This article was published in Persian Heritage magazine
Vol.8. No.30, Summer 2003


WAR AN INSTRUMENT OF SUPRESSION OR AN INEVITABLE HUMAN DRIVE!

M.K.SADIGH
-------------------------------

Seeking the causes of excessive tensions led to deadly encounters as wars have been in the center of attention of war historians' and scientists for a long time. The etiologists begun studying animal behaviors which evolve to clashes particularly, monkeys and apes, and in the human side, young children. They believe human could have adopted such behaviors from the animals and eventually developed it to more sophisticated levels of warfare. Assertion and imposition as the major stimulations for any aggressive behaviors resulted in clashes, basically comes from several drives such as, rivalry for possession, the intrusion of a stranger, or frustration of an activity, which occur in totality of human existence in private and public measures. The basic conflicting situations leading to aggression among animals, especially those concerning access of males to females and control of a territory for feeding and breeding are usually associated with patterns of dominance.
Animal behavior observed and studied by scientists can be considered as a possible important source of inspiration for the formation of many theories in regard to human warfare, but these comparative references must then be implied through the study of actual human behaviors.
Human behavior is not as fixed as the animal behavior, because man rapidly develops different patterns of behaviour in response to environmental factors, such as geography, climate, and contact with other social groups. The variety of these behaviour patterns studied in the animal behaviors might not necessarily correspond with those of human, for example, whether or not men have an innate inclination to be aggressive, or is there a control mechanism operate in human society which could differentiates from the animals' living patterns.
Related data collected regarding the "territorial imperative" mainly refers to the demarcation of animal's territorial defense against intrusion of a fixed chosen area for feeding and breeding. This pattern could be truly compared with the human behavior in case of national defense against the intrusions. It is very difficult to draw conclusion from animal's behavior to human territorial repellence, because human's adoptability and capacity of conversion, when it is necessary to adjust, is extremely feasible in nature.
The nature provides the species of animals with the appropriate sources of foods, and mostly with some rarely exception, they are using forces to repel their rivals, and even if they are involve in a condition to encounter a rival, withdrawal of the defeated animal eventually terminates the continuation of the challenge. In the contrary human uses forces to achieve material sources aggressively, which sometimes result catastrophe for him as well as the opponents, over the defense of the territory of a national state. From this phase, even after human achieved the materials he needed, the aggression expands to domination and from there to total detention of defendants. This pattern in historical context have been manifested in the slavery of the ancient times, the examples of new world of 12 and 14 centuries of the discovery of America, domination of Islamic Oth·man's Empire in Balkan, and the whole process of colonialism in Africa and Asia.
It seems as a historical fact the human wars are inevitable as a natural respond, when the human bypasses the rationality and justify his aggressive and unleashed reaction to a drive or dilemma. The motivation for wars in human is not only and merely the natural drives which stimulate the animals for gaining the means of subsistence, in another word, when animal is satisfied its urge, it returns to its natural states. Human desire for domination and power take him to some never ending strives which staring a war is only the beginning of it. Another distinction is the complexity of motivational factors leading to wars is not limited merely in gaining the means of subsistence.
At this juncture, understanding the wars is in fact understanding a holistic cognition of vast spectrums of variables extended from the major animalistic drives such as, rivalry for possession, the intrusion of a stranger, or frustration of an activity. We pursue the trait of the devastation of war not because to find a resolution to avoid it, that undoubtedly never will be resolved, but to understand ourselves as a flamboyant creature hiding under a variety of concealed and unsavory covers, apparently to differentiate ourselves from animal world and savageries. It is imperative to dig deeper into the history and identify the human we clamed, we are which apparently distanced from savages because of the "civilized achievements". We have to see how far we progressed in the course of our historical developments toward the" mankind" which is the highest ethical pride of civilized declaration.
It is imperative that we have developed a tremendous valiums of knowledge and countless numbers of definitions to justify our functionality as the most rational being among the holistic creation of the world creatures living in this planet. But is this huge mechanism of so call rationalization really maturated the mankind to relives us from all the atrocities, we have committed during the course of history under the pretext of "mankind".
How far the "mankind" of the dark ages living under suppression of tyrannies and struggling to liberate himself from ignorance and slavery, passing trough a drastic cultural, political and historical changes, become the rational, democratic and freeman has progressed and humanized?
The fact is the major causes of the aggressions: greed, hostility, and the major stimulations for any aggressive behaviors result in clashes, basically coming from the same three natural drives which there is no distinction between animals and human." rivalry to have possession beyond someone's needs, which resulted to accumulation of wealth, the repellence of the intruders which is the major causes of hostilities all over the world, And the outrageous angers caused by frustration which we attributed them to animal lives, but we as human -animal could not disregard it as our innate natural instinct. We the human will have it and motivated by it as long as we walk on the face of earth. This innate urge not only is not going to change but the technological advancement is going to help the man develop it to more sophisticated level. W can say, that we became far more dehumanized and more mechanized and the reason is the modern man created a non-humane instrumental world of technological capability extremely capable of empowerment to concur the impossibilities, and domination far beyond the imaginable and achievable levels.
It would be absurd to assume the man with the natural instinct of obsession for domination and power, would not use these instruments to achieve his desire for supremacy. Even though he is more civilized but the conflicts stimulated the wars and atrocities continued as the major human behavior as long as the power of consciousness turns to menacing and manipulated not for instigating human rationality but rather decapitate it.
Referring to the history of the theories of wars demonstrate only advancement of mechanism and the instrumentation of wars. Along with the technological advancement there have not been changes in the psychological motivations and stimuli's, which motivated the man from the down of history. It seems the proclamation of civility diverted in to new convenient paradigms set for justification of unsavory and forceful impositions trough a calculated indoctrination.
After the ending of the wars of religion some times in the15 to the end of16 centuries, all away to about the middle of the 17th century, wars no longer had the religious inclination, instead were fought for the interests of individual sovereigns and were limited both in their objectives and in their scope. The art of maneuver became decisive, and analysis of war was directed accordingly in terms of strategies because the outcome of the renaissances took away the sentimental attributions and replaced it with calculations and assessments. Is it realy any changes in this regard in our time? Perhaps individual sovereigns became global entities and the objectives expanded to far wider scopes. But to achieve the individual sovereigns suppression of other individual sovereigns were the prerequisite and now to achieve the global domination the individual sovereigns and the legitimacy of the localities and nationalities must be sacrificed or at list they must be subordinated.
The closer we get to the post industrial revolution and beyond, the more situation changes fundamentally with the outbreak of the civilization, which increased the size of forces from small professional to large conscription and enrolled a large numbers of well trained solders in the army by compulsion and broadened the objectives of war to the ideals of the revolution: Paris revolution and at the commencing of the twentieth century a series of revolts ending with the October1917 Bolshevik revolution of Russia.
We are dealing with the ideals in this phase of our history, that appealed to the masses that were subject to conscription and they are not defined as wars, but some thing extremely sacred and appealing to humanity as a vehicle for achieving freedom, " revolution". The new term changed the whole concept of war to a rational and legitimate social and political behavior that the humanity willingly and wittingly committed to under take for creation of a just and civil society. In the relative order of post-Napoleonic Europe the mainstream of theory returned to the idea of war as a rational, limited instrument of national policy. This approach was best articulated by the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz in his famous classic On War (1832-37).
The rationalization of war being lunched by Napoleonic Europe, at the same time, produced varieties of revolutions in the mass movements. This movement in the opposite camps turned to entirely different military structures. World War II, which was "total" in character with such structure, resulted in the mobilization of entire populations and economies for a prolonged period of time.
From this stage the Clausewitzian pattern turned to the opposite direction. The limited conflict, led to a renewal of other theories, witch no longer regarded war as a rational instrument of stare policy. The theorists held that war, in its modern, total form, if still conceived as a national state instrument, should be undertaken only if the most vital interests of the state, touching upon its very survival, are concerned. Otherwise, warfare serves broad ideologies and not the more narrowly defined interests of a sovereign or a nation. Like the religious wars of the 17th century, war becomes part of "grand designs," such as the rising of the proletariat in communist eschatology or the Nazi doctrine of a master race, and the recent instance, the Sadam Hussein and Bath Party which the abolishing such centralized political tyranny fit in the "grand designs," pattern and the fear of its expansion mobilizes the US led coalition to destroyed it.
Some theoreticians have gone even further, denying war any rational character whatsoever. To them war is a calamity and a social disaster which results in more destitutions and increased antagonism for the nations involved, whether it is afflicted by one nation upon another or conceived of as afflicting humanity as a whole. The idea is not new in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars it was articulated, for example, by Tolstoy in the concluding chapter of War and Peace (1865-69). In the second half of the 20th century it gained new reputation in peace research, a contemporary form of theorizing that combines analysis of the origins of warfare with a strong normative element aiming at its prevention. Peace research concentrates on two areas: the analysis of the international system and the empirical study of the phenomenon of war.
1First World War of 20th century is considered as the first coalition war, which commenced with advanced modern strategy. This war in comparison with the past started with the development of strategic planning popular since 1870. In fact it was changing the very basic principal of appropriation of new weaponry such as machine guns and complemented with the modern communication facilities such as telephone and radio that drastically enhanced the effectiveness of wars, established the offensive in the winning level.
The French and German used these new facilities as their offensive measures. Based on their successful experiences of South African and Russo-Japanese wars with the machine gun as a defensive weapon of tremendous firepower. They were convinced that by increasing the numbers of solders to complement the new facilities, indeed they would put themselves in a superior position.
By a complete new reorganization, the first moves in the war began in 1914 as French and German strategists had planned. In seven days the Germans concentrated more than three million men on the eastern and western fronts from mobilization points. In approximately the same time the French assembled 1.2 million men on the western front. Both sides made heavy use of railroad lines to speed assembly of great masses of troops. Both sides were determined to attack.
Out of the movements of mass armies came the first battles on the frontiers. As Schlieffen had planned, the Germans catapulted into Belgium, but the enveloping wing was not as strong as Schlieffen, who had died the previous year, had wished. It was compressed into a smaller corridor by the political decision not to violate Dutch neutrality. The anticipated six-week campaign of annihilation against France envisaged by Schlieffen could not be executed. The French attack also soon hit a snag. Although the French army's right wing reached the Rhine, its center was endangered by a German pincer movement. Only a hasty retreat and a counteroffensive at the Marne River saved Paris. "Pinwheel strategy"--each side attacking and driving the enemy back--had stalled badly
Meanwhile, on the eastern front, the German prewar strategy of holding until France had been quickly defeated was compromised by the desire of the Austrian ally to push against the Russians, partners of the French. The German victory at Tannenberg counterbalanced the Austrian defeat at Lemberg (Lvov). The eastern front became stabilized.
By the close of 1914 the war had become a stalemate on both the eastern and western fronts. The conflict had resolved itself into trench warfare from Switzerland to the English Channel. Machine guns and artillery took over the battlefield. The conflict had settled down into a war of position, and strategic mobility was lost. World War I became a classic case of arrested strategy.
The first phase of the war was over by the end of 1914. Prewar plans had failed; the war of movement, of mass offensives, had ceased. The big question thenceforth was how to dig the war out of the trenches? In answering that question important elements of grand strategy came into play.
The heavy demands upon industry for munitions of war multiplied, and technology was called upon for new means--the tank and poison gas--of breaking the stalemate. Britain's naval blockade to starve Germany took on added significance. The German countermeasures helped bring the United States into the war in 1917. The United States was not prepared for war, however, and the buildup of its forces across the Atlantic was slow.
The Germans, seeking in 1918 to forestall the full impact of U.S. might, put their resources into a great offensive that came close to succeeding. When the Americans finally arrived in force, they played a valuable part in military strategy in reducing the salient within the Allied lines. Eventually the German allies were defeated; the German armies reached a point of exhaustion and the homeland a stage of semi starvation. Germany asked for an armistice.
World War II and the subsequent evolution of weapons of mass destruction made the task of understanding the nature of war even more urgent. On the one hand, war has become an intractable social phenomenon, the elimination of which seems to be an essential precondition for the survival of mankind. On the other hand, the use of war as an instrument of policy is calculated in an unprecedented manner by the nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. War also remains a stark but rational instrumentality in certain more limited conflicts, such as those between Israel and the Arab nations. Thinking about war is, consequently, becoming increasingly more differentiated because it has to answer questions related to very different types of conflict
Clausewitz strongly defines war as a rational instrument of foreign policy: "an act of violence imposes our desires and intentions on our opponents." Modern definitions of war, such as "armed conflict between political units," generally disregard the narrow, legalistic definitions characteristic of the 19th century, which limited the concept to formally declared war between states. Such a definition includes civil wars but at the same time excludes such phenomena as insurrections, banditry, or piracy. Finally, war is generally understood to embrace only armed conflicts on a fairly large scale, usually excluding conflicts in which fewer than 50,000 combatants are involved.
The first successful test of the atomic bomb took place in New Mexico in July 1945 as the leaders of Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States met at the Potsdam Conference to discuss the shape of the postwar world. This context colored the early American appreciation of the potential foreign-policy role of the new weapons, with the result that nuclear strategy thereafter became bound up with the twists and turns of the Cold War between East and West.
However, the decision actually to use the bomb against Japan reflected the more immediate urge to end the war as soon as possible and certainly before it became necessary to mount an invasion of the mainland. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 was a means of shocking Japan into surrender. The choice of civilian rather than purely military targets, and the consequent immense loss of life, reflected the brutalizing experience of the massive air raids that had become commonplace during the war. Afterward it was assumed that any future atomic bombing would also be against cities. As weapons of terror, they appeared to have brought 20th-century trends in warfare to their logical conclusion.
The first nuclear weapons were in the range of other munitions (the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was equivalent to the load of some 200 B-29 bombers); also, at least initially, the weapons were scarce. The key development introduced by atomic bombs was less in the scale of their destructive power than in their efficiency. By the start of the 1950s, though, this situation had been transformed by two related developments. The first was the breaking of the U.S. monopoly by the Soviet Union, which conducted its first atomic bomb test in August 1949. Once two could play the nuclear game, the rules had to be changed. Anyone who thought of initiating nuclear war would henceforth need to consider the possibility of retaliation.
The second development followed from the first. In an effort to extend its effective nuclear superiority, the United States produced thermonuclear, based on the principles of nuclear fusion rather than fission, upon which the atomic bombs were based. This made possible weapons with no obvious limits to their destructive potential. President Harry S. Truman disregarded opposition to this development by influential nuclear scientists, such as Robert Oppenheimer, on the grounds that the Soviet Union would not suffer from any comparable moral inhibitions.
This move was not matched by a pronounced nuclear bias in U.S. strategy. The weapons were still scarce, and it seemed only a matter of time before whatever advantages accruing to the United States through its lead would be neutralized as the Soviet Union caught up. The Truman administration assumed that the introduction of thermonuclear weapons would extend the time available to the United States and its allies (including NATO) to build up conventional forces to match those of the Soviet Union and its satellites. A series of events, from the Berlin blockade of 1948 to the Korean War of 1950-53, had convinced the United States that the communists were prepared to use military means to pursue their political ambitions and that this could be countered only by a major program of Western rearmament
The introduction of wars in different theoretical definitions, and historical context brought us to our time and the present US- British led war in Iraq. We witnessed for a long time that the fabrication of legitimacy and prerequisite for commencement of war became an ongoing campaign in the world of political arena.
The larger and more extensive overview introduces this war as a long run solidification of global power led by US in the region which wants to assume the political domination in the most vital part of the world, this happens only when we have one supper power capable of ultimate imposition, having enough collateral that no one ells could possibly be able to black male them politically. This off course is reference mainly to the European Union and beyond. And at the same time secure the stability of Israel against the Arab neighbors, weakening the bargaining power of Palestinian in their possible peace and settlement negotiation. Another aim of this war is to raise the punishing warning sticks to those who stand against them.
The major question will be posed as: how we can define the US led coalition lunching a swift campaign of ten days war with its questionable legitimacy and a world wide opposition raised against it? This war is not Clausewitzian pattern of revolutionary, in spite of the "given title of liberation of Iraqi people". Is not for repellence of intruders, is not rivalry for possession of some confiscation", perhaps the US war planners and strategists will define it conveniently. Otherwise it will clearly is defined as" War for Oil" since the target of coalition did not attack Tanzania, Marrakech, Australia or Scotland it happened in the Middle East were the oil wells are located. It happened in Iraq the second largest oil country in the world. And removing a tyrant trained and supported by them such as Sad am out of power was only the excuse to start the war of invasion of oil reach land, which undoubtedly will expand to other rich oil lands such as Iran. We saw the historical evidences of "The weapon of mass destruction" such as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The weapon of mass destruction is not a commodity only in the possession of Iraq, which so far they did not find enough evidence of its existence. We can find them all over the Middle East starting with Israel with the grand supplies equal to some European countries. Further east, India, and Pakistan.

M.K.SADIGH
Pa. Wednesday, April 16, 2003

WAR AN INSTRUMENT OF SUPRESSION OR AN INEVITABLE HUMAN DRIVE!

M.K.SADIGH
_______________________________
PART 2

The first part of this inquiry covered a brief reference to the theoretical aspect of the genesis of violence leading to conflicts, the motivations caused the tension which led to the wars, some cross-historical documentations, and finally concluded that in our era war is an instrument of suppression as it was in the past and human instinctual motives did not change, but the methods of the execution and conducting the wars advanced drastically.
In the second part we review the phenomenon of war in a holistic view, not only as an instrument of suppression or imposition but also as a culture, which evolved from varieties of motivations apart from the instinctual motives. The references relevant to historical documentation reveal the fact that, the culture of war became an institutional phenomenon, which has a great impact on many aspects of our lives and conditioned our behaviors. This phenomenon comprised other subcultures such as, drug culture, which facilitate the psychological atmosphere, and the media, which create the social education, and conditions the elements required for its functionality.

THE CULTURE OF WAR

The wide spread impact of the promotional campaigns on the war subjects calls for a serious attention to the influences on psychological conditioning and unleashed dominant power of those segments of humanity who are concern more about gaining power & wealth than helping the mankind which they themselves are part of it. At this juncture we arrive at a point where it seems the culture of war and the acceptance of such culture conditioning the humanity to such an extent that the human of modern era acknowledged the war as a means' of entertainment and consequently, lost his sensitivities when it occurred or imposed upon him.

In spite of their educational, entertainment and artistic values a great numbers of the war related subjects covered by books, publications, journalism, media, and often movies, are used as the channels to redirect the social intellectual instructions. Particularly, movies that generally present historical and political aspects of war could be considered the appropriate instruments of conditioning the behaviors, responses, judgment and decision-making of the majority of people.
These publications, media's productions, and motion pictures are introduced as sacred means of artistic expressions, aiming at educating the humanity and enhancing their sensitivities by showing particular crisis and conflicts in expressive aesthetic presentation. Undoubtedly the cinema which comprised of all arts in their highest capacities of expressing the human feeling, had contributed to the human's consciousness tremendously trough the masterworks of exquisite and brilliant creative minds of the motion picture industries. Unfortunately the outcome of some preconceived and particular productions is produced intentionally, for the deliberate configuration of intellectual output, concealed under their metaphoric structures, meaning that detach the viewer from his own self determination and condition him as a "dependent and follower" rather than as a "self determination".
The result is "Hollywood culture and its highly dominated paradigms" A sacred "role model" practically for all the aspects of our lives as a source of inspiration, The stars, the rich and famous, the victorious, the beautiful, the distinguished. These distinct and superb qualities are the set paradigms, which constantly introduced as the marks of excellence. These outstanding role models are the active players and actual elements that participate in documentaries, movies, and even advertisings and since they already are known as distinguished and successful, what ever they show is persuasive and respectfully acceptable by the masses.
This is more pronounced, particularly in the educational process and entertainments for the younger generation, in the children's toys, famous figures' dolls; game's instruments such as play stations. These games mostly glorifying or mystifying the hero's, the stars and super-stars, wars and violation that these role models play in them as the manifestations of human inevitable conflicts demonstrated in a very cruel manner. Obviously the young and growing minds are in the process of formation, and these presentations could permanently be embedded in their minds and shape their behaviors. The result will be "Columbine" and hundreds of other similar incidents, the Ganges, the Colts, the widespread violations and far more extensive chaotic incidents all over the world.

The concept of war defined as the resolution of human conflict by force, and used as a cogent for solving the social, political or economical contradictions. The war became the final implementation of strength for imposition of ideas, and reinforcement of power. In the culture of war the major goal become domination, which indeed is no thing but superiority and sway of control. Such domination goes to exert influences on or control over political and economical powers and become the determinant factors in decision-making for the destiny and the living direction and condition of the social, economical and political structural environments of subordinates.
It is widely known that in the process of power struggle, the legitimacy of the right defines and considered valid only when supports the victorious and powerful party " the winners". These kinds of evaluations of the human rationality became the stalemates of our post colonialist's societies. It is obvious that materialization of such policies in human relation generated tremendous hostility among the subordinates or underdogs whom either lost their political identities, and economical dignity, or never had the chance to gain it in the first place.

As we referred to etiological studies in the first part of this enquiry, searching for the causation of the natural aggressive drives led to encounters and wars, here we should search for the causation of the overwhelming increase and wide spread immense measure of violence in our environments. We all witnessed the ever increases of violence which undoubtedly promulgated our living atmospheres and successively dominated our lives. At the same time the tremendous and massive production of motivational facilities and the provision of the instruments of human degradation and death. Analysis or perhaps scrutinize them will definitely help us to widen our consciousness and develops our sensitivities further to understand our environments and have a better judgment about the people assigned as the political leaders, authorities, or our friends, as well as our adversaries.
It would be unrealistic to relate all the violations and the motivations, which instigate them as preconceived conspiracies. Witnessing ever-increasing violations and hostility in our environment affecting our lives is the indicative of the fact that the crime not only is not condemned and punished but is rewarded and promoted. If the crime and violation were eradicated, we would not have so much active criminal in the rise every day and everywhere making our social environment miserable. It seems unfortunate that those with a hidden agenda whether it is political, economical or religious enjoy the present conditions and find it suitable and convenient for their intentions.

Ironically. In spite of their claims of promotion of some measures of ethical considerations there is a wide spread of general suspicions that the elements of developing violation are ranging from widespread availability of weapons which stimulate the aggression, violence and crime, the promotion of drug culture which create the psychological motivations and atmosphere for violence, the subjugation of the social justice in favor of criminal activities, and the encouragement of the corruptions and conspiracies in the public as well as global measure.

The ultimate result of all these basics and predetermined conditions would be, to preclude the natural realization of the ethical standards, which are the only means of the moral support for the values in the lives of the majority of the masses. The history of human relations and particularly the international political relations is filled with descriptive and undeniable documentations of impositions and indoctrinations. These political strategies finally leading the humanity to such a diabolic and disastrous relations leading to so much more hostilities and unrests, which simply could be interpreted as "the ultimate threshold of tensions".
Aggression is known as the major causation of war, and it seems the whole concept of aggression and war has been deeply rooted in the fabric of the modern social structure. It became almost as a second nature from the earliest days of human growth and his educational process, introduced in toys, war stories, war games, arcades, and sport activities. In spite of the misconception that negotiation could prevent the out brake of hostility and aggression, war some time bypasses the negotiation and becomes the first and final solution to the problems.
There are different mechanism constitute the necessary ground to facilitate and animates the vast institutions of war. One of the most significant instruments, which are equally important as weaponries in its holistic function, is media. The major function of the media is social preparation and conditioning, which to a great extent is the supreme instrument of education as well as indoctrination. The process of indoctrination in fact takes place only when certain educational process is materialized, because, the unprepared masses could not possibly be able and responsive to the requirements and availability of the tasks intended in the preconceived agendas.
Analyzing the contents embedded in the functionality of media, it reveals to us how much of our advanced journalism is devoted direct and indirect to the war related topics, promoting the occurrence of criminal acts as the result of the existence of overwhelming social tensions and expanding the culture of war. It seems that we have been conditioned to take war and violence as granted, accepting the existence of war and crime, as an inseparable part of our daily lives without reevaluating our thoughts for any further validity.

The effectiveness of the media in its general function, particularly in promotion of war is due to its persuasive power of communication, which channeled trough the visual appealing of the images, psychological appropriations of graphics, sounds, and well-calculated contents. Furthermore, the introduction of the historical references as the contents of the wars is an effective reminder of the real events that revive the fear and destitution as the characteristics of war in comparison with the peacetime living conditions. No matter how violent and vicious these events occurred in the past, the outcome of such routine frequently reminding keeps the parity of war as a legitimate duty intact as an inseparable part of ordinary daily live. In this level of acceptance then it is easier for masses to incorporate the violence with the heroic behaviors, or patriotic duties without resentment. This kind of indoctrination processes not only is openly a part of the military training as a prerequisite of war education, but also is an organic extension of the general traditional social education and social persuasion in the educational system particularly in the west.

The parity of war with the ordinary living is based on the existence of challenges due to individual's encounter with social contradictions every day. Therefore, it is necessary preparing to meet these challenges. Some critics believe familiarity with the war and regular daily clashes should be part of human education and wide availability of war subjects prepare the children for the challenges they will face in their lives. Undoubtedly, the dynamic of life is meaningless without the existence of contradictions. The conflicts motivated by human drives such as the hostility more likely always caused contradictions, which led to violence and wars. Based on such organic relation we can see the existence of social tensions has a cultural make-up in the process of the ramification of human relationship. The motivations either stimulated by instinctual drives such as "greed" or dominant social, political or traditional forces are the cause of infliction. But the major distinction here is the level of conciseness and the capability of the correct judgment of the individuals to be able to understand the difference between aggression and the legitimate defense responses.

Nature provided a system of defense mechanism for every living creature to defend its existence and survival. This defensive response always is associated with encounter and often violence. In the case of human it is not only the physical responses but also so many intellectual and non-physical activities. These activities distinguish the man from other creatures and indeed complicate the human's defense mechanism far more convoluted. It is not feasible to describe human's defense mechanism in a limited view, but we can refer to the most common and recognized motives, which are the genesis of violence, and hostility led to the wars in a universal view as well as individual's life.
We pasted trough a wide spectrum of motivational factors that could be found in varieties of circumstances. These factors could have been the cause of contradictions and conflicts in human relations. The first and the most significant drives among other motives is "human's greed" which pushes him to the ultimate level of violence, and dehumanizes him tremendously. His quest for gaining power, maintaining power and imposing supremacy over his rivals, which during the course of history resulted in massacre, subversive activities, and bloodsheds.
Greed as a major psychological drive could be considered as a simple and feasible answer. Psychological explanations of conflict and contradiction leading to war contain much more in the larger scope beyond the greed. It is absurd to assume only one motive alone could possibly cause the human conflict while human is forced to have varieties of responses to the vast complexity of his life. Psychological behaviors are insufficient because man behaves differently in different social contexts.
Fluctuating from subjective to the objective domain of human living environments and searching for the causation of conflicts and human encounter directed the scientists to formulate their conclusions and thoughts. Many thinkers have sought their explanations beyond the subjective domain of human life, instead, they expand their attention to the external influences and focusing either on the internal organization of states or on the international system within which these operate. The most ample and significant theories attributing war to the nature of the state fall into two broad torrents, which dominated the political atmosphere of our era and could be referred to two major theoretical definitions: liberalism and socialism.
Liberalism is a political theory founded on the natural goodness of human beings and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. It is an economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard. A reference to 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology. Also applies to a 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
As we can see liberalism had been introduced as the result of the quest for social justice not in a monistic and rigid structure as it is in Marxism but a framework that could allow the coexistence of oppositions in a civilized social structure. Liberalism had been revised and tailored according to different political and economical needs. Revising the liberalism in many countries did not exceeded to a level of abandonment of complete democratic rights of other members of society; such as conditions exist in Iran. When the liberalism becomes a convenient cover-up and manipulated against the interest of majorities then become an instrument of corruption, which not only is not reducing the social hostilities and conflicts but motivate it.
The socialism is known as a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods along with political power are owned and controlled collectively, the theory or practice of those who support such a social system, or the building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory. The revision of such theory and a diversion of the basic idea have been used in democratic reorganization of many Northern European such as Scandinavian countries. In general analysis, these basic ideologies of liberalism and socialism have been the building blocks of the political post colonialist era especially in Europe. The "Democratic Systems" is a fictional political atmosphere where these two tendencies are introduced theoretically but not in practice to a measure that could possibly eliminate the social antagonism.
The ultimate struggles of creating the ideal societies started with the idealization of utopian concepts from the ancient time in the history. After passing trough a long agonizing sacrifices finally formulated to a kind of utopia, which is based on reality rather than imaginary nature as presented by Thomas Moore. Marxism formulated a feasible philosophical structure, which could be realized as the pragmatic or realistic utopia or as a " civil society". Their monistic formulation created an explosion of controversial among the world's intelligentsia and finally evolved into a strong and powerful institution led by the suppressed masses and underdogs, in Soviet Union, China, Cuba and East European Countries.
This new powerful social institution became the distinct major target for a long and hostile controversial and clashes for decades, escape goat for espionage, covered activities, conspiracies and world wide tensions. The whole Marxist camp was subjected to dehumanization by their adversaries and the whole "Free World" become the Capitalists enemies subjected to abolishment by the Marxists, both side demonized each other to the highest level, and "Radicals" condemned by the free world as simply "communist" in a derogatory manner. We all were witness of tremendous hostilities and bitter antagonistic rivalry for decades. We can add this humongous global motivation to the human history, which for a long time created the "cold war". Now we have two worlds with two vast and powerful mechanisms of indoctrinations, which were a major cause of worldwide conflicts.

So far in our brief introduction we referred to the motivational factors as the cause of human conflicts and eventually war. We precede with some relevant examples and to some extent their social configurations: such as value systems, beliefs, and other social characteristics. These brief referrals are crucial in assessing the characteristic of the political challenges the nations such as South Africa, the old Soviet Union, or present Israel faced. The national determinant issues which are relevant to, racial, or social factions of these countries and can have a great impact on their national governmental structure and the motivational causes of their internal and external challenges, as long as the two major political influences affected their lives.
Both of these two major global political tendencies equipped to their teeth for the most diabolic rivalry and political struggles. From these two opposed political system sprouted many satellites and sympathizers taking sides and expanded the rivalry to the highest level of destructive and subversive measure. The full mechanism for brain washing, down grading each other and bringing the world under their influences was constantly operated for decades.
Gradually we are advancing toward a more profound cognition of human conflicts beyond the mere definitions, which do not take us to the core of the problems. We can further our judgment not only based on assumption of a simple natural instinctual motivation, but related to historical facts which caused human conflicts leading to wars.
The credible documentation helps the advancement of appropriate evaluation, and eliminates subjective assumptions based purely on emotional responses. Viewing the facts and using them as reliable sources for our judgments could bring us to a kind of maturity we all need to avoid wars and reduce hostilities. Even though the "Marxism" describes the human relation eloquently and clearly and based it solely on economical values, but going beyond the paradigms described and set by philosophy, there is a common goal "subsistence and survival" that only could be guaranteed trough the consciousness of the rational man and his compassion. We have not grown to that level yet, and we striving that some day we will reach to that commonplace.
The absence of sufficient knowledge creates a great gap among the people as well as the nations at large, and often after conflicts the two opposed parties become more acquainted with each other's strength or weaknesses. As an example, the lack of good sociological intelligence and knowledge was a major cause of U.S. mistakes in dealing with revolutionary Iran. When Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979, the United States had only the most superficial understanding of Islam and Iranian society, the situation improved only slightly in subsequent years.
As a result, the United States often remained ignorant about Iranian officials, calling them "radical" or "moderate" even when such terms did more to cloud a situation than to make it clear. The consequences of such blunders caused by ignorance generated tremendous hostilities and international tensions elsewhere and all over the world. Even at the present time we witness the repeated mistakes that occurs in the case of Afghanistan and Taleban-Alkajda's regrouping and reviving contrary to boastfully declared defeated and eradicated by U.S. forces, and extensively the whole unpredicted and miscalculation steps taken by coalition led by American-British forces in Iraq.
Accumulation of many unresolved problems due to ignorance and disregard of the significance of their momentum caused many impossible to undo suffering and war damages inflicted upon these nations in the international relation, consequently ended-up with expansion of international violent responses as reaction. In spite of the conveniently defined and superficial labels, the profound problems and passing by them without appropriate evaluation, the American superpower dealt with the other nations just like Iran's example on their own terms and based on their shallow and meager knowledge about them. The result was "terrorism" which did not grown out of vacuum but was born and evolved in the atmosphere of tensions and ever increasing revenge. Terrorism is nothing but a desperate antagonistic response, which was generated from the irrationality by all parties, rooted in the absolute ignorance.


Terrorism

Terror is always associated with the most dreadful characteristics of guerrilla warfare. It is used for several reasons: to focus world attention on the insurgent's cause with the hope of winning international support, to eliminate opposition leaders in the support of the officials loyal to the government, to paralyze normal governmental activities, to intimidate the general populace in order to gain support and recruits them to the government, to keep one's own followers from defecting, and finally to raise funds by collecting ransoms for kidnapped victims.
Escalation of terrorism in Afghanistan originally came to existence and motivated by the American support in the Reagan era to Mojahedin against the Soviet Union war in the region. Even before that terrorism was a common defensive activities in Israel-Palestinian conflicts and followed by the horible terrorist acts in Israel as the revenge to political pressures, Iraq. Ireland, and the trade center towers in 2001 were the best examples of international terrorism. Not all guerrilla leaders have favored the use of terrorist tactics. In IRA leaders in Ireland disagreed on the use of terror, which resulted in a movement divided between "official" and "provisional" wings.

After decades of advocating the use of terror, the leader of the "Palestine Liberation Organization", Yasir 'Arafat, denounced international terrorism. It is difficult to assess the psychological impact of terrorist tactics on the general population, but it seems that even those persons originally sympathetic to a guerrilla cause may be alienated by the indiscriminate use of terrorism, such as planting bombs in shopping centers or blowing commercial aircraft out of the sky. There also may be disillusioned when orthodox forces reply in kind, so that the population is subject to terror from both sides and the original insurgency turns into "virtual civil war". This happened in Argentina, Northern Ireland, Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua.
The evolution of intellectual development along with the expansion of international relation necessarily is not indicative of the reduction of conflicts, neither is the singe of the decrease of hostilities continued from the past, reshaped and reintroduced in a different manner suited for the present time. It is painfully obvious that the hostilities and conflicts are manifested in a complicated staging matched with advancements of the means of responsive mechanism.
The following historical references demonstrate that when the level of hostility and war is augmented to a level of desperate and critical measure of survival, the struggle of subsistence reaches its ultimate feasibility. One of the most significant developments in logistics after 1945 was the advanced high-technology system against well-organized low-technology systems operating on their own ground. The Korean War and the anti-colonial wars in French Indochina and Algeria were the principal conflicts of this kind in the 1950s. The war in Vietnam following large-scale U.S. intervention in 1965 brought into conflict the most effective of both types of systems.
Because South Vietnam lacked most of the facilities on which modern military forces depend, the massive U.S. deployment that began in the spring of 1965, reaching 180,000 men by the end of that year and more than 550,000 in 1969, was accompanied, rather than paved the way, by a huge ($4 billion) construction program, carried out partly by army, navy, and air force engineer units and partly by a association of engineering contractors. Under this program were built seven deepwater and several smaller ports, eight jet air bases with 10,000-foot (3,050-metre) runways, 200 smaller airfields, and 200 heliports, besides millions of square feet of covered and refrigerated storage, hundreds of miles of roads, hundreds of bridges, oil pipelines and tanks, and all the other apparatuses of a modern logistic infrastructure. Deep-draft shipping brought in all but scarce items of airlifted supplies and came mainly from the U.S. directly. All the mentioned and itemized expenses could have been used to improve the quality of the lives of American taxpayers particularly those of ghettos, if the whole project was not prepared for war, and implementation of superiority over other nations was not in the agenda.
While thousand of America citizens were homeless and lived in ghettos, the American soldier whom largely drafted from lowest social rank and ghettos and serving in the field received lavish logistic support by means of helicopter supply. It seemed that the patriots and the defendant of democracy were only the drafted soldiers from the American ghettos, mobile homes' residents. Perhaps rarely the higher class participated in the patriotic defense of American democracy, except in the leadership positions where there is no immediate and direct dangers threatening them.
Troops in contact with the enemy were often provided with hot meals; most of the wounded were promptly evacuated to hospitals and serious cases were moved by air to base facilities in the Pacific or the United States. Medical evacuation, combined with advances in medicine, helped to raise the ratio of surviving wounded to dead to 6:1, in contrast to a World War II ratio of 2.6:1. Logistic support of army forces was organized under a single logistic command having strength of 30,000 and employing 50,000 Vietnamese, U.S., and foreign civilians. Ultimately there were four or five support personnel for every infantryman who bore the brunt of contact fighting with the enemy.
The enemy's logistic system was centered in the highly mobilized society of North Vietnam. In its integration, efficiency, and resilience under concentrated and prolonged bombing it rivaled the war economy of Germany in World War II. Its resilience owed much, however, to its being a village-centered agricultural society, with modest material needs and a limited industrial base, which produced no steel, very little pig iron, and only one-fifth as much electric power as a single power plant in a small American town.
By late 1967 the communist war effort in South Vietnam depended heavily on the flow of troops, equipment, and supplies from North Vietnam, supplied mainly by the Soviet Union. The troops and most of the supplies moved over the "Ho Chi Minh Trail", originally a network of footpaths and dirt roads (often paved after 1967) through communist-controlled areas in "Laos" and "Cambodia". Supplies also came into South Vietnam by sea, directly across the northern border, and, especially after 1967, through the Cambodian port of Kompong Som and overland into the Mekong delta.
The Ho Chi Minh Trail was a long, slow-moving pipeline, requiring from three to six months in transit by truck, barge, ox cart, bicycle, and foot, but its capacity was ample for the modest demands placed upon it. In mid-1967, U.S. intelligence estimated the total nonfood requirements of all communist forces in South Vietnam, except in the northern provinces, to be as low as 15 tons (13,640 kilograms) per day (about 1.5 ounces, or 43 grams, per man); food was procured locally and in nearby Cambodia and Laos. In 1968, when the pace of the war quickened and communist forces were substantially augmented, estimated nonfood requirements rose to about 120 tons per day. A single U.S. division required about five times this amount.
American bombing had little effect on the flow of troops to the south, and the North Vietnam's logistic system stood up remarkably well--and ultimately victoriously--under the weight of American air power. Its strength lay primarily in its austerity, but also in efficient organization, lavish use of manpower, availability of sanctuary areas in Laos and Cambodia, and a steady flow of imported supplies.
After reading all these historical references one will be perplexed that why, advanced and civilized man of our era with such technological capabilities is not able to eliminate the violence which tearing the whole humanity apart? The political powers equipped with ultimate advancements of scientific achievement not only did not reduced the quest for violence and war, but all the time more dragged the whole world into the decadence and corruptions. It seems power and domination always ignores the bitter lessons of the history and repeats the same mistakes that had been repeated over and over.
The war in Afghanistan followed by Iraq war is replaced the "cold war". The great ghost of communism no longer exists. The new enemy is fanatic terrorists generally from the non Christian whom led by "Alkaida-Taleban" and hardliners of Islamic nations" then "Sad am Hussein, an old U.S. allied turn into a vicious monster" and now they determine to fabricate another escape goat to be used as "scarecrow to eradicate the democracy at home and terrify the whole world" increasing further international motivation that will drag the humanity far more toward diversity than ever in the history of human conflicts. All these phenomena are steps taking toward increasing tensions. A great deal of what is happening in the world whether it is the promotion of drug culture, or encouragement of violence and war culture, could not possibly augmented without a preconceived agenda.
The recent Iraq war and invasion of the country faced with the worldwide protestations and oppositions. The determination of two leaders whom completely ignored the world opinion started this war. To the whole world such decision was interpreted as the imposition of the power from a super power. Witnessing such event suggest that the world's political powers are proud and self-centered and remote from reality, the only visions they have for future is achieving absolute power and sacrifice everything but themselves and their greed's. It is obvious that the two leaders themselves representing the most dominate political and economical world's powers. They had shown in the past repeatedly and variably that they disregard the well being of the mankind, when their profit is concern. History no longer matters to them as the sources of learning. It seems the human of our time being dragged by the big powers toward banishment and gradually our world is going to undoable destruction.
This is not a pessimistic expression as a response to an emotion, the senseless pollutions, contamination of all kinds, which introduces varieties of carcinogenic in every elements of our survival, promotion of drug, violence and war culture, destruction of Ozone layer, and many more undoable damages to our physical and spiritual lives are clear indication of such decadence. With the chaotic degeneration of all our values from ever-increasing crime and violence, drugs and drug-culture, promotion and rewarding the corruptions, augmentation of international hostility leading to violence and war culture, and drastically reducing ethical values in our social relation, with these unsavory and destructive continuous changes we are going nowhere but to the ultimate disasters that we would not possibly be able to correct the damages.
M. K. SADIGH