[Recording Start]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you see a connection between the philosophical concept of just wars in history and the personal decision to appropriately retaliate against someone physically?
Rick Rosner: Absolutely. I spend a lot of time contemplating revenge, especially considering the annoyances from people and the general atmosphere of grievances on platforms like Twitter, not to mention the aggressive driving in L.A. during Covid. However, the concept of revenge is fraught with issues. For one, the ultimate revenge results in the target’s death, which means they don’t experience suffering or regret for their actions. While this prevents them from harming others, it lacks personal satisfaction. Then, there’s the kind of revenge that aims to reform someone’s behavior. The reality is people rarely change, and on the off chance they do, you’re left without the initial reason for your resentment.
The more common scenario with revenge is either a failure to impact the person, or if you do manage to harm them in some way, they remain oblivious or unchanged. They continue their behavior, and at best, you’ve made them feel bad momentarily. Cinematic depictions of revenge vary – dramatic films often show the antagonist meeting a dire end, while comedies might opt for a humorous comeuppance, like the character Biff in “Back to the Future” getting his car filled with manure. However, these are simplistic resolutions; the underlying issues and personality traits persist.
Regarding just wars, my generation, born shortly after World War II, grew up with the notion that some wars are fought for noble causes, like defeating the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II. However, this perspective oversimplifies the complex morality of warfare. The more you delve into the history of World War II, the more you realize that even the ‘good’ side committed questionable acts. For example, the use of atomic bombs on Japan, which killed approximately 200,000 civilians, was rationalized as a necessary evil to save American lives. This justification seems overly simplistic, and there’s debate over whether it was necessary to target populated areas. Furthermore, there’s a theory that the bombings were also intended to intimidate the Soviet Union. Despite this, the Soviets developed their own atomic bomb soon after. Other actions by the Allies, like the massive firebombing of Dresden and the failure to disrupt the Holocaust by bombing the railways leading to concentration camps, highlight the moral complexities of the war. While it’s seen as a just war, it was riddled with injustices on both sides, though the atrocities committed by the Nazis were far more heinous. This all demonstrates that the ideals of just wars and personal revenge are often more nuanced and problematic than they initially appear.
World War I was a chaotic and unclear conflict. In contrast, the first Gulf War in 1991, where Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, seemed more straightforward. The United States, likely as part of a coalition, swiftly defeated Hussein’s forces and liberated Kuwait within a few days, with minimal casualties. This outcome could be seen as just, even though Kuwait, an affluent oil nation, might not have been entirely innocent in its international conduct. Nevertheless, no country deserves unwarranted invasion. The containment of Saddam Hussein seemed effective, with relatively few deaths and a swift conclusion.
However, Gulf War II under George W. Bush was a different story. Based on misleading information, it’s hard to categorize it as a just war. Saddam Hussein’s regime was brutal, killing thousands of Iraqis annually, but the aftermath of the U.S. invasion led to a civil war and the deaths of possibly over half a million Iraqis. This toll is higher than the casualties that might have occurred under Hussein’s continued rule. In recent history, it’s challenging to label wars as just. Thankfully, since World War II, we’ve avoided another global conflict. Yet, COVID-19 has emerged as the deadliest global event since then, with an estimated 17 million deaths. However, Mao’s 30-year rule in China was even more devastating, responsible for around 50 million deaths, surpassing COVID-19 in its lethality.
Generally, avoiding wars is preferable, as most are tainted with some degree of injustice. There have also been failures to intervene in genocides, like those in Rwanda and various African nations. An exception was the intervention in the former Yugoslavia, primarily through aerial bombardment, which seemed effective. Yet, our understanding might change with more in-depth study. This intervention contrasts with the relative inaction during genocides in Africa. The concept of a just war is often dubious, and our actions sometimes reflect unjust neglect as much as involvement.
[Recording End]
Authors
Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Founder, In-Sight Publishing
In-Sight Publishing
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Rick Rosner 