The next potential British Prime Minister, Jeremy Corbyn, said during a BBC TV interview this morning that "all wars end with political decisions". How historically accurate is this? For example, I thought the second WW ended with unconditional victory for the allies. JC said this when asked about Syria. But surely the simplest, quickest and most stable end to the intractable civil war is for a military victory for the present Syrian government, however unpalatable this may be?
On the converse! Political decisions enforce wars! Whom should we blame now?
@ Anthony: to answer that question properly you will have first to define what "political decision" means to you as even an unconditional surrender may be considered as a political decision by some (including myself).
@Muthuvairavasamy Ramkumar: Unfortunately your answer is of little value as it firstly doesn't refer to the question posed above and, secondly, just because wars are fought because of political decisions doesn't mean that they are not ended by political decisions.
"you will have first to define what "political decision" means"
Political decision was the phrase used by our potential PM. I think he meant with respect to Syria some sort of conference and negotiated settlement. I think this outcome is as likely as his becoming PM, and the only resolution I can see for the civil war(s) is for outright Syrian government military victory. He thinks there is historical precedent for his position. I doubt this, but am no expert in this field.
Dear Anthony,
if we use that definition, I have to agree with you that not every war is/was ended by a negotiated settlement as your example shows. However, as far as I know, a complete unconditional surrender is rare compared to "political decisions" in history.
Dear Anthony,
I also dispute the statement of "all wars ands with political decision". For example, let me refer about the crisis of Kuril-islands. Due to the latter there is only a cease-fire between Soviet Union/Russia and Japan from 1945 to nowadys.
The Chaco War is a good example of a war that ended chiefly because the cost of military expenditure was too heavy a burden to be carried indefinitely by Bolivia and Paraguay. Of course, there was a negotiated ceasefire, but essentially the war had raged on for years (despite attempts by the League of Nations and the Pan-American Union to stop it) until both parties thought it was senseless and damaging to continue. It took decades before a permanent political settlement was found.
I'd say there is always a political decision (ceasefire, peace treaty) at the end of most wars, but I would question the absolute importance of this. Political decisions may not say much about the logistics, resources, domestic factors that underlie the end of a war.
"I'd say there is always a political decision (ceasefire, peace treaty) at the end of most wars
I agree for after the war has ended, but J Corbyn was asked the question in the context of stopping the current conflict in Syria. My question would have been better phrased, Is it always political decisions or settlements that lead to the end of a war?
An interesting question to reflect on is what are the implications of always offering "political" solutions to conflicts? A re-reading of Luttwak's "Give War a Chance" might be appropriate.
Can we have a few examples where negotiation and political solutions, rather than military victory, stopped wars? The Troubles in N Ireland spring to mind, but I was thinking of the major wars in the past. I am no fan at all of war, but is history on my side?
The lack of positive answers may speak to the problem here; war is the final option, after politics have failed to produce an agreement, so until war is decided one way or the other, there is little to do for the politicians.
When Sweden went to war (way back), the end was usually due to either side, or both, running out of food and men and asking for a peace settlement. Or the king being shot and killed (a 50% chance to end war).
Olof
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science