In his Christmas Eve Mass address, Pope Francis cited the conflict in Gaza in lamenting “the futile logic of war.” In recent decades, he might have noted, humans have found that logic increasingly unpersuasive. But some leaders still fall victim to the fatal illusion of what they might achieve by the sheer force of arms.
Exhibit A is Russian President Vladimir Putin, who invaded Ukraine in the certainty that he could restore it to Russian rule at modest cost. Instead, his country is mired in a bloody stalemate, with more than 300,000 troops killed or wounded. He provoked Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO and induced the alliance to promise membership to Ukraine — realizing one of his worst fears.
Far from enhancing Russia’s power, Putin has exposed the shortcomings of his military while badly degrading its capacity. After nearly two years, there is no end in sight, and Russia is weaker and more isolated than before.
Ohio State University scholar John Mueller titled his 2021 book on American foreign policy “The Stupidity of War.” The U.S. amply confirmed his thesis in Afghanistan and Iraq, where grand dreams led to disaster.
But these wars were exceptions in the modern world. Until the invasion of Ukraine, Europe had enjoyed nearly 80 years of peace among states — what Mueller says was “likely the longest the once most warlike of continents has gone without such a war at least since the days of the Roman Empire.” He notes that “there have been remarkably few international wars of any sort during the period (since 1945), particularly in recent decades.”
War was once seen as a glorious and essential feature of life. But the ghastly results of two global conflagrations did much to produce a broad disenchantment with the whole enterprise. It has become clear that there are far more rational ways of pursuing national well-being — as illustrated by the happy fortunes of Germany and Japan since World War II.
We’ve learned that war is rarely necessary or useful. Saddam Hussein could have been safely contained without a U.S. invasion. Al-Qaida could have been neutralized after 9/11 without a 20-year American combat mission in Afghanistan.
When a country suffers an attack, a military response is generally obligatory, if only to discourage additional ones. Deterrence is essential to keeping the peace. But if the best war is one you avoid, the second best is one with limited, achievable and affordable purposes.
Some leaders, however, have not learned these lessons. Among them are those in charge of Hamas, which ignited the war in Gaza with a horrific attack on Israel on Oct. 7 — not only hitting military bases but butchering and abducting civilians, including women and children.
What the terrorist group hoped to gain from its atrocities is an open question. But what it has reaped is apparent. For three months, the Israeli military has ruthlessly pulverized Gaza, killing a reported 22,000 people and displacing nearly 2 million.
Half of the people there are at risk of starvation, according to the United Nations. Whatever suffering Gazans endured before Oct. 7 is nothing compared with the carnage and misery that ensued.
Hamas has not fared well, losing thousands of fighters. Its surviving leaders are living on borrowed time — as confirmed Tuesday, when a drone strike in Beirut killed a senior Hamas official and two of his military commanders.
But just because the war has been catastrophic for Hamas doesn’t make it a success for Israel. Given its current maximalist strategy, Israel faces months of vicious urban combat. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has no good answer for the question: How does this end?
When the war is over, Israel will have the challenge of addressing the humanitarian catastrophe — and trying to exercise control over a newly radicalized populace. It also faces credible charges of war crimes. The assault on Gaza is undoubtedly spawning more terrorists than it is killing.
Israel is also jeopardizing the support it enjoys from its indispensable ally. A recent Gallup poll found that two-thirds of Americans ages 18 to 34 and two-thirds of Democrats disapprove of how Israel is waging the war.
Had it been less enamored of violence, Hamas might have found a path to Palestinian independence. Had Israel responded to the Oct. 7 attack in a measured way, it could have averted a quagmire and international condemnation. Had Putin been less paranoid and power-hungry, he could have made Russia more secure without a huge sacrifice of lives and money.
Leaders who embark on war almost always overestimate what they stand to gain and underestimate the price it carries. Only with bitter experience do they recall that while a war may have no winner, it can have more than one loser.
Steve Chapman was a member of the Tribune Editorial Board from 1981 to 2021. His columns, exclusive to the Tribune, appear the first Thursday of every month. He can be reached at stephenjchapman@icloud.com.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
