c. Two Implications of the War Continuation Theory

c. Two Implications of the War Continuation Theory

 

 

The War Continuation Theory in politics can extract various important political principles. Two of them are ㉠ the armed force Basis Theory and ㉡ the War Regression Theory.

 

[Tab.2.1] Two implications of the War Continuation Theory

The Implications of War Continuation Theory.	Meaning
㉠ Armed Force Basis Theory	The armed capacity is the foundation of all societal phenomena (politics and civilization).
㉡ War Regression Theory	The worse a political situation becomes, the more it resembles a war situation.

 

 

Armed Force Basis Theory

 

First, in the Armed Force Basis Theory, "Armed Force" primarily means "violence." Perhaps the majority of what is meant by "Armed Force" is similar to what "violence" means, and we may feel that the term "violence" is more familiar. Nevertheless, I will use the term "Armed Force" rather than "violence" in this book. This is because I aim to refer to physical power that includes not only aggressive killing power such as guns and bombs, but also defensive (and therefore neutral) physical power, such as fortifications and defensive structures.

 

Armed force itself exerts political and social power, and it is not difficult to understand this. For example, the military always has political attributes in and of itself. The part that requires true insight is those parts that seem completely unrelated to power at first glance, but have significant political influence, such as laws and institutions. Laws an d institutions primarily restrain the violence of society members, and seem to be composed of nonviolent elements, but in reality, they also have armed force as their basis. Just as Alvin Toffler's saying that "in this paradoxical sense, it is the veiled threat of violence that helps make daily life nonviolent" meant, the Roman civilization's established politics, which supported the ancient Roman civilization, was supported by the Roman army and military power.

 

It will be discussed in detail later, but the laws and institutions that have the greatest influence on routine political activities during peaceful times are the means of using gentle and cordial forms of armed force. The fact that people rely on political power means using coercion (armed force) through laws and institutions. If a lawsuit is filed claiming that a real estate sale is legally invalid, it represents an attempt to coerce the prevention of the real estate sale. If there is no armed force to enforce this, the law and institutions become meaningless and ineffective in actual political reality. Therefore, Hobbes said, "A covenant with God without a sword (law and institutions) is just empty words, and there is no power to protect humanity." Machiavelli also argued that the foundation of all states lies in two elements: good law and a fine army, and that there can be no law without a fine army if a state cannot have one.

 

The fact that people rely on political power means that they use armed force (violence) through laws and institutions. For example, if a lawsuit is filed claiming that a real estate transaction is legally invalid, the goal is to forcibly prevent that transaction from taking place. If there is no force to enforce this, the laws and institutions become meaningless and ineffective in actual political situations. This is why Hobbes said, "A covenant without a sword is but words and of no strength to secure a man at all." Machiavelli also claimed that a good state is based on two elements: good laws and a fine army. If a state does not have a fine army, it cannot have good laws.

 

Some people argue that the origin of laws and institutions supported by the government lies in the sovereignty of the people, achieved through debate. Rousseau made a similar claim early on and the political scientist Easton also made a similar argument. This is not a political factology that explains how the political car actually operates, but rather a hope or political philosophy that explains what functions the political car should have. In the late 1700s, when white people and indigenous people negotiated in North America, negotiations resumed only after the white people pressed the indigenous people with their superior military power, just as in many cases, negotiations or agreement itself can only start with the backing of armed force.

 

Ian Morris argues that political organizations, such as ones where people gather to form a large organization, make rules and collect taxes to maintain security through discussion and agreement, are in fact impossible to establish. He states that negotiations can only be effective when backed by war-making capabilities. And in many cases, the mere presence of war-making capabilities creates power and the birth of laws and institutions, even without negotiations.

 

In ancient Rome, the person who led the war to victory would prove their authority and be recognized for the legitimacy of their power. Even the Mamluks, who were slave soldiers in the time of Saladin (1169-1250), were a powerful armed force, allowing them to seize control of Egypt. Conversely, King Gongmin of Goryeo lost his power when he lost armed force during the late Goryeo period due to a rebellion. General Yi Seonggye also gained power by seizing control of the military. The last king of Joseon, Gojong, lost political power due to Japanese armed force. The democratic government, which took power in the 4.19 people's revolution, is a typical example of a government that lost power after collapsing while advocating democratic values and showcasing armed force. The Jeongseon government lost its power to maintain the government through the use of force due to reliance on the police and appointees, and was unable to strengthen the military or other organizations such as the police. Ultimately, they neglected the 5.16 incident and virtually allowed it, leading to a loss of power.

 

Many other people misunderstand that money (economic power) is the foundation of political power, not violence (military power). However, in ancient India's four-class system, warriors were a higher class than merchants and farmers who were responsible for economic production. In medieval European feudal societies, those who actually wielded political power were not the nominal power holders such as kings, nor merchants, but the vassals who had the power to build and defend strong castles. From this, we can see the limitations of the political power that money holds.

 

Of course, money can buy guns sometimes, and on the other hand, guns require money to obtain. For example, only lords with substantial economic power could build and maintain castles, and during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Senator Cruz, who ran as a Republican candidate, asked Wall Street, which he had criticized in the past, for help in fundraising for his campaign.

 

However, the priority issue between money and guns is not vague like the question "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" History has shown many examples of the economic incapacity of powerful military capabilities creating political power. The most representative example is the history of the Mongol Empire. At the beginning of the world's power acquired by Genghis Khan, the economic capacity was mostly dependent on looting and that wealth and territory was also obtained by armed force. Even that was not a great economic capability to attract the interest of people who today value economic factors in political situations.

 

 

War Regression Theory

 

"When empires retreat, not when they advance, that violence reaches its peak." This means that when the political and social situation worsens, it becomes a chaotic situation where violence prevails. The second political principle in the war continuation theory, war regression theory, means exactly this. Just as buildings that are high and accumulated collapse when an earthquake occurs and the lowest foundation is revealed, when society collapses, the armed capacity of each power, which is the foundation of order, is revealed.

 

When the empire of Charlemagne in the 9th and 10th centuries was laid waste, continuous internal conflict was almost no different from a state of lawlessness, and force became the law. With the addition of Viking, Islamic, and Magyar invasions, the era of warriors striking down the board began. Even to this day, it remains unchanged. In a November 2013 news article, Typhoon Haiyan swept through the Philippines' Tacloban, leading to an increase in gunfire and looting. According to official reports, the Philippine government announced that 2,344 people died, 79 people were missing, and 3,804 people were injured as a result of Typhoon Haiyan. Meanwhile, as refugees faced a severe shortage of water and food, they would inevitably flock to where food was believed to be available, and if not, they would resort to looting. The government forces who tried to prevent this were involved in gunfire. Even in a major disaster, Japan kept order remarkably well, but within 10 days, chaos and violence such as looting and profanity appeared. This shows that even though war regression theory disregards culture and moral consciousness, it is a common law through East and West, past and present.

 

Due to this war-recession phenomenon, during the 5th century when the flourishing Abassid dynasty had politically declined, the actual power was mostly in the hands of the military. This was not only the case in barbaric ancient states, but also in modern states. The power that could finally exercise the ultimate veto in domestic political processes is the police and soldiers who possess weapons.