Humane Warfare

If you think that this book is an argument against war, you're mistaken. Coker, a sociologist who clearly has a strong foundation in nineteenth and twentieth century continental philosophy, defends instead the claim that war, at least as waged by the West, is becoming more "humane" and thus, ironically, more risky. His point is that the West's consumer-driven ethos increasingly makes it risk-aversive. Western consumers, in other words, have things too well and too plentiful to risk losing everything in war. So smart bombs and technological weapons begin to replace actual bodies on the battlefield, and wars of aggression, even if they're still fought by the West, are usually painted as wars of "liberation" or wars to protect "human rights." The problem, Coker concludes, is that these "humane" wars still kill a lot of the enemy--in fact, they make it easier to kill the enemy since our war-at-a-distance style makes it less likely we have to look the enemy in the face. Moreover, he argues that many developing nations are still fighting nonhumane wars, and the asymmetrical nature of future conflicts is likely to result in much death. A provocative thesis, but at times the chapters wander a bit as Coker draws in too many sources.