A Brief Musing on Means
The world has split into two camps over terms, one supporting harsh terms for the defeated alliances and one opposing them. But both groups are brought back together (for the most part) under the idea that after this war there will no longer be harsh terms. This brings us to an odd situation, where those morally opposed to something are perpetrating it ostensibly in order to oppose it. But where does this lead us?
The most fascinating thing to watch from my perspective has not been the change in ends -- the terms themselves -- but the change in means; that is to say, in the justifications being used, as 'no draconian terms' became 'the word draconian is relative' (read: the word draconian is undefinable and thus doesn't exist -- nothing is draconian), because it is these, not the terms themselves, that tell us the mindset of those offering them, and that set the precedents.
The vast majority of justifications we see today are notable for their generality -- that is to say, for the way in which their logic applies far beyond the current war. In this category we can see examples such as 'the victors dictate the terms, not the losers' and 'we must make sure that they can no longer be a threat'. What the former amounts to is that negotiations shouldn't exist, and that the losing alliance should be willing to accept anything given to it without complaint; what the latter amounts to is a decree that terms in general should be designed to remove any potential future threat by removing their physical ability to ever be one. Of these the latter is the most interesting, for what war isn't fought over a perceived threat?
This brings us nicely to the next justification, that harsh terms are only being offered because the NPO (and Echelon, heh) are evil and deserve it. This makes our current situation out to be unique, but is it? In what Great War has the enemy not been made out to be a great evil threat? Even in the 'War of the Coalition' Gramlins, TOP and pals were making the NpO out to be an evil alliance and an immediate threat to their existence that must be crushed and prevented from rebuilding as long as possible. Likewise we go back to the Unjust War and we find the same thing -- the defeated alliances being portrayed as a great evil. And further back we find similar in the previous Great Wars, from all sides. The point here being that alliances don't fight because they think the other to be full of splendid chaps, but because they perceive them to be a great threat and thus evil, with a history of oppression. Not to mention that there is always a concern that a defeated alliance (and especially a massive and well organised defeated bloc) will return for revenge. Of course, from one perspective or another the accusation sounds absurd (just as the current accusation does to the NPO [1]), but it nevertheless exists for the other side, and is used to justify all manner of actions.
The foundation on which Pacifican exceptionalism lies is therefore extremely sandy in character, for the circumstances being used to launch it are the same that will exist in all future 'great wars', and indeed, in most future minor wars
9 Comments
Recommended Comments