I reread this essay today after listening to the latest podcast discussion between Damir and Santiago.
I mostly agree that war is a necessary evil that must be fought as a last option. But that is easier said than done as decision to go to war is also based on whether going to war now is better than later because the enemy is weak now. For example, Israel (joined by the US) attacked Iran now as it does not have a Nuclear weapon yet.
But when Santiago says: "They are pro-war in a philosophical sense", I wonder who he has in mind. Is Netanyahu such a person who held off fighting Iran for 20 years while earnestly believing Iran to be an existential threat to Israel? More accurately, hardliners, in general, seem to have concluded that differences with the enemy are irreconcilable, and therefore war is not an "if" decision but a "when" decision. This is where pacifists can play a role by engaging with moderate players on the enemy side to negotiate an acceptable agreement.
Maybe Santiago has imperialists in mind. A point Timothy Snyder, professor of history previously at Yale, made in one of his lecture that an imperialist ambitions of a nation end only when it suffers defeat, citing the example of Japan and Germany losing to the Allies, and the British losing to Ireland in the Irish War of Independence. Iran clearly had imperialistic ambitions (its funding of proxies etc.) that can only be ended by inflicting a defeat on Iran, which is what Israel has done over the last two years, first by severely weakening Hamas and Hezbollah, and now defeating Iran in the 12 day war (even though Khamenei has declared victory in a Trumpian fashion!).
While some are reckless warmongers, I would say that most pro-war people (without imperialistic motives) believe we should be willing to wage a war if needed after having exhausted all other avenues. A war of choice must also have clear war objectives, detailed war plans based on good intelligence and anything else that ensures quick victory. The purpose of a war of choice is to accomplish a strategic objective.
The objective of Iran war was to delay the timeline for it to get a nuclear weapon. I believe that objective is mostly achieved. Even if it turns out they were able to move the 60% enriched Uranium, and they have other locations with the centrifuges for further enrichment yada yada, a key goal accomplished was this: Iran can no longer assume that Israel and the US will not attack Iran if it gets close to getting a nuclear weapon That itself is a deterrent for at least a few years till Iran reconstitutes its air defense and clean its ranks of personnel compromised by Mossad.
Final point: I completely agree with Damir that a decision to go to war must not be saddled with moralistic goals like "democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan". Both offensive and defensive war must be fought for a nation's defense.
Do you think that “The West” as you defined it, all of it’s cultural achievements, would have survived the historical revisionism of Hitler and Stalin?Do you believe that Persia, and all of its accumulated science and wisdom, survived the modern brand of radicalism that now rules its territorial remnant? Did Ptolemaic Greece survive Caesar’s fires or did it die with the Library of Alexandria and simply become a page in the history of Rome? Did Ancient Egypt live on continuously after the wars it lost to upstart empires, or are we still today trying to work out how they lived, how they built what they built, and who they were?
Maybe I am pro this war and pro that war. I do know that war won’t save us in the long run, but I am genuinely interested in your answer to these questions, because I think there are people in this world, and some inside the borders of The West, who wish to wipe its systems and values from memory.
For the part about Egypt, I think Schumpeter has good insights in "Imperalism and Social Classes" he writes (p.25) "The facts enable us to diagnose the case. The war of liberation from the Hyksos, lasting a century and a half, had "militarized" Egypt. A class of professional soldiers had come into being, replacing the old peasant militia and technically far superior to it, owing to the employment of battle chariots, introduced, like the horse, by the Bedouin Hyksos. The support of that class enabled the victorious kings, as early as Aahmes I, to reorganize the empire centrally and to suppress the regional feudal lords and the large, aristocratic landowners—or at least to reduce their importance. We hear little about them in the "New" Empire. The crown thus carried out a social revolution; it became the ruling power, together with the new military and hierarchical aristocracy and, to an increasing degree, foreign mercenaries as well. This new social and political organization was essentially a war machine. It was motivated by warlike instincts and interests. Only in war could it find an outlet and maintain its domestic position. Without continual passages at arms it would necessarily have collapsed. Its external orientation was war, and war alone. Thus war became the normal condition, alone conducive to the well-being of the organs of the body social that now existed. To take the field was a matter of course, the reasons for doing so were of subordinate importance. Created by wars that required it, the machine now created the wars it required. A will for broad conquest without tangible limits, for the capture of positions that were manifestly untenable—this was typical imperialism" I think this is the fear in the case of Israel and US.
Thanks for this fascinating essay, Santiago :) I'm more 'pro-war' I think than I used to be, especially in defence of specific values. I've come to believe that without the use of force, values simply cannot be preserved in the long run. Of course, force on its own terms cannot provide the space nor the grounding for the cultivation of value- it is always a negative charge in that way but I believe it is a necessary one.
The idea of a worldwide ideological shift change strikes me as one of complete fantasy, which has been shown by the emergence of techno-authoritarianism in the 21st century. So, I think in the first point, you're not entirely wrong but I'd question a little of it. Did the West's military and economic power, economic power being another tool of force, force its opponents into its sphere of ideas? Is not the decline of the West's dominance also showing how its ideas about the good are coming under increasing contestation, even in its heartlands?
Your second point is, again, I think, right up to a point. For sure, the West's ideals are not always found in the West and there is no reason to think they cannot be found anywhere in the world. However, we cannot pretend that currently the West's adversaries hold any such mantle for such ideas. China, India, and Russia are all exerting extremely xenophobic nationalism (with China committing a genocide against the Uyghurs), with autocratic systems of government repressing all kinds of natural freedoms. The same is true for the Gulf states, which are using their wealth to drench themselves in respectability while maintaining abhorrent practices of rulership, exclusive citizenship, and what is tantamount to slave labour at home. So, I think we are in an era where non-western states do possess anti-western views and this is a problem which needs to be defended and addressed.
The saying goes there are only two guarantees in life: “death and taxes.” Is war not an inevitable 3rd thing to add? Has there been a time in human history where humanity has been so peaceful? I could be naive.
It is a hierarchical, clandestine, totalitarian Empire which operates over and above politics and beliefs.
It has control over the Committee of 300, the Club of Rome, Bilderberg, Le Cercle, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and every government in the world.
Those who succeed in times of war are well prepared and keeping a good distance from it. They find ways to justify their withdrawal to safe spaces. They consider themselves superior to it, even though they are the manipulators of it.
They believe that their action is warranted. For them, war is the quickest route to personal salvation on a planet with finite resources. It is an essential thinning of the herd. A herd of humans which they fear may rise up and annihilate them and their inheritance."
Great essay. To that last anti-war point you made, many of the loudest proponents of it have never fought in one. I'm sure Karp and Konstantine never have.
Pro or Not. Seems to be a binary frame on what the author describes as a much more complex matter. I would like to have seen a different way of positing the challenge.
# Beyond Binary Thinking: A Response to "War Will Not Save 'the West'"
Santiago Ramos's recent piece, "War Will Not Save 'the West,'" deeply resonates as a crucial and timely reflection on conflict. It powerfully articulates two core perspectives on war, yet I wonder if both, in their own ways, illuminate a shared underlying challenge: a "failure of imagination."
This isn't a critique of intelligence or goodwill, but rather an inability to envision outcomes or alternative pathways beyond our current, often entrenched, modes of thinking—a tendency to get stuck in familiar ways of thinking, hindering the consideration of alternative possibilities and creative solutions.
## Re-framing the "Pro-War" View through "Failure of Imagination"
When we consider the "philosophical pro-war" view—that war is necessary for "order and culture and justice and freedom"—one might suggest a failure of imagination in truly envisioning how these "best things in human existence" could be secured and cultivated without resorting to, or constantly threatening, armed conflict.
The historical examples Ramos provides, where great ideas survived despite wars and collapsing empires, subtly suggest that our imagination might be too limited if we exclusively attribute their survival to military might. Perhaps we fail to imagine the inherent resilience of human intellect and creativity, or the myriad other ways knowledge and values persist. As Ramos himself highlights, the preservation of Western thought by non-Western powers exemplifies cultural continuity that transcends military victory and defeat—a testament to an imagination that looks beyond conflict for preservation.
## Re-framing the "Anti-War" View through "Failure of Imagination"
Conversely, the critical perspective, which rightly highlights war's brutal destructiveness and its tendency to degrade the very values it claims to defend, might also, at times, exhibit a failure of imagination. This isn't a critique of the valid concerns, but rather an observation that perhaps we haven't fully imagined the transformative potential of non-military approaches to conflict resolution, or the systemic shifts required to move beyond a cycle of violence as the primary means of ensuring security.
The focus on how close the West came to destroying its own cultural artifacts during World War II, as Ramos points out, reveals a grim reality. It challenges us to imagine more robust and less destructive methods for resolving international disputes—methods that don't hinge, as Ramos poignantly describes for WWII, on "acts of God, the bad conscience of military commanders, or sheer luck" for the preservation of our shared heritage.
## Introducing the "Third Way Synthesis" as an Act of Imagination
This leads me to propose a "Third Way synthesis," inherently an act of imagination. In political philosophy, a "Third Way" isn't about lukewarm compromise; it's about actively seeking a novel integration of seemingly opposing ideas for a more holistic and effective approach. It asks us to look beyond "pro-war" and "anti-war" as mutually exclusive binaries, and instead imagine a path that learns from the insights of both while avoiding their respective pitfalls.
It's about synthesizing the recognition that security is vital with the profound understanding that war often undermines that very security in the long run. It calls for an expanded imagination to conceive of alternative strategies that prioritize resilience, cooperation, and the cultivation of shared values on a global scale, rather than solely through the projection of force.
## Practical Implications for Everyone's Personal Benefit
Applying this "Third Way" thinking, catalyzed by addressing our "failure of imagination," isn't just for geopolitical strategists. It's profoundly relevant for our personal lives too. How often do we get stuck in binary thinking—either/or, right/wrong—in our own challenges, relationships, or career paths?
By actively seeking a "Third Way" in our personal dilemmas, we cultivate a more expansive imagination. This helps us foresee potential negative outcomes (the "predictable yet unforeseen" aspect of failure of imagination) and develop innovative solutions that move beyond simply reacting to problems. It allows us to build stronger relationships by seeking understanding beyond immediate disagreements, fostering creative solutions in our work, and ultimately, leading to more resilient and fulfilling lives.
## A Call to Shared Imagination
Ramos's article provides a vital mirror, reflecting our collective engagement with war. My hope is that by applying the lens of "failure of imagination" and consciously seeking a "Third Way synthesis," we can move towards a more creative, less reactive, and ultimately more effective approach to securing our shared future, both globally and individually.
This dialogue, much like the "wisdom of crowds" itself, benefits from an expanded imagination—one that allows us to collectively envision and build a world where the "best things in human existence" are not merely preserved by force, but cultivated through foresight, collaboration, and a profound commitment to peace and shared prosperity.
This is a fine essay. But on top of that it's wonderful to see pieces with analytical heft in WoC.
Ok Santiago - so “[war is] not what preserves the great achievements of the human race” but can we be human without it?
I’m still mulling this question
I reread this essay today after listening to the latest podcast discussion between Damir and Santiago.
I mostly agree that war is a necessary evil that must be fought as a last option. But that is easier said than done as decision to go to war is also based on whether going to war now is better than later because the enemy is weak now. For example, Israel (joined by the US) attacked Iran now as it does not have a Nuclear weapon yet.
But when Santiago says: "They are pro-war in a philosophical sense", I wonder who he has in mind. Is Netanyahu such a person who held off fighting Iran for 20 years while earnestly believing Iran to be an existential threat to Israel? More accurately, hardliners, in general, seem to have concluded that differences with the enemy are irreconcilable, and therefore war is not an "if" decision but a "when" decision. This is where pacifists can play a role by engaging with moderate players on the enemy side to negotiate an acceptable agreement.
Maybe Santiago has imperialists in mind. A point Timothy Snyder, professor of history previously at Yale, made in one of his lecture that an imperialist ambitions of a nation end only when it suffers defeat, citing the example of Japan and Germany losing to the Allies, and the British losing to Ireland in the Irish War of Independence. Iran clearly had imperialistic ambitions (its funding of proxies etc.) that can only be ended by inflicting a defeat on Iran, which is what Israel has done over the last two years, first by severely weakening Hamas and Hezbollah, and now defeating Iran in the 12 day war (even though Khamenei has declared victory in a Trumpian fashion!).
While some are reckless warmongers, I would say that most pro-war people (without imperialistic motives) believe we should be willing to wage a war if needed after having exhausted all other avenues. A war of choice must also have clear war objectives, detailed war plans based on good intelligence and anything else that ensures quick victory. The purpose of a war of choice is to accomplish a strategic objective.
The objective of Iran war was to delay the timeline for it to get a nuclear weapon. I believe that objective is mostly achieved. Even if it turns out they were able to move the 60% enriched Uranium, and they have other locations with the centrifuges for further enrichment yada yada, a key goal accomplished was this: Iran can no longer assume that Israel and the US will not attack Iran if it gets close to getting a nuclear weapon That itself is a deterrent for at least a few years till Iran reconstitutes its air defense and clean its ranks of personnel compromised by Mossad.
Final point: I completely agree with Damir that a decision to go to war must not be saddled with moralistic goals like "democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan". Both offensive and defensive war must be fought for a nation's defense.
Do you think that “The West” as you defined it, all of it’s cultural achievements, would have survived the historical revisionism of Hitler and Stalin?Do you believe that Persia, and all of its accumulated science and wisdom, survived the modern brand of radicalism that now rules its territorial remnant? Did Ptolemaic Greece survive Caesar’s fires or did it die with the Library of Alexandria and simply become a page in the history of Rome? Did Ancient Egypt live on continuously after the wars it lost to upstart empires, or are we still today trying to work out how they lived, how they built what they built, and who they were?
Maybe I am pro this war and pro that war. I do know that war won’t save us in the long run, but I am genuinely interested in your answer to these questions, because I think there are people in this world, and some inside the borders of The West, who wish to wipe its systems and values from memory.
Edit: Ptolemaic Egypt not Greece.
For the part about Egypt, I think Schumpeter has good insights in "Imperalism and Social Classes" he writes (p.25) "The facts enable us to diagnose the case. The war of liberation from the Hyksos, lasting a century and a half, had "militarized" Egypt. A class of professional soldiers had come into being, replacing the old peasant militia and technically far superior to it, owing to the employment of battle chariots, introduced, like the horse, by the Bedouin Hyksos. The support of that class enabled the victorious kings, as early as Aahmes I, to reorganize the empire centrally and to suppress the regional feudal lords and the large, aristocratic landowners—or at least to reduce their importance. We hear little about them in the "New" Empire. The crown thus carried out a social revolution; it became the ruling power, together with the new military and hierarchical aristocracy and, to an increasing degree, foreign mercenaries as well. This new social and political organization was essentially a war machine. It was motivated by warlike instincts and interests. Only in war could it find an outlet and maintain its domestic position. Without continual passages at arms it would necessarily have collapsed. Its external orientation was war, and war alone. Thus war became the normal condition, alone conducive to the well-being of the organs of the body social that now existed. To take the field was a matter of course, the reasons for doing so were of subordinate importance. Created by wars that required it, the machine now created the wars it required. A will for broad conquest without tangible limits, for the capture of positions that were manifestly untenable—this was typical imperialism" I think this is the fear in the case of Israel and US.
Thanks for this fascinating essay, Santiago :) I'm more 'pro-war' I think than I used to be, especially in defence of specific values. I've come to believe that without the use of force, values simply cannot be preserved in the long run. Of course, force on its own terms cannot provide the space nor the grounding for the cultivation of value- it is always a negative charge in that way but I believe it is a necessary one.
The idea of a worldwide ideological shift change strikes me as one of complete fantasy, which has been shown by the emergence of techno-authoritarianism in the 21st century. So, I think in the first point, you're not entirely wrong but I'd question a little of it. Did the West's military and economic power, economic power being another tool of force, force its opponents into its sphere of ideas? Is not the decline of the West's dominance also showing how its ideas about the good are coming under increasing contestation, even in its heartlands?
Your second point is, again, I think, right up to a point. For sure, the West's ideals are not always found in the West and there is no reason to think they cannot be found anywhere in the world. However, we cannot pretend that currently the West's adversaries hold any such mantle for such ideas. China, India, and Russia are all exerting extremely xenophobic nationalism (with China committing a genocide against the Uyghurs), with autocratic systems of government repressing all kinds of natural freedoms. The same is true for the Gulf states, which are using their wealth to drench themselves in respectability while maintaining abhorrent practices of rulership, exclusive citizenship, and what is tantamount to slave labour at home. So, I think we are in an era where non-western states do possess anti-western views and this is a problem which needs to be defended and addressed.
I think those are my two biggest questions :)
The saying goes there are only two guarantees in life: “death and taxes.” Is war not an inevitable 3rd thing to add? Has there been a time in human history where humanity has been so peaceful? I could be naive.
"The enemy is not a country.
It is not a religion.
It is a hierarchical, clandestine, totalitarian Empire which operates over and above politics and beliefs.
It has control over the Committee of 300, the Club of Rome, Bilderberg, Le Cercle, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and every government in the world.
It is the true enemy of the entire human race.
It must be destroyed."
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/ww3-the-pentagon-brief
"There are no winners among us.
Those who succeed in times of war are well prepared and keeping a good distance from it. They find ways to justify their withdrawal to safe spaces. They consider themselves superior to it, even though they are the manipulators of it.
They believe that their action is warranted. For them, war is the quickest route to personal salvation on a planet with finite resources. It is an essential thinning of the herd. A herd of humans which they fear may rise up and annihilate them and their inheritance."
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/and-now-to-war
Conspiracy crackpots must be destroyed.
Great essay. To that last anti-war point you made, many of the loudest proponents of it have never fought in one. I'm sure Karp and Konstantine never have.
Pro or Not. Seems to be a binary frame on what the author describes as a much more complex matter. I would like to have seen a different way of positing the challenge.
# Beyond Binary Thinking: A Response to "War Will Not Save 'the West'"
Santiago Ramos's recent piece, "War Will Not Save 'the West,'" deeply resonates as a crucial and timely reflection on conflict. It powerfully articulates two core perspectives on war, yet I wonder if both, in their own ways, illuminate a shared underlying challenge: a "failure of imagination."
This isn't a critique of intelligence or goodwill, but rather an inability to envision outcomes or alternative pathways beyond our current, often entrenched, modes of thinking—a tendency to get stuck in familiar ways of thinking, hindering the consideration of alternative possibilities and creative solutions.
## Re-framing the "Pro-War" View through "Failure of Imagination"
When we consider the "philosophical pro-war" view—that war is necessary for "order and culture and justice and freedom"—one might suggest a failure of imagination in truly envisioning how these "best things in human existence" could be secured and cultivated without resorting to, or constantly threatening, armed conflict.
The historical examples Ramos provides, where great ideas survived despite wars and collapsing empires, subtly suggest that our imagination might be too limited if we exclusively attribute their survival to military might. Perhaps we fail to imagine the inherent resilience of human intellect and creativity, or the myriad other ways knowledge and values persist. As Ramos himself highlights, the preservation of Western thought by non-Western powers exemplifies cultural continuity that transcends military victory and defeat—a testament to an imagination that looks beyond conflict for preservation.
## Re-framing the "Anti-War" View through "Failure of Imagination"
Conversely, the critical perspective, which rightly highlights war's brutal destructiveness and its tendency to degrade the very values it claims to defend, might also, at times, exhibit a failure of imagination. This isn't a critique of the valid concerns, but rather an observation that perhaps we haven't fully imagined the transformative potential of non-military approaches to conflict resolution, or the systemic shifts required to move beyond a cycle of violence as the primary means of ensuring security.
The focus on how close the West came to destroying its own cultural artifacts during World War II, as Ramos points out, reveals a grim reality. It challenges us to imagine more robust and less destructive methods for resolving international disputes—methods that don't hinge, as Ramos poignantly describes for WWII, on "acts of God, the bad conscience of military commanders, or sheer luck" for the preservation of our shared heritage.
## Introducing the "Third Way Synthesis" as an Act of Imagination
This leads me to propose a "Third Way synthesis," inherently an act of imagination. In political philosophy, a "Third Way" isn't about lukewarm compromise; it's about actively seeking a novel integration of seemingly opposing ideas for a more holistic and effective approach. It asks us to look beyond "pro-war" and "anti-war" as mutually exclusive binaries, and instead imagine a path that learns from the insights of both while avoiding their respective pitfalls.
It's about synthesizing the recognition that security is vital with the profound understanding that war often undermines that very security in the long run. It calls for an expanded imagination to conceive of alternative strategies that prioritize resilience, cooperation, and the cultivation of shared values on a global scale, rather than solely through the projection of force.
## Practical Implications for Everyone's Personal Benefit
Applying this "Third Way" thinking, catalyzed by addressing our "failure of imagination," isn't just for geopolitical strategists. It's profoundly relevant for our personal lives too. How often do we get stuck in binary thinking—either/or, right/wrong—in our own challenges, relationships, or career paths?
By actively seeking a "Third Way" in our personal dilemmas, we cultivate a more expansive imagination. This helps us foresee potential negative outcomes (the "predictable yet unforeseen" aspect of failure of imagination) and develop innovative solutions that move beyond simply reacting to problems. It allows us to build stronger relationships by seeking understanding beyond immediate disagreements, fostering creative solutions in our work, and ultimately, leading to more resilient and fulfilling lives.
## A Call to Shared Imagination
Ramos's article provides a vital mirror, reflecting our collective engagement with war. My hope is that by applying the lens of "failure of imagination" and consciously seeking a "Third Way synthesis," we can move towards a more creative, less reactive, and ultimately more effective approach to securing our shared future, both globally and individually.
This dialogue, much like the "wisdom of crowds" itself, benefits from an expanded imagination—one that allows us to collectively envision and build a world where the "best things in human existence" are not merely preserved by force, but cultivated through foresight, collaboration, and a profound commitment to peace and shared prosperity.