<center>
![Image1.jpeg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmQ2Y7Cf7vzDxiBkFh6mLS8Qk8NAhhLuiT2hHHMYJoq2v9/Image1.jpeg)
</center>
<center>
Politicians should read science fiction,
not westerns and detective stories.
— Arthur C. Clarke
</center>
Since the first caveman beaned another one with a rock, Violence against the bodies and belongings of others (hereinafter “PhysWar”/PW) has been a constant and until now accepted method of addressing, if not resolving disputes between tribes, feudal holdings, and eventually nation-states. Indeed PW has been glorified and its participants honored, despite its being an engine of death, destruction, and misery. Certainly no other human pastime has been more publicized and memorialized in literature and the arts. A Visit to any library or museum is sufficient to demonstrate that, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, humanity loves the mystique of war.
The problem with this addiction is not merely one of compassion for PW’s Victims. If PW had a record of positive accomplishment — resolving the issues that prompted it — it could at least be excused on these grounds. But this is rarely, indeed almost never the case. The moment that cooperative, reasoned dialogue is discarded in favor of brute force, the inexorable tendency is to reject anything other than that blind force henceforth. Negotiation, compromise, and rational problem-solving are abandoned, indeed condemned as signs of weakness and betrayal.
<center>
![image2.jpeg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmSVR7cTr3FVBDp5n2gtz8kmuu15Z2YVxveoif4nxJkDGw/image2.jpeg)
</center>
As humanity has advanced technologically, the weapons of PW have become more efficient, projectable, and lethal. But whether it is an industrial nation with armed forces deployed worldwide, or guerrilla conflicts [the currently-in-vogue term is “terrorism”] using hand— to—hand combat, the allure has not slackened in the least. Humanity still craves, and loves, war.
The 21st—century dilemma for the United States is simply that PW is no longer practical on the scale it now requires to be effective, if the destruction or exhaustion of another country, or intra/transnational group of people, can be considered effective. With the explosion of world population and corresponding migration, there are now too many enemies, whether individual or institutional. PW against them can no longer be neatly confined to national boundaries or the traditional taking of token- cities. And PW has become ruinously expensive, especially for the United States as the world’s de facto policeman and preeminent warfare state.
Indeed it is arguable that war and world-policing have become the raison d’étre of the United States. The Department of Defense (DOD), which absorbs approximately one—quarter of the entire U.S. Government budget, has long since abandoned its titular mission of defending the territorial United States, so much so that an entirely new Government Department - Homeland Security — has been created for that purpose.4 Rather it is DOD’s function to project U.S. military power into the territories and affairs of other countries. The stated justifications are many: “democracy”, “weapons of mass destruction”, “nuclear nonproliferation”, “regional stability”, “anti-terrorism” (replacing “anti— communism”), and/or the catchall “U.S. national security”.
<center>
![image3.jpeg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmVTHhuANH5F9ojxEZgXSuHT2XR55nRmNdLdJZfWYZ9e1M/image3.jpeg)
</center>
Not only has the United States assumed the role of world policeman, but the planet’s other countries generally take this role for granted. Every new crisis, especially of a Violent nature, generates an appeal for U.S. intervention, or at least expectation of it.
Assuming that mankind’s lust for war cannot be eliminated - the League of Nations and its United Nations successor stand as Utopian monuments to failure in this naive desire - what can realistically be done about it? The answer is that while war will remain inevitable and inexorable, it is both possible and practical to revise the way it is conducted. As the world’s policeman and supreme warfare state, the United States has a unique prerogative to determine and change the context and structure of present and future war. It is to this problem - and opportunity - that MW speaks and addresses.
To be continued in future articles...............