Why Wars Are About To Get More Vicious

war, war, rumours of a war 바카라� Bob Marley, War.

As the year comes to an end, three major wars바카라�Israel바카라�s continued genocide in Gaza, Vladimir Putin바카라�s pulverisation of Ukraine and the lesser-known but no less murderous, the 바카라�civil바카라� war in Sudan바카라�rage on. International diplomacy and the international legal order seem unable or unwilling to bring these hostilities to an end. In addition to human lives, homes and homelands, these wars have blown the fiction of 바카라�a rule- based global order바카라� and the related lie of 바카라�just war바카라�, to smithereens.

Bob Marley바카라�s 1976 song speaks of wars without end. At any time, some part of the world is engulfed in, struggling out of, or preparing to go to war.

Wars seem to be a permanent condition of human life. They are the purest examples of human barbarity, though paradoxically, they are always waged in defence of civilisation and for the promise of an elusive peace. Wars remain popular바카라�they energise flagging political fortunes, give us new heroes and a sense of collective identity. Even genocides are popular바카라�the actions of the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza and the continuation of Putin바카라�s operations in Ukraine are gaining massive support among Israelis and Russians, respectively.

When are wars 바카라�justified바카라�? When is the conduct of wars 바카라�just바카라�? The answers to these two related questions have long been dominated by liberal international relations theory, and its subsidiary바카라�the 바카라�just war바카라� theory. With the terminal decline of liberal world order바카라�a process that gained speed in the 1990s바카라�these theories, too, have lost ground.

The need to go to war is recognised in international law바카라�as wars start when politics and diplomacy have failed, and there is verifiable evidence that some party has dangerous weapons, attacked another country and taken its territory, and has a deranged leadership. When such conditions apply바카라�as the collective West argued in the early 2000s in relation to Iraq바카라�a war is justified.

Classically, 바카라�just wars바카라� require rival combatants to agree on and remain within the limits specified by mutually agreed rules of war. These include proportionality, not targeting non-combatants, allowing aid and medical assistance and sparing the lives of captured enemy soldiers. These rules are enabled when rivals share cultural similarities and values. However, these conditions of 바카라�just wars바카라� can only be met when rivals share a morality and when they recognise the humanity of their enemy. As per the theory, when enemies hold different religious beliefs, belong to a different race, speak different languages or identify with different civilisations, it is then that they see each other as 바카라�less than human바카라� and are more willing to abandon the conventions of restrained warfare.

One is hard-pressed to think of wars바카라�not only older but also more contemporary ones바카라�that meet this criterion. The keepers of the liberal world order and the arbiters of which wars are 바카라�just바카라� themselves have been the main destroyers of that order and of the very concept of 바카라�just wars바카라�. Examples include Colin Powell바카라�s orders to massacre withdrawing Iraqi troops in the first Gulf War, Tony Blair바카라�s 바카라�dodgy dossier바카라� of false 바카라�facts바카라� against the offensive capabilities of Saddam Hussein바카라�s Iraq, and Israel바카라�s reduction to rubble of Gaza in retaliation for a terror attack on illegal settlers.

Considerable effort goes into constructing the enemy as deserving the full wrath of war and in going beyond the fictional boundaries of 바카라�just wars바카라�.

In the aftermath of Hamas바카라� attacks on Israeli settlers바카라�which it justified on the grounds that such settlements were illegal under international law바카라�Zionist propaganda came alive. It insisted that Hamas had burnt babies alive, gang-raped many captive women, and hid its soldiers바카라�labelled 바카라�terrorists바카라�바카라�in schools, hospitals and other civilian facilities. Curiously, many Hindutva social media influencers were hyperactive in disseminating such propaganda. The mainstream consent in Israel for the Gaza genocide rotated around these fictions and the claim that Palestinians had supported the October 7 massacres.

As it happens, these charges were proven to be false. But they served the purpose of gaining the assent of the collective West to back the conduct of a war, in which genocide was permitted in self-defence. It was told to the West that the high body count was made acceptable because the Palestinians were less-than-human, and so, were not deserving of human rights, including food aid.

Ominously, for India, Hindutva influencers바카라�desperately seeking parallels between Hamas attacks on Israel and the perceived threats to India from its Muslim population바카라�justified the drip-drip of daily lethal violence by extremist groups on minorities within the country. In both cases, the enemy deserved annihilation because the enemy was not fully human, or at least human-like-us.

The popularity of the 바카라�just war theory바카라� does not rest on any empirical evidence. No war is just, however much those justifying these wars might insist. After all, wars within Europe바카라�whether the world wars, the more recent wars in the Balkans, or between Ukraine and Russia, in which the enemies have shared cultural values and civilisational affiliation바카라�have all provided evidence of genocide, the presence of concentration camps and the complete destruction of cities. Even the wars between groups in Africa바카라�often among culturally similar groups바카라�have been restrained. In the civil wars in Syria, Bashar al-Assad바카라�s sacking of Aleppo was comparable to any urbicide conducted in wars between nations.

These wars are nowhere near ending. In fact, the death count and the instances of adoption of ever more innovative methods of killing have only escalated. 바카라�Just wars바카라� have proven to be cruel and self-serving fictions바카라�an empty phrase used by those dominant in combat to justify their aims and methods. Even the goals of war have changed바카라�바카라�victory바카라� and 바카라�peace바카라� have been replaced by extermination, annihilation and the destruction of the very conditions of life after war, something that we are watching helplessly in Gaza.

More than the cynical fictions of the 바카라�just war바카라� theory, increasingly, what governs the conduct of a war, is the sceptic view바카라�that ethical concerns do not have a place in the conduct of war because the enemy is not sufficiently human to deserve the courtesy of war within self-imposed restraint. Increasingly, bellicose parties have fallen on religion to justify war brutalities.

The Islamic State relied on particular readings of the Islamic religious tradition to justify its excessive cruelties towards perceived enemies who were non-Muslims or not sufficiently so. Justifying the complete abandonment of restraint towards them, Benjamin Netanyahu named all Palestinians as 바카라�Amalek바카라�, and quoted sections from the Old Testament exhorting Israelis to 바카라�kill all men, women, infants and sucklings바카라� if they attacked Israel. Theoreticians of terror groups as well as nation-states argue that brutality, lawlessness and annihilation of the enemy are justified in the restoration of order and righteousness.

The dream of a world without war and beyond war was a fantasy entertained by European liberals, whose abandonment of it in the post-9/11 world was well-captured in Joseph Stromberg바카라�s felicitous phrase바카라�바카라�Kantians with Cruise Missiles바카라�. The liberal world order바카라�within which the fiction of 바카라�just wars바카라� rests바카라�is crumbling around us, under the weight of its own hypocrisies and contradictions.

In theory, the liberal world order and the 바카라�just war바카라� theory was premised on the assumption of common humanity. But in practice, it was based on treating many populations바카라�the colonised, the post-colonies and the collective non-West as not fully human. Also, the assertions by the post-colonies in international politics have challenged liberalism on the grounds of its complicity with colonialism and imperialism. This has led to the justified critique that while it professes an idea of a common humanity, it actually has prevented its definition to cover the majority of the world.

This story was published as part of Outlook Magazine's 'War And Peace' issue, dated January 11, 2025. To read more stories from the Issue, click here.

It is bad enough that the 바카라�liberal world order바카라� and 바카라�just war theory바카라� have been proven to be vicious fictions. What is worse is that, in this time of divisive hyper-nationalism, the denial of a common humanity to perceived 바카라�others바카라� is not just a matter of relations between nations. It is also common to promote violent conflicts within them바카라�violence against minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and dissidents is now widespread and is a road to acquiring state power in countries across the world. To these population categories, meting out arbitrary violence and the denial of basic justice is enthusiastically supported by the electorally significant part of the population. This involution of war has taken its logic to everyday spaces and relations. In India, the invocation of multiple jihads바카라�love, land, UPSC, thook, to name a few바카라�functions to deny equal humanity to Muslims and justifies vigilante and State violence on, and the denial of justice to, them.

What will germinate from the embers of the bonfires of liberalism and the 바카라�just war바카라� theory? With no credible move to create a movement behind the idea of universal humanity, wars and their spiralling brutality will seemingly be with us for some time to come.

Social media and the dawning of the post-truth age have made it easy to spread바카라�and to believe바카라�terrible things about nations and fellow citizens. Artificial Intelligence, drones and new technologies of surveillance and murder have made killing easier, and more remote. This will, over the long run, further build support for war, and increase the scope of its ability to cause mass death.

(Views expressed are personal)

Subir Sinha is director, SOAS South Asia Institute

(This appeared in the print as 'The Thin Red Line')