In the modern world, war is seen as a negative force- an immoral, unjust, and evil scourge. Not only is this view just wrong, it is naïve and foolish, perhaps even dangerous. Yet in today’s pacifist, idealist, and hedonistic societies, driven by individualism and pleasure, and lacking in the ideas of the social unit and nobility, is it indeed hard to justify war. War, in fact, is neither good nor evil. It is a force that can be used for either. One should neither seek war nor avoid it. As it is generally agreed upon that moderation is good, it follows that too much war or too little war are both not good. It is foolish to presume that war is totally evil as is often so today. Like most human activities, it has potential to achieve both evil and good.

War is actually the very force that drives human history and progression. Among states and nations in the world, societies are in a constant state of change and motion. There can be no standstill. A society either progresses and is robust and vital, or sinks into stagnation and declines. There can be no middle ground- it is impossible to freeze a society in place. Thus a society that is not expanding is bound to be in a state of decline. Expansion can be through many factors, including economic, but eventually expansion will involve domestically, struggle, and internationally, war. Of course economic expansion will lead to war, or if the nation seeks war first, this will probably lead to economic expansion unless the adventure ends in failure in which case the state will be totally ruined. Thus states that seek to remain at peace forever are really just imposing stagnation on themselves, and complacency will settle in. Decline is only a matter of time. As for the expanding state, a paradox presents itself. A state will decline if it does not expand and go to war. On the other hand, all empires fall, and eventually a state will stretch itself out too much and decline. Yet if decline is inevitable, it is better for it to happen after a high point characterized by war and expansion instead of stagnation. This leaves open the possibility of the civilization’s eventual recovery in some new state or empire. It is foolish to desire either permanent peace between equal nations or to be a total superpower without rivals. In either case, there is nobody to fight and decline is inevitable, and once this happens, war between nations will only resume again. While it is possible that it is possible to abolish war, the probability of this is not large as it is contrary to human nature, and even if it were possible, it would be a seal on human decline.

The essential point is that no social model or political system serves any society effectively forever as numerous factors change. This is why it is foolish to consider any model so sacred so as to declare it the perfect model for humanity- whether it is Monarchy, Communism, or Democracy. Societies and states must constantly reinvent themselves and the best vehicle to ensure this constant process is war. Without war, the world would be stuck in stagnation and decline forever, and it is unlikely that mankind would have developed many of the technologies and advanced patterns of social organization which shaped humanity throughout the years. War is necessary to humanity- it is a necessary evil perhaps to those who are totally opposed to it, but it is necessary. As will later be made clear, this is not truly a justification for brutality and unjust war. Warfare actually leads the increase in the best of human qualities such as honor, nobility, altruism, heroism, and so on. With war, these qualities take on real meaning. In a society of peace, virtues are less valued, and thus a society sinks into moral decay. Of course, it is true that a society that delights in killing, looting, pillaging, and rape is also one of moral decay, it is war that highlights the nobility of not doing such things. If in a peaceful society, everyone preaches peace as a virtue, what virtue is that. How can the concept of virtue exist without the concept of evil to provide contrast?

In order to fully understand war, it is essential to consider its causes and its history. There are numerous theories on the causes of war, all equally valid. These include economic, resource, political, demographic, and religion theories, among others. The Marxist theory believes that class warfare drives society but history has consistently shown that members of different classes within society more often band together to fight other societies. It is obviously more likely that group warfare or warfare between different religions, countries, and ethno-linguistic groups is the true drive of history, whether or not they fight each other for political, religious, or economic reasons. It seems most likely though that the origin of warfare involved fighting over resources, as survival trumps ideology, especially so for man in ancient times. War, it seems, is the natural result of the development of humanity. As people began to discover a stable source of food through agriculture, they began to settle down, leading to a growth in population, which lead to an increased competition for resources. The rise of agriculture is also the leading factor in the rise of specialization, which allowed for classes of warriors among other groups, as well as the rise of organized religion and the state. The continued rise and expansion of societies lead to ongoing global warfare in general. This in turn led to the progression of society as well as the development of compassionate ideologies, which only rose in respect to war, oppression, and chaos. Thus the human rights so many prize is the direct result of war. A classical example of the truth of war’s positive aspect is Europe in the 1500s.

“In 1500, Europe has more than five hundred states, city-states, and principalities. This diversity meant there was constant competition of ideas, people, art, money, and weapons. People who were mistreated or shunned in one place could escape to another and thrive. States that succeeded were copied. Those that failed, died. Over time, this competition helped Europe become highly skilled at both making wealth and making war.” [1]

Several other examples can be provided. In the above example, however, we are dealing with competition in Europe, which obviously lead to the globalized, Western-oriented world we have today. Such power and progression in the past 500 years would not have been possible without conflict. In summary: “To Machiavelli the ultimate good was a world of dynamic change in which cities or republics [countries] were reordering and revitalizing themselves in perpetual motion. The greatest evil was stagnation and complacency.” [2]

[1] The Post-American World, 63

[2] The 33 Strategies of War, 400

It’s common knowledge that the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc did not bring peace and stability to the Eurasian continent. In fact, the abrupt foreclosure of the Soviet experiment merely opened up new areas of conflict in areas like Kosovo and Abkhazia, bringing the tension between NATO and Russia to new highs. Though the Bush administration’s plans for establishing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic have been withdrawn and the European Union has made gestures of reconciliation, as long as the west continues to have a presence on Russia’s traditional turf in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Caucasus, Russia will remain vigilant and cautious as ever. Putin had stated in an interview with Le Monde that the very existence of NATO is cause for conflict between Russia and the West. In light of all this, one must wonder what Russia is seeking to gain as it volunteers to share the west’s burden in Afghanistan and why Europe and the US are so receptive towards Russia’s involvement.

In March demonstrations broke out in Afghanistan against Russia’s alleged plans for deployment of troops into Afghanistan. Though the Kremlin had denied the plans as false rumors, it had already made preparations to influence the course of the conflict. Though the much needed man power will not come from Russia (6,000 additional troops were requested to bolster the 60,000 foreign troops, mostly under NATO command, in Afghanistan), the Russian military will begin to provide a significant portion of arms to the Afghan government. In an almost ironic twist of history, the Russians are embarking on a mission in Afghanistan that is not too different from the one the CIA undertook during the Soviet Invasion. Giving Russia such a significant role in Central Asia may divest NATO’s authority and present itself as a liability to America’s ability to maneuver the course of the conflict. However, even after taking into consideration these elements, both the United States and European Union were in acquiescence on the topic of Russia involvement. The reason for this seems far too obvious when one observes Russia’s crucial role in not only mitigating America’s fears of being abandoned in the Middle East, but also counterbalancing against the force that seeks to challenge the unipolar world of Pax Americana. Intended or inadvertent, Russia’s ultimate role is keeping China at bay while abetting the west’s much needed withdrawal from its failed project.

Living in Central Asia, one must get a sense of timelessness. An archetype for political déjà vu, the most dramatic protagonists in this part of the world never change. Russia’s crypto-altruistic involvement will mark its third major venture into Afghanistan. The circumstances of Russia’s incursion have changed drastically over the past centuries; nonetheless, with Britain already entrenched in the poppy fields of Afghanistan, the major players from the Great Game have returned to the place that prides itself in humbling West’s conviction in its superiority. Russian Empire’s incursion into Central Asia in the 19^th century was guided as much by its desire for a warm water port in the Indian Ocean as it was by its wariness of ever expanding imperial powers of the west, especially Great Britain perched in India. With most of its former allies in the Warsaw Pact and former republics under the Soviet Union lining up behind the West, the Russian Federation must safeguard its last vestige of power against the instabilities of Afghanistan and show the benefits of maintaining close relations with Russia to the Central Asian republics. However, the greatest threat to Russia’s authority may not even be the EU or the US but rather the People’s Republic of China.

As the Chinese encroach ever further into Central Asia, in search of access to natural resources for its vast industry, they threaten Russia’s traditional role as hegemon in the valued region. Chinese foreign policy centers around expanding its much needed fuel supply and prefers bypassing middlemen in the process. This is evident when one observes China’s popularity among nations with unsavory political regimes that welcome the Chinese who do not carry the political or human rights ‘baggage’. Just as the Chinese bypass the American and European influences in Africa by taking advantage of the sanctions and socio-political turmoil, the ravenous dragon also wishes to bypass the Russians when attempting to secure resources in Central Asia. Russia is not so naïve to not realize China’s intentions when it began to abuse its membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (whose members include Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) to develop bilateral relations with Central Asian nations without the arbiter of Russia. It is within Russia’s best interest to limit China’s encroachment in its back yard, but in order to do so it must take on a more authoritative position within the SCO and consolidate the support of the Central Asian nations.

Analysts agree that despite boasting the largest military in the world, China is not at any position to expropriate any manpower or arms in foreign conflicts. With growing domestic instability, the communist party relies on the armed forces to maintain order within and hide its inadequacies and security vulnerabilities from the outside world (which is why 100,000 security forces, comprised of policemen and commandoes, will be placed in Beijing during the Olympics; excessive?). If the SCO becomes a security oriented organization or takes on military roles, there is no doubt that authority will shift to Russia and with it authority to arbiter negotiations between its members. Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov had already proposed creating a security organization led by Russia to balance NATO. Foreseeing Russia’s potential strength, China had rejected SCO’s involvement with security; however, with Russia’s direct involvement in Afghanistan, the refusal will become more difficult. With troops already stationed in Tajikistan, Russians are prepared to consolidate its hegemony over Central Asia while scoring points with the west and limiting China’s power in Central Asia.

Chinese influence threatens the joint European and American monopoly over global investments, natural resources, and the rare opportunities to tighten the reins around atrocity producing leaders. It also threatens Russia’s ability to monopolize the political and military affairs of Central Asia. Afghanistan’s atrocious condition provided a rare opportunity for the two forces to join hands; however, this is not to suggest that Russia is entirely antagonistic towards China or has submitted to the United States. In fact over the past three years, Russia and China have protested together against the decision by the US and the EU to impose sanctions on Iran. They also cooperate on energy development and space exploration; the Chinese and Russians work more closely together than they have against.

In summary, Russia is not willing to be anybody’s posse. It wants to reclaim its place as a world power and return to its role of counterbalancing western supremacy in the third world. Thus returning to the place of its humiliating defeat is not merely symbolic to Russia, but a well thought out plan to find its niche as a hegemon in Central Asia and a power balancer in the trade war between the west and the east.

Korea burns with rage over the decision by its government to lift all bans on US beef imports. Candle light vigils and mass public demonstrations have become common sight over the past months, but in retrospect to the tumultuous 60 year history of the Republic, it isn’t anything new. The chronicle of political evolution in South Korea is a tragic one; of the ten presidents in its 60 year history, seven have been subject to exile, impeachment, assassination, imprisonment, or military intervention. All the same, the republic’s history of political participation is an uplifting one where the people have taken the initiative to develop an advanced democratic society despite the difficulties familiar to powerless post colonial nations in the Cold War setting. One must look to the current protests over the government’s decision to lift the ban on US beef imports as another step in the evolution of political participation where a concerned citizenry will not accept their representatives to act in a way to endanger the nation’s well being.

The man at the focal point of the civil disorder is none other than the newly elected president Lee Myoung Bak. President Lee faces a crisis that is unique even to a country where political criticism often borders vulgarity and the people’s respect for politicians are at an all time low. President Lee’s predecessor President Roh Moo Hyun left office in February with a 30% approval rating even after mismanaging the economy, damaging Korean-American relationship with his irresponsible rhetoric, and succumbing to American pressure to deploy troops to Iraq. Despite riding on the waves of his predecessor’s unpopularity and his own successes as mayor of Seoul, in three months, President Lee’s ratings have dropped to 22.9%. Even in the face of a public relations disaster (the entire cabinet already offered to resign), the president refuses to yield to the public opinion to the extent of being labeled authoritarian. Yet it is most likely that this image of a hard, dictatorial, anti-populist leader is exactly what President Lee is aspiring for. While this outlook may be incomprehensible to foreigners, any Korean would draw parallels between President Lee’s attitude and those of former President Park Jung Hee, the man responsible for the “Miracle of the Han River”, the miraculous economic growth of Korea in the 1960s and 70s.

Economic development in Korea began as democracy took a slump. General Park Jung Hee came to power in 1960 through a military coup and immediately undertook constructing Korea’s infrastructure. His projects were considered too ambitious by government ministers at the time, yet by the time of his assassination in 1979, President Park had launched the Korean economy into the global stage. Samsung, Hyundai, Kia, LG and other major corporations, whose names have become common terms in households around the world, are the results of policies implemented by the authoritarian regime of President Park.

Ironically the rise of a participatory democracy nearly coincides with the collapse of the Korean economy. The slump in the economy, followed by years of populist rhetoric and failed policies, made not only the public, but particularly the politicians reminisce the authoritarian policies of Park Jung Hee. The public opinion on President Park’s legacy is still divided, mostly along provinces (the underdeveloped south western provinces of Junra versus the industrially developed south eastern provinces of Gyoungsang), but no one refutes the remarkable economic growth Korea had under his administration. Thus it is not difficult to imagine why Lee Myoung Bak adopted such an unflinching attitude towards his plummeting approval rating. President Lee wants to retire with a legacy as revered as President Park, regardless of how controversial his policies may be today.

While opening imports to American beef attracts the greatest foreign media attention, it is not the only qualm the people of Korea have against their newly elected president. The president also lay out plans to construct the Grand Korean Waterway, a canal connecting two major rivers to connect Seoul and Busan by water. Though the plan was withdrawn under severe public criticism, there was much debate whether or not President Lee’s dogmatic defense of the project was driven by his conviction on the economic benefits or a mere attempt to emulate the achievements of President Park.

Emblematic of the economic policies implemented by President Park was the construction of the Gyeoungbu Expressway, a four lane highway connecting the capital Seoul to the southern port of Busan. It was inspired by the German Autobahn that President Park observed during his state visit in 1964 during the pinnacle of the “Miracle of the Rhine”. Gyeoungbu Expressway was to mirror the German Autobahn and become the basis for an industrial economy. However, in 1968 Korea barely had any cars and the project attracted criticisms from politicians and civilians alike on its value to the economy. Foreign analysts declared the project impossible and even members of the president’s cabinet objected. Nevertheless, the project began in 1968 and was completed in just 2 years and 5 months. Spanning about 268 miles and costing around a mere $553 million (inflation adjusted), it was by far the most efficiently and quickly built highway in the world. Expanded exponentially in the 1980s, the Gyeoungbu Expressway acts today as the backbone of Korea and its contribution to the economy is immeasurable.

President Lee wants to match and surpass the legacies of President Park by undertaking an even greater project. While supporters claim that the construction would undercut the rising unemployment rate, it is unlikely that the vast numbers of unemployed adults who hold college degrees would enter the labor force. While it would save ships around 125 miles from going around the peninsula from Busan to Incheon, its cost will be astronomical and the damage to the environment would be devastating. Unsurprisingly, there were sharp criticisms from the public intellectuals and the academia that opposed the plan for various reasons, yet President Lee dogmatically defended the project against popular reason for several months before withdrawing the plan under pressure from the national assembly. It seems as though the Korean people are again left with someone who is unable to balance the will of the people and the economic development necessary for continued growth.

A Korean parable reads ‘the shadow under the lamp is always darker’. It’s always difficult to live up to the legacy of great figures, but it seems as though President Lee has a particularly difficult time compromising his superiority complex, often blurring his actions with the will of God (former President Roh Moo Hyun also had the same problem likening his political survival in the impeachment crisis to the resurrection of Christ). President Lee must accept that times have changed and that economic development must not come at the cost of the people’s wellbeing. Understandably, there are forces pressuring President Lee to maintain beef imports in order to preserve healthy relations with the United States. Furthermore, with current developments in Latin America, one must also vigilantly guard against radical populism. However, to risk the lives of the very people he’s supposed to represent is not a characteristic of a great leader. He has no right to stand so shamelessly before generations of people who have worked so tirelessly for a government that would heed the people’s voices.

On his state visit to Germany, President Park did not merely marvel at the factories and roads of Germany but also its greenery and picturesque rural landscape. Upon his return, he implemented policies to plant trees and care for the environment. Korean students nationwide in the 1960s and 70s worked tirelessly to preserve the ecosystem challenged by the industrialization. The President also encouraged planting Chestnuts so that the poor and the famished could live off the vegetation on the mountains in the fall. Even today, the day dedicated to the environment (officially Tree Planting Day) in Korea has a national following unmatched by Earth Day in the United States or elsewhere.

Ultimately, President Park’s greatest contribution is not a highway, cars, or some mega corporation, but the hope he instilled in the people of a better future and his legacy rests safely with the people’s achievement of a wealthier, healthier, and a better society; something President Lee must take to heart if he truly cares for his nation.

I took great pains last year to comment here on the Israeli airstrike in Syria that destroyed some mystery building. And by late October, there was already a consensus that this may have been a clandestine nuclear weapons facility. Well it all comes out now: last week Congress was briefed on the site that was hit. They were presented with what amounts to a powerpoint presentation explaining the facility and its similarities with the Yongbyon North Korean reactor. I'm not an expert on nuclear facilities, but this just seems like too much. And this is only the de-classified intelligence provided by the US government. I'm sure the Israelis have more, and probably other neighboring countries. I find it humorous in a dark way that the IAEA has attempted to act relevant in the matter by screaming that it should have been privy to the intelligence. Yet what would they have done? The Syrians and the Koreans still deny any nuclear cooperation, so what makes Mohammed El-Baradei think that he would convince Kim Jong-Il to make an about-face? In any case, below is the video that was presented to Congress last week.

In my post below, I made the case by reading between the lines of Khaled Meshaal's statement regarding Hamas's new truce offer that they were making a dishonest play at the Israelis by luring them into a rearmament period. Well now Meshaal has made it perfectly clear that Hamas is not interested in moderation; they have only gotten more clever in their approach to destroying Israel:

Hamas' political leader Khaled Meshal on Saturday said the Palestinian militant group would accept an Egyptian-mediated cease-fire with Israel but it would only be a "tactic" in the group's conflict with Israel.

"It is a tactic in conducting the struggle - It is normal for any resistance that operates in its people's interest... to sometimes escalate, other times retreat a bit," Meshal said in an interview with pan-Arab Al-Jazeera television.