War Is a Lie, Book Review Example

Introduction

War is generally condemned in circles of debate and thought, even as it is waged universally for a variety of pragmatic reasons. What then occurs is a cycle of conflict regarding conflict; ideologies refuse to accept any rationale for war, as nations cite specific reasons for the need to enter into it, each time. This is a clash likely to go on with no change, given the inherently distant approaches each side presents. What may shift the debate, however, is a more analytic approach to war, and this is precisely what David Swanson offers in his 2010 book, War Is a Lie. Swanson in effect attacks war on its own territory, identifying and exposing each pragmatic consideration usually turned to as justifying war. In a style and structure that strikingly convey the weaknesses in war rationales, David Swanson’s War Is a Lie powerfully undermines the very arguments typically employed by nations to validate war.

Review

Perhaps the most admirable quality of Swanson’s work is the single-minded and direct manner in which he approaches a subject that invariably excites strong opinions. There is absolutely no apology here for potentially offending defenders of military interventions, just as he wastes no time in promoting the ethical value of maintaining peace. War is an historical and consistent reality, it is the work of powerful governments, and these are the central issues Swanson relies upon: He asserts early on that, as the United States is his own nation and a leading aggressor, the U.S. government is largely used to provide examples (Swanson 8) In 14 carefully structured chapters, Swanson then examines each dominant justification for war and, with subjective analysis, deflates every one. It must be reiterated, in justice to the author, that he reserves moral judgments, even as his reasoning blatantly exposes the falsehoods in war rationales.

The arrangement of the subjects also indicates forethought on Swanson’s part, because he begins by examining a motive for war as common today as it has been in ancient eras: the need to destroy evil. More exactly, the author understands that this ideological reason is paramount, both within public feeling supporting war and in governmental incentives to wage it. True to his initial statement, Swanson turns to the U.S. for examples of this moral justification. What is impressive, however, is that he approaches the moral in a logical fashion. For example, and as recent history has shown, the U.S. often asserts that its wars, as on Germany and on Iraq, are efforts to suppress a genuinely evil power committing atrocities. This is of itself seemingly a potent rationale, but it is less so when Swanson presents a strikingly obvious reality: “Similar atrocities can also be found in many other nations against which we have not chosen to make war” (19). The point is powerful; if perceived evil were truly a critical reason for waging war, the U.S. and other nations should be locked in perpetual and widespread battle. The author cites how the incentive to combat evil is a strong motivator, but he consistently and effectively reveals how hollow it is when the complex interactions and perceptions of nations are honestly considered. There is as well the nearly incidental reference to how the U.S., in “selling” the Iraq war to the people, avoided any mention of Iraq’s “evil” as fueled by U.S. assistance (19). While not overtly damning the U.S., Swanson most definitely points to government manipulation of truth as, in fact, a true justification of war.

Equally compelling is Swanson’s chapter on war as supposedly unavoidable, in that he again employs logic to systematically eviscerate the justification. He begins, in fact, at a primal level, discussing the common belief that mankind is inherently warlike (even as he finds it amusing that, with so many other rationales for war, such thinking should hardly be needed). This he debunks beautifully; he cites research clearly affirming that multiple cultures either have never engaged in war or have abandoned it. Moreover, he quickly notes that many such cultures are not all that different from those who wage war, in that they hunt and experience violence within their own societies (107). This is important, as it goes to any dismissal of such cultures as apart from basic human behavior, and consequently sets the act of waging war in a more correctly distanced perspective. Then, maintaining logic, Swanson dismisses economic reasons, as in a nation’s dependence on a war economy, as invalid because such circumstances create themselves. This in turn leads to his strongest refutation of the rationale: “’War is inevitable’ is not an argument for war so much as a sigh of despair’” (129). To Swanson’s credit, his analysis prior to the statement perfectly supports the remark.

The U.S. as the world’s foremost superpower seems to underlie another unequivocal assault on war from Swanson, in this case regarding to the myth that war, successfully conducted, brings peace and ensures security. Referring to the rise of nations armed with nuclear capabilities, there is a ready indictment implied against the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, the nations which essentially set in motion the practice of being armed with the deadliest weapons imaginable. The trajectory of Swanson’s reasoning is all too plain; the more nations that have more such weapons, the greater the likelihood that the weapons will be employed. Chillingly, he discusses how Russian President Yeltsin was fully prepared to launch nuclear missiles against the U.S. because the U.S. launching of a weather craft was misinterpreted by by the Russian military (269). The case here, as with each chapter, is potently made; as the great governments insist on remaining armed with weapons capable of killing millions in moments, and as such stockpiling is seen as a means of preserving peace, the greater reality is that war cannot possibly bring security. Swanson also, and pertinently, notes how warfare is so deeply ingrained in U.S. culture, from overt support for returning soldiers from the Middle East to toys (267). The implication is that the U.S. government very much relies on a war mentality it encourages.

Importantly, Swanson does not rely only on ideological, ethical, or consequences in his outright condemnation of war. He devotes an entire chapter to the illegality of it as within the constitutional framework of the greatest world power: the United States. In 1928 the U.S. senate overwhelmingly voted into law a treaty defining war as essentially illegal, save under the most extreme circumstances (293). That the treaty was signed by dozens of other countries has, in fact, created an embarrassing situation; in 2010, a UN report on the U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan were illegal, yet the attacks continued (310). It has in fact become somewhat ordinary for judicial battles to rage in Congress regarding declarations of war, just as the cultural and governmental forces desiring the war eclipse the objections and ignore the illegality. It is difficult, in fact, to conceive of a more powerful argument from Swanson than this, in that the U.S. blatantly and consistently defies its own laws to wage war. Ethics are inherently as endangered in these scenarios as the laws, as Swanson later notes the inescapable tendency of the U.S. government – and public – to elevate the president beyond his appointed powers, a symptom of what Swanson calls, “American exceptionalism.” Here, as elsewhere, governmental actions then go to amply providing Swanson with all he requires to assault warfare.

Conclusion

It is arguable that war is so familiar, and to so many nations, that it takes on a lasting and seemingly inviolable identity of its own. This is in fact the impression made by Swanson’s book, and made by a careful delineation of historical circumstances and ideologies responsible for war. It is, in plain terms, generally considered as a tragic but inevitable part of human existence. In War Is a Lie, Swanson reveals this perception as the vast error it is, even as he dissects and debunks that very rationale itself. Chapter after chapter objectively and fairly defines the common reasons used to justify war, and chapter after chapter strips each down to its irrational basis. Just as powerful here as well is the regrettable fact the U.S. history, and U.S. actions today, represent some of the most fallacious justifications in practice. This is, in plain terms, an important, well-written, and compelling book. As the author intends, David Swanson’s War Is a Lie powerfully undermines the very arguments and rationales usually employed by nations to validate war.

Works Cited

Swanson, D. War Is a Lie. London: Biteback Publishing, 2010. Print