Winners and Losers in the War Economy

A reflection on a year of escalating regional violence, and the tragedy of violent power struggle in the 21st century

The one-year anniversary of any tragedy is an invitation to reflection, to mourn those who have died, and to consider how the great losses of the recent past should guide our actions in the future. Much in the way of retrospective has and will be said about the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. My intent in writing this missive is not so much to critique the actions of any one “side,” but to grief and criticize our fundamental complicity with the futility of 21st century violence.

What do we gain from killing eachother?

One year after Hamas fighters killed 1,200 Israeli civilians in their homes, retaliatory strikes have devastated Gaza, leaving 42,000 dead, 97,000 wounded, and some 17,000 children orphaned or separated from their parents. The growing conflict has now drawn in Hezbollah and Iran, raising fears of broader regional war. Israel is determined to end Hamas' control over Gaza, while Iran and its allies seek to end the Israeli state. While Israel may well achieve its aim, it’s hard to imagine the prize will be worth the cost.

While Hamas, Israel, Hezbollah, and Iran struggle for control in the Middle East, further north, Ukraine continues to defend itself against Russian imperialism, with neither able to achieve a decisive victory. Despite heavy losses, the United States continues to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to defend itself but stops short of enabling an overwhelming victory. Fearful of escalation into global conflict, America and its NATO allies are reluctant to commit fully to wars they cannot efficiently win.

Historically, wars often started over resource disputes, but increasingly, ideological arguments seem to drive conflict. Whether it’s Iran and its proxies in the Middle East or Russia in Eastern Europe, the lines between economic ambition and expansionist ideology blur. 

Israel, Iran, and Russia all justify prolonged military engagements by weaving both ideological arguments and resource demands together, justifying escalating violence with mandates for national preservation or claims to historically held lands. 

But unlike in the past, when democracies like France or Britain would intervene to stop aggressive powers, modern democracies are burnt out on ideological defense. Western nations, particularly the U.S., hesitate to join conflicts they can’t decisively win, leaving regional wars to fester unresolved.

Three years ago, I would have argued that new military technologies had rendered ground wars obsolete. I thought the battlefield had gone digital, a fight for psychological control through misinformation and cyberwarfare, rather than body count supremacy. But those who have historically used violence to advance their aims continue to do so. In the case of Russia and Iran, sustained conflict serves their interests, allowing them to narrate their power and prolong chaos. Whether they are winning or losing depends on how they frame the story at any one time. In this sense, they benefit from a stalemate.

Advancements in surveillance, AI, and unmanned vehicles have revolutionized modern warfare. These technologies allow for unprecedented precision in targeting and reduce risk to human life for the attacking party. Yet, they also blur the lines of what constitutes just or unjust conflict. Traditional ethical frameworks seem ill-equipped to handle these developments. What’s more, modern conflicts are increasingly drawn out into stalemates, with no clear path to victory for either side.

What is a just or unjust war in 2024? Was Hamas the unjust aggressor against a peaceful, democratic Israel? Or is Palestine Israel’s unjustly held apartheid state, and Hamas its liberator? After a year of unimaginable casualties, is it possible that both are true? This kind of paradox can be paralyzing for Western democracies whose involvement may be the decisive factor in ending such conflicts, making it nearly impossible to choose a side. 

Amichai Magen

, writing in Persuasion, argues that military successes only matter if they lead to long-term political and social change. Yet, he argues, Western democracies lack a forward-looking strategy for the Middle East, creating a vacuum that powers like Iran, Russia, and China exploit. Until this is rectified, the region will remain trapped in a cycle of violence.

What Changed After October 7

How can anyone devise or execute a forward-looking strategy towards a lasting peace when so many of the parties involved benefit from prolonged violence? 

Two centuries ago, men famously resolved their disputes by simultaneously firing revolvers at each other. Before that, knights did the same with lances and swords. It became evident that synchronized violence that left one party dead ultimately solved very little. Recognizing the tragic fallout of this traditional mode of conflict resolution, most nations passed laws outlawing dueling. Today, it seems incredible to think such an idiotic approach to conflict resolution was so widely used. 

Is modern warfare anything more than a duel on multiple fronts? I expect we are decades away from those who still hold their respective proverbial nuclear codes embracing non-violence. But such a change may well be a tipping point challenge. More people must voice their opposition to such violence for it to become morally unacceptable. 

The greatest winners in these conflicts are the producers of military technologies, who profit from the demand for new tools of warfare. Wars, after all, are economic engines, benefiting those who supply the weapons and technologies used to kill. As long as political violence remains the primary means of resolving disputes, the cycle of revenge will continue while the military-industrial complex prospers.

Sources:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-death-toll-how-many-palestinians-has-israels-campaign-killed-2024-07-25/

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155356