I agree with Wilf.
I also read your two links Michael C.. I believe your intellectual arguments are persuasive. Unfortunately, war tends all to often to discount the intellectual aspect. You provided a Sherman quote. Here are two more:
And here's one from Thomas Jonathan Jackson:Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
That is a historical truth. However, as a more modern General saidWar means fighting. The business of the soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will of necessity be of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property in the end.And here's a quote from you:If you go to war, to do less than your very best is immoral.
That was said in reference to this: "Is the statement meant to convey that war is essentially violent and thus death is implyed? (sic)"To be clear, the “war is war” crowd isn’t usually allied on their points. It just happens to be a rhetorical device tons of people use about war. I think your first iteration is what most people mean when they say “war is war.
Yes. True in my case at least. If you do not want violence, do not start wars, avoid them if at all possible. It isn't really sloppy thinking, it is shorthand, it's purpose is only to remind people that in any war, death and destruction, to include unnecessary and unplanned dollops of both, are BOUND to result. That should never be forgotten. It too often is...
P.S.
I normally only use the block quote capability to quote the individual(s) to whom I'm responding and use double quote marks for quotes from others, particularly if I have quotes from more than one other. No matter, here, thanks, David.
Bookmarks