Many wars have been ended not by any sort of a “peace process,” but only when one side is so badly beaten that they literally have no other option than to say “We give up, we lost, further resistance is impossible.”
This is a compelling argument - thanks. Now signed up for more.
Just one quibble about characterising the Northern Ireland peace process as US-led. It was initiated by the British government with highly secret discussions with paramilitary groups. America provided great diplomatic and other skills support in later stages, but it seems to me better categorised as an example of weariness over the conflict (which was very miserable to live with for all of us in Britain), rather than international intervention.
Interesting and timely study of geopolitical conflict.
The comparison breaks down with academia, because unlike land, which can have only one sovereign, there is no monopoly on the university functions. An alternative is to create new institutions that uphold liberal values, and over time, displace the existing academic order.
Conflicts end one way: Carthage. Hiroshima. It’s why pre-modern man annihilated villages - not interested in the women birthing new warriors or todays children growing into tomorrow’ attackers, or for the consumption of resources by non-tribe. International intervention may put a conflict on hold. It will resume once the intervention removes itself - weeks, years or centuries. See: Islam. One side may tire and leave; the opposing side will be back, not having been defeated earlier.
The problem nearly all those evaluating the issues have is that they are unable to step outside their cultural biases. In the example of this article, Western measures and assumptions prevail rather than pre-modern, non-Western; I had hoped for the latter from the title.
Tribes go to war for resources: land, food, water, women. They do so because of lack, or out of the desire to prohibit the rise of another tribe which soon will need these resources. Women are needed as they die at high rates in childbirth among pre-modern tribes. Children are needed because half die before age 5.
As these tribes progress, the above, earlier issues are handed down as mythology, oral history, heroic stories to become part of the culture long after the pre-modern needs have evolved-away. Simply, irrational needs today were rational in the past that informs today's ideology.
Does any rational reason exist to explain Islamist terror against non-Islamic people? No.
So looking to rationality, or to expect reason - a Western reason - to inform a non-Western solution is, itself, irrational. Which is why only Carthage or Hiroshima can end a war.
Polemology has always understood the "intractable conflict" this way and it's one reason why the woke campus doesn't like us very much. I must read this paper.
Edit needed:
“Within academia, there is, I have argued, a longrunning conflict in the U.S. between between a radical illberal left (ascendant in academia)...”
Many wars have been ended not by any sort of a “peace process,” but only when one side is so badly beaten that they literally have no other option than to say “We give up, we lost, further resistance is impossible.”
This is a compelling argument - thanks. Now signed up for more.
Just one quibble about characterising the Northern Ireland peace process as US-led. It was initiated by the British government with highly secret discussions with paramilitary groups. America provided great diplomatic and other skills support in later stages, but it seems to me better categorised as an example of weariness over the conflict (which was very miserable to live with for all of us in Britain), rather than international intervention.
Interesting and timely study of geopolitical conflict.
The comparison breaks down with academia, because unlike land, which can have only one sovereign, there is no monopoly on the university functions. An alternative is to create new institutions that uphold liberal values, and over time, displace the existing academic order.
Intractable conflicts are essentially ongoing cycles of revenge.
Revenge is an instinctive behaviour and it will take millenia to outbreed if at all.
I know if someone harmed my loved ones I would be quite happy to serve prison time if need be for putting my revenge instinct into practice.
Conflicts end one way: Carthage. Hiroshima. It’s why pre-modern man annihilated villages - not interested in the women birthing new warriors or todays children growing into tomorrow’ attackers, or for the consumption of resources by non-tribe. International intervention may put a conflict on hold. It will resume once the intervention removes itself - weeks, years or centuries. See: Islam. One side may tire and leave; the opposing side will be back, not having been defeated earlier.
The problem nearly all those evaluating the issues have is that they are unable to step outside their cultural biases. In the example of this article, Western measures and assumptions prevail rather than pre-modern, non-Western; I had hoped for the latter from the title.
Tribes go to war for resources: land, food, water, women. They do so because of lack, or out of the desire to prohibit the rise of another tribe which soon will need these resources. Women are needed as they die at high rates in childbirth among pre-modern tribes. Children are needed because half die before age 5.
As these tribes progress, the above, earlier issues are handed down as mythology, oral history, heroic stories to become part of the culture long after the pre-modern needs have evolved-away. Simply, irrational needs today were rational in the past that informs today's ideology.
Does any rational reason exist to explain Islamist terror against non-Islamic people? No.
So looking to rationality, or to expect reason - a Western reason - to inform a non-Western solution is, itself, irrational. Which is why only Carthage or Hiroshima can end a war.
Extremely interesting study. Thank you for pointing it out.
Polemology has always understood the "intractable conflict" this way and it's one reason why the woke campus doesn't like us very much. I must read this paper.