Can Wars Burn Themselves Out?

Study Notes

The Virtue of Letting Wars Burn Themselves Out

Although war is a great evil, it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace.
Wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural course since the establishment of the United Nations and the enshrinement of great-power politics in its Security Council.
Cease-fires and armistices have frequently been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting and have tended to arrest war-induced exhaustion.
Imposed cease-fires and armistices let belligerents reconstitute and rearm their forces, intensifying and prolonging the struggle once the cease-fire ends.
Imposed cease-fires ultimately did increase the total quantity of warfare among the lesser powers, and armistices did perpetuate states of war.
The Cold War provided compelling justification for such behavior by the two superpowers, but today neither Americans nor Russians are inclined to intervene competitively in the wars of lesser powers.
It might be best for all parties to let minor wars burn themselves out.
Today, cease-fires and armistices are imposed on lesser powers by multilateral agreement for frivolous motives, such as television audiences’ revulsion at harrowing scenes of war.
Cease-fires and armistices systematically prevent the transformation of war into peace.
The Dayton accords have condemned Bosnia to remain divided into three rival armed camps, with combat suspended momentarily but a state of hostility prolonged indefinitely.
Uninterrupted war would certainly have caused further suffering and led to an unjust outcome from one perspective or another, but it would also have led to a more stable situation that would have let the postwar era truly begin.
Peace takes hold only when war is truly over.

The Virtue of Letting Wars Burn Themselves Out

Although war is a great evil, it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace.
Wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural course since the establishment of the United Nations and the enshrinement of great-power politics in its Security Council.
Cease-fires and armistices have frequently been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting and have tended to arrest war-induced exhaustion.
Imposed cease-fires and armistices let belligerents reconstitute and rearm their forces, intensifying and prolonging the struggle once the cease-fire ends.
Imposed cease-fires ultimately did increase the total quantity of warfare among the lesser powers, and armistices did perpetuate states of war.
The Cold War provided compelling justification for such behavior by the two superpowers, but today neither Americans nor Russians are inclined to intervene competitively in the wars of lesser powers.
It might be best for all parties to let minor wars burn themselves out.
Today, cease-fires and armistices are imposed on lesser powers by multilateral agreement for frivolous motives, such as television audiences’ revulsion at harrowing scenes of war.
Cease-fires and armistices systematically prevent the transformation of war into peace.
The Dayton accords have condemned Bosnia to remain divided into three rival armed camps, with combat suspended momentarily but a state of hostility prolonged indefinitely.
Uninterrupted war would certainly have caused further suffering and led to an unjust outcome from one perspective or another, but it would also have led to a more stable situation that would have let the postwar era truly begin.
Peace takes hold only when war is truly over.

The Virtue of Letting Wars Burn Themselves Out

Although war is a great evil, it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace.
Wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural course since the establishment of the United Nations and the enshrinement of great-power politics in its Security Council.
Cease-fires and armistices have frequently been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting and have tended to arrest war-induced exhaustion.
Imposed cease-fires and armistices let belligerents reconstitute and rearm their forces, intensifying and prolonging the struggle once the cease-fire ends.
Imposed cease-fires ultimately did increase the total quantity of warfare among the lesser powers, and armistices did perpetuate states of war.
The Cold War provided compelling justification for such behavior by the two superpowers, but today neither Americans nor Russians are inclined to intervene competitively in the wars of lesser powers.
It might be best for all parties to let minor wars burn themselves out.
Today, cease-fires and armistices are imposed on lesser powers by multilateral agreement for frivolous motives, such as television audiences’ revulsion at harrowing scenes of war.
Cease-fires and armistices systematically prevent the transformation of war into peace.
The Dayton accords have condemned Bosnia to remain divided into three rival armed camps, with combat suspended momentarily but a state of hostility prolonged indefinitely.
Uninterrupted war would certainly have caused further suffering and led to an unjust outcome from one perspective or another, but it would also have led to a more stable situation that would have let the postwar era truly begin.
Peace takes hold only when war is truly over.

Description

Take this quiz to test your knowledge about the controversial idea of letting wars burn themselves out. Explore the arguments for and against imposing cease-fires and armistices in lesser power conflicts, and learn about the consequences of interrupting wars prematurely. See if you agree with the notion that uninterrupted war can lead to a more stable postwar era and find out why peace can only take hold when war is truly over.