Tuesday, 11 August 2015 00:08

Rejoinder to Dr. Akintide's piece...the positive effects of war

Written by 

Dr. Wumi Akintide:

Your piece, below, is anointide:

This is one of your masterpieces.  Thank you.  However, I need to correct a misconception under which you seem to be laboring, namely, that war is bad.  Apparently, you want to prevent war with Iran at all costs. To the contrary, I want war with Iran. I want it for a different reason, not because I support Republican Party ideologues in America's politics.

Have you really thought it through, I mean the issues of war? War is not always the enemy of mankind. War has positive effects.  Let us briefly examine the positive effects of the Second World War.

Adolf Hitler's Germany was forced to surrender in 1918. The side that got it to surrender, Britain, France and the USA actually had not defeated it in the battle field.

The 1919 treaty of Versailles was crafted and, among other things, took away Germany's overseas territories; it gave parts of East Germany to Poland and parts of West Germany to France and, above all, required Germany to pay reparations(war indemnity) for the war and limited her army to only 100, 000 troops.

This was humiliation of a warring nation. The humiliated nation, Germany did not take it kindly and when Hitler came to power in 1932 he essentially tore the so-called peace Treaty and quickly rearmed Germany.

In 1936 Hitler marched his army into the Rohr valley (the most industrial part of Germany, which the treaty had given to France); in 1938 Hitler seized Sudetenland (Western Czechoslovakia where Germans lived) and annexed his native Austria.

In 1939 Hitler signed a pack with Joseph Stalin to divide Poland and subsequently marched into his side of divided Poland.

France and Britain having signed an ill-advised treaty to come to the aid of Poland declared war on Germany. Germany launched the blitzkrieg and overran the Low Countries (Belgium included) and struck into France and took the country over (except the rump left for Vichy government).

In quick succession Hitler conquered Western Europe. When his ally, Italy's Mussolini bungled his efforts to claim North Africa (resuscitate the old African province of Rome)  Hitler sent Field Marshal Rommel to go rescue them and in a few weeks Rommel's Africa corps took over most of North Africa. Britain's Generals Alexander and Montgomery and America's General Paton cut their war teeth chasing Rommel around the sands of North Africa (remember the battle of Benghazi?)

Hitler then made his greatest mistake by launching a two front war. In 1941 he launched war on the Soviet Union and in a few weeks got to the gates of Moscow. If he had concentrated on Moscow there is no doubt that he would have taken the city (the Russian government had already relocated beyond the Ural mountains) but he divided his army and a part swung south to the Crimea to get hold of oil in that region.

The defeat of Field Marshal Von Paulus army at Stalingrad and another defeat at Leningrad was a loss that Hitler could not have afforded; that loss was the turning point of the war, for Field Marshal Zhukov gained fighting experience and thereafter began his systematic chase of the Huns all the way to Berlin (1945...Hitler committed suicide in his bunker to avoid been captured by the Ruskies and exhibited at Moscow zoo).

In 1940, in preparation for invading Britain, Hitler launched his air attacks on Britain thus forcing the British to get rid of the feckless Neville Chamberlain (remember the Munich appeasement agreement) and replaced him with the war dog, Winston Churchill.

Churchill, like Hitler, was a product of the Western front (trenches) of First World War and loved war (before the first world war, Churchill was the Lord of the Admiralty, minister of the navy but resigned from Lloyd George's liberal government and joined the army and went straight to the war front and fought...he is my idea of a warrior).

Churchill, like Hitler, liked to kill people. Both were psychopaths who derived joy from seeing people killed. Churchill was a match for Hitler and the two sociopaths slugged it out.

Churchill was not going to surrender not even if all Britons were killed. The British war dog, Churchill was not the type that begs for mercy; he would rather die fighting on his feet.

Thus, Hitler had to make other plans; he had planned to invade Britain but realized that John Bull would kill most of his troops on the beaches of Dover rather than surrender.

Hitler redirected his efforts elsewhere, Eastern Europe (Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece etc.) and essentially took over most of Eastern Europe.

In my judgement, Hitler made a strategic mistake in launching two pronged fronts. If he had either concentrated in the West or the East he would have won the Second World War. I say this not because I support Nazi fascist political ideology but because I am interested in wars. I have read up on most wars fought in written history, from the Greek-Persian wars to Roman wars and Napoleon's wars etc. I am interested in strategies for winning and losing wars; I am especially interested in wars as a means of reshuffling powers in international politics.

More to the point at hand, the Second World War, like the First World War, led to the reshuffling of powers. The war in Europe led Britain and France to exhaust their militaries and economies so that by the time the USA helped them to win the war Western Europe was a waste land.

It took America's Marshal Plan and its $30 billion dollars to resurrect a Europe that had lain prostrate.

Two new world powers emerged from the ashes of wasted Europe, the USSR and the USA.   Britain and France no longer had the military resources to recolonize their African and Asian countries and depended on the USA for military help.

When France tried to reassert itself in Indochina little Vietnam defeated it at the battle of Diebianphu (1954) and thus she had to withdraw from Asia. When Britain and Israel tried to take over the Suez Canal in 1956 President Eisenhower essentially asked them to withdraw and they did. He who pays the piper calls the tone.

Britain (Macmillan) saw the wind of change and realizing that she did not have the economic and military wherewithal to defeat wars for independence by African nationalists essentially gave her African colonies independence on a gold platter.

Nigeria did not get its independence because of the noise made by Azikiwe, Awolowo and other nationalists but because Britain wanted to offload colonies she did not have the ability to maintain.

Moreover, the USA was not in support of British  recolonization (remember Woodrow Wilsons 14 points plan at the 1919 Versailles treaty conference to make the world fit for democracy, a plan that led to the establishment of the League of Nations...and its successor  after the  second world war,  the United Nations, at San Francisco in 1945).

Well, Nigeria got its independence without fighting for it and as a result does not know what to do with it; her leaders engage in absurd stealing instead of governing the country, as men who fought and died at war do.

If you do not fight for your liberty you do not know what to do with it. Nigeria needs a war of liberation (liberation from the thieves of Abuja, that is) to help the people realize that the tree of liberty is watered with patriots' blood.

For our present purpose, both the first and second world wars reshuffled the deck; world power equations were changed.

The First World War ended the Ottoman Empire and her North African, Eastern European and Middle Eastern colonies were given to Britain and France (Iraq was given to Britain, Syria to France etc.).   Bulgaria, Bosnia (she joined other south Slavs to form Yugoslavia), Romania etc. emerged as independent countries. This is one of the positive spillover effects of war.

In our present world, the USA is the undisputed world hegemon; no other country has the type of military power she has (her military yearly budget of over $600 billion dollars dwarfs what the entire other industrialized countries spend on their military).

The USSR used to check the overreach of the Americans but with its collapse under Mikhel Gorbachov in 1990 things changed.

The emergent President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin liquidated the military of that country (a country should never elect a drunk such as Yeltsin as its president...he should not have allowed the USSR to die...I wrote articles then arguing against the splitting up of the Soviet Union into its constituent 16 republics...it would be nice if Putin could reconstitute the USSR, if necessary with force).

Where am I going with all these?  Patience, my erudite friend; Ozodi has decided to pick up where he left off as a scholar of wars (in graduate school I took so many courses on wars that I ought to be teaching at military academies).

Here is the deal. If the Iran  treaty is rejected by Congress (and it will be rejected and vetoed by Obama and since the Republicans do not have 67 votes in the Senate they would not override his veto, so the incipient treaty would go into effect as Obama's treaty, not America's treaty...this is a problem, don't you think so?). Well, if the treaty is not accepted by Republicans and a republican wins the presidential election in 2016 he would probably abrogate it. The war option comes to stare folks in the face.

Thus, accepting a bad treaty is not the solution to the problem of allowing Muslims to have nuclear weapons...Muslims do not value human life and if they have the nuke they would explode it at New York, Washington DC, London and Paris!

I do not think that we should try to avoid wars at all costs. Why? It is because human civilization takes quantum leaps forward from great wars. Let us see the possible outcome of war with Iran.

America and her sole ally, Israel launches war on Iran (hereafter called Persia, no more that Aryan name it gave itself in support of Hitler's Aryan ideology).

Persia is an ancient country, she is over three thousand years old (remember her wars with Greece; remember Darrius, her heroes; remember the Peloponnesian wars, remember Thucydides oration after that war, a classic in political science).

The sense of being Persian is deep in Persians, not like the nonexistent sense of being Nigerian (there is no nationalism in Nigeria; the people are Igbos, Yorubas, Hausas etc. but not Nigerians). Persians would rally around their leaders and fight to death.

Remember when America supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and Iran fought Iraq to a standstill despite America's military support of Iraq.

If the USA goes to war in Persia she needs an Army of, at least, three million soldiers. That is good. In such total wars men die.  Americans would die in their millions.  Wars eliminate effeminate men, such as homosexuals and pedophiles and also get rid of many criminals.

The war would not be a walk over; it might last at least ten years before Persia is defeated.

Israel, contrary to what folks believe, would-be devastated by that war. Why? The first thing Persia probably would do if attacked by the USA is to send an expeditionary army of millions (jihadists willing to fight to death, mind you) through Syria and Lebanon and confront Israel; she could defeat Israel unless Israel used her 100 or so nuclear weapons on Teheran. Detonating atomic and hydrogen bombs in Persia would not make the Persians stop the war.

During the anticipated ten years period of this all out Middle Eastern war (this ain't Iraq or Afghanistan pseudo wars) Persia would develop nuclear weapons.

By the time the war ends, the entire Middle East would be reshuffled. The countries that were put together after the First World War would be reconfigured.  Perhaps there would be fewer Arab countries from Morocco to Iraq. Turkey may lose her Eastern province of Kurds (the Kurds would join their kin in Iraq and Iran to form a country called Kurdistan).

Given the ferocity of the war, the USA would spend much of its economic resources at the war. This would lead to squandering her resources. America's GDP is about $17 trillion dollars; currently she owes $19 trillion dollars. By the time the war ends she would owe only God knows how many trillions; this is unsustainable!

America would economically, militarily and psychologically be exhausted and probably reshuffled internally; perhaps, the rule of white folks would come to an end and America becomes what history wants her to be, a rainbow country.

China would rise as the number one world economy and since military power goes with economic power China would become the number one military power in the world. Other countries such as Russia, India and Brazil will rise militarily and economically.

The USA would thereafter become just a big power but not the sole superpower. As we know from the study of International politics, we need many powers to be equal to be able to balance each other's aggression hence prevent wars; at present, America is simply too powerful and no one is able to balance her powers hence Republicans believe, rather foolishly, that they ought to be going to every war.

A real war would make the USA to become no more powerful than Russia, or Brazil and India. Thus, we return to something like Prince Von Metternich's European Concert with the emergent powers equal and able to balance each other; balance of powers is the best way to prevent wars.

The point I am making is that it would take a destructive war to eliminate US hegemony and allow other powers to emerge.  Is that such a bad thing?

Of course, no African power would emerge. But in time, other wars would enable Africans to become men not the animals they currently are; with wars Africans would learn to govern themselves as men should instead of stealing from their people.

In about two hundred years Africans would become real human beings for by then they would have learned to fight and make their countries strong militarily and thereafter enter world power equations.

My dear Dr. Akintide, I wanted to write a one page response to your excellent liberal perspective by juxtaposing what is called "real politics" perspective but I have been carried away. I must force myself to stop. If I have the time I will probably add to this scant response and make it a full blown essay of up to ten pages.

For now, I hope that I have made the point that wars are the best means of reshuffling world powers. Only God knows that the current situation where only one country lords it over others is unacceptable. We need change in international politics. So, let there be war in the Middle East so that some empires die and others emerge and the human drama continues.


Ozodi Osuji, PhD

Read 450 times
Ozodi Osuji Ph.D

Ozodi Thomas Osuji is from Imo State, Nigeria. He obtained his PhD from UCLA. He taught at a couple of Universities and decided to go back to school and study psychology. Thereafter, he worked in the mental health field and was the Executive Director of two mental health agencies. He subsequently left the mental health environment with the goal of being less influenced by others perspectives, so as to be able to think for himself and synthesize Western, Asian and African perspectives on phenomena. Dr Osuji’s goal is to provide us with a unique perspective, one that is not strictly Western or African but a synthesis of both. Dr Osuji teaches, writes and consults on leadership, management, politics, psychology and religions. Dr Osuji is married and has three children; he lives at Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

He can be reached at: ozodiosuji@gmail.com (907) 310-8176