholars such as Clayton Koppes and Gregory Black4 have
studied the importance of films in American war strategy, in order to incite their people
into supporting their war efforts once America entered the World War. Even if one's
prime focus is on combat elements, it becomes important to study these elements. This
is because there must be synergy across different segments in a country- such that
resources, morale, and manpower are all serving as boosts rather than hindrances to
war efforts.

Studying war solely through the lens of combat reduces it to numbers, dates, and a few
select names. It fails to capture conflicts of ideology and culture. One must understand
that the prime objective of war is not a flexing of war prowess or violent domination-
rather, the real power exists in not having to enter that conflict. The most interesting
example of this is the 7 decade long Cold War conflict between the Soviet Union and the
United States of America. While the conflict never descended into combat, several
scholars (Roberts5) would cite America’s biggest win as the McDonalisation of the Soviet
Union and the overwhelming demand for American cultural symbols like Blue Jeans.
David Engerman6 studies this ideological battle in detail, describing the conflict as

4 Clayton R Koppes and Gregory D Black, ‘What to Show the World: The Office of War
Information and Hollywood, 1942-1945’, The Journal of American History 54, no. 1 (1977): 87-
105.
5 Roberts, G.H. (Ed.). (2016). Material Culture in Russia and the USSR: Things, Values, Identities (1st
ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003086024
6 David C Engerman, ‘Ideology and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1962’, Melvyn P Leffler
and Odd Arne Westad (eds), The Cambridge History of Cold War, vol. I: Origins (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010), 20-43.
following: “Leaders on each side believed that history itself was on their side, ...a certain
impatience with the workings of history; neither side was willing to stand aside and let
history take its course.” (Engerman, 23).

War is indeed a complex matrix involving a variety of influencing factors. While combat
is arguably the ultimate realisation of this matrix, studying it exclusively would be
similar to studying a country’s affairs in the 21st Century, and claiming to be an expert
on its history. Much like a country’s history, combat cannot be fully understood without
giving importance to the elements of war preceding it and surrounding it. As a matter of
principle in scholarship, we should ensure that we resist the temptation to only focus on
the most tangible or “exciting” aspects of any phenomenon, such that we strive to
understand it in its entirety. It is only at such a point that we can begin to affect change
as we intention it.

Bibliography

Tanner Mirrless and Taha Ibaid, ‘The Virtual Killing of Muslims: Digital War Games,
Islamophobia, and the Global War on Terror’, Islamophia Studies Journal, vol. 6, no, 1
(2021),
pp. 33-51.

Michael Mann, ‘The Role of Nationalism in the Two World Wars’, in John A. Hall and
Siniša Malešević (eds), Nationalism and War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2013), 172-
196.

Prochko, Veronika. "Is Nationalism Inherently Violent?" E-International Relations,


University of St Andrews, 2017.

Clayton R Koppes and Gregory D Black, ‘What to Show the World: The Office of War
Information and Hollywood, 1942-1945’, The Journal of American History 54, no. 1
(1977): 87-105.

Roberts, G.H. (Ed.). (2016). Material Culture in Russia and the USSR: Things, Values,
Identities (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003086024

David C Engerman, ‘Ideology and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1962’, Melvyn P
Leffler
and Odd Arne Westad (eds), The Cambridge History of Cold War, vol. I: Origins
(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010), 20-43.

You might also like