War: An Enquiry

by A.C. Grayling

A renowned philosopher challenges long-held views on just wars, ethical conduct during war, why wars occur, how they alter people and societies, and more

For residents of the twenty-first century, a vision of a future without warfare is almost inconceivable. Though wars are terrible and destructive, they also seem unavoidable. In this original and deeply considered book, A. C. Grayling examines, tests, and challenges the concept of war. He proposes that a deeper, more accurate understanding of war may enable us to reduce its frequency, mitigate its horrors, and lessen the burden of its consequences.

Grayling explores the long, tragic history of war and how warfare has changed in response to technological advances. He probes much-debated theories concerning the causes of war and considers positive changes that may result from war. How might these results be achieved without violence? In a profoundly wise conclusion, the author envisions “just war theory” in new moral terms, taking into account the lessons of World War II and the Holocaust and laying down ethical principles for going to war and for conduct during war.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, War, Military Fiction, History, Military History

288 pages, Hardcover

Published May 23, 2017

About the author

Anthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.

He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.

Reviews

[ancientreader · Rating 5 out of 5]

I looked through the (few) other reviews of this book and now find myself a bit self-conscious about my 5-star rating, because the low raters seem to be speaking from more detailed knowledge of military history and philosophy of war than I have -- this being the first book I've ever read that qualifies specifically as philosophy of war, and my knowledge of military history being mostly limited to WWI, the European theater of WWII, and the US Civil War.

But my (paper) copy of Grayling's book has dozens of Post-It notes and marginal comments, so I'm sticking with my opinion that people who seem to be experts can think whatever they want, but War: An Enquiry had a lot to offer me, starting with definition of terms (what exactly is war, and what's simply violence?).

This was also my introduction to the history of just war theory and the laws of war; Grayling's view, to probably oversimplify, is that we should hope and strive for the elimination of war but that meantime, since wars are happening, we ought to take a meliorist approach and at least do what we can to define, prevent, identify, and punish war crimes.

I'm disinclined to loathe militaries on principle and entirely, because *waves at Nazism and at the invasion of Ukraine* not being a pacifist, I would like to have an organized, armed defense on my side against genocidal invaders. Grayling's on the same team, I think: he abominates war but would argue for the necessity of armed resistance under such circumstances. A melancholy note here: he's so happy about how Europe, which spent centuries tearing itself apart even before the wars of the 20th century, has been at peace thanks to the EU and its predecessors. But Grayling was writing in 2017, before Hungary went full authoritarian, Poland had followed it most of the way down that road, and Putin decided that restoring the empire would be a good way to distract Russians from his regime's corruption and murderousness.

Grayling doesn't think war is an inevitable outgrowth of human nature; as he points out, cooperative, pacific behavior is an everyday matter (so much an everyday matter that we don't always register that it has as much to say about human nature as war and other forms of violence do), and even in war many, many soldiers wind up never firing their weapons, because they simply can't bring themselves to kill people. These are the underpinnings of his hope for the eradication of war. I wish I could share that hope, but I have a feeling that the climate catastrophe already begun will put paid to any chance of long-lasting peace.

I wonder, also, whether attempts to limit the atrociousness of war wind up making war more likely -- this, I understand, is the thesis of Samuel Moyn's Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War, which is high on my agenda of Gloomy Reading.

[Mia · Rating 3 out of 5]

هوارد زین تاریخ‌نگار، دانشمند سیاسی، روشنفکر سوسیالیست، منتقد اجتماعی، فعال ضد جنگ و نمایش‌نامه‌نویس آمریکایی بود و در این کتاب نقش و مسئولیت اجتماعی‌ هنرمندان، نویسندگان و روشنفکران آمریکایی رو در مقابل قدرت سیاسی، ظلم و ستم در روزهای تاریک جنگ بررسی می‌کنه!
زین معتقد بود که قدرت‌های سیاسی توسط گروهی از نخبگان کنترل میشن و هنر محملی برای نوعی جنگ چریکی علیه آنهاست. به این معنا که چریک پیوسته در جست‌وجوی روزنه‌ای هست که بتونه اثرگذار باشه!
و همچین بر این باور بود که قدرت‌های سیاسی و اقتصادی در اختیار گروهی از جامعه قرار می‌گیرن که برای حفظ موقعیت خودشون از ابزارهایی مثل جنگ، تبلیغات و سرکوب استفاده می‌کنن و هنر رو یه ابزار مقاومتی در برابر این گروه از جامعه می‌دونست.
نقش ادبیات و هنر در جنگ رو پر رنگ می‌دید و هنرمند رو مثل یک چریک می‌دید که غیرمستقیم با هنر و خلاقیتش به مقابله با قدرت‌های سیاسی می‌پرداخت.

کتاب متنی ساده و روان داره و به دور از پیچیدگی خاصی هست. میشه گفت تقریبا پیامی که نویسنده با این کتاب می‌خواست به مردم آمریکا بده نه تنها برای آمریکا بلکه می‌تونه برای کشورهای مختلف در عصر حاضر کاربرد داشته باشه ولی ممکنه از زاویه‌ی دیگه اینطور حس نشه که پیامش، پیام جهانی باشه!

از یک طرف هم ممکن با خواندن این کتاب به این موضوع پی ببرید که کتاب یکطرفه و از زوایه چپ نوشته شده، که قطعا همینطور هست! بیشتر از هنرمندانی که چپ بودن در این کتاب یاد شده.
زین در این کتاب وارد جزئیات و ارتباط عمیق‌تر هنر با سیاست و حکومت نمی‌شه و اطلاعات زیادی به خوانده انتقال نمیده.
و به این موضوع که همیشه هنرمند باید سیاسی باشه و این سیاسی بودن روی هنری که به جامعه ارائه میده چه تاثیر منفی و تاثیر عکسی داره اشاره نکرده. و فقط به جنبه‌های مثبت اشاره کرده! که قطعا مشخصه که اینطور نخواهد بود!

اگه به موضوعات اجتماعی، سیاسی، جنگ و تاریخ و همینطور هنر در جوامع علاقه دارید این کتاب ممکنه گزینه‌ی مناسبی برای شما باشه!

[Dan Graser · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am a huge fan of philosopher A.C. Grayling's work and I have read nearly everything he has written. This brief survey on war, however, seems to fall short of the depth of his usual output. Likely, if you are reading a work of philosophy on the subject of war, you probably already agree with many of the conclusions he makes, which I certainly do.

There seems to be a bit of an overbalance in the amount of historical background information he provides relative to the amount of philosophical enquiry later in the text. I understand the need to provide adequate historical context but having completed this text I can't help but think that another 50-80 pages on the varied views of war as a human phenomenon would have bolstered his case outlined in his concluding remarks. As such, statements in his conclusion such as, " ...war seems to be far more a matter of how we arrange ourselves politically than it is an outcome of human nature..." seem woefully unsupported. However, paragraphs such as his later remarks that begin with, "So: deinstitutionalize war. Stop romanticizing it. Stop censoring the truth about it. Redirect the energies and solidarities that go into the making of war far more...into the making of things of peace. Let us educate ourselves about the realities and costs of war, without pussy-footing about," are pure gold.

All in all, a work that I largely agree with though feel was lacking in the philosophical depth and rigor his usual output supplies in abundance.

[Anastasiya Kryvasheyeva]

Прачытала 2/3 і кінула да лепшых часоў. Павярнуся, калі будуць моцы чытаць версіі і разважанні, ці есць у вайне нешта карыснае

[Keen Reader · Rating 3 out of 5]

“There is scarcely any boundary, any border, in the world that was not drawn in the blood of conflict at some point in history.”

The opening chapters of this book are very much about history as war, and Grayling reaches quite far back, taking us all the way to Mesopotamia in classical antiquity, from here he tries to trace the origins of war in a meaningful way. This isn’t always interesting, especially when we get bogged down in so many complex names, battles and places and he does tend to ramble and lose his way at times.

He discusses the evolution of warfare, citing many notable names like, Alexander The Great, the Romans, the Vikings and Genghis Khan. We see how empires come and empires go, the names and leaders change, but the killings continue. It soon warms up and it gets particularly interesting when it arrives in the 20th Century. The revelations on various bombing strategies from various governments and their air forces were insightful. The effects of war, such as PTSD are well covered, he talks of some of the therapies pioneered during WWI by the likes of Myers and Rivers, the use of so called ‘forward psychiatry’. This was used when soldiers who were too terrified to go to the front, they were treated as close as possible to the front in order to stop their fears taking root.

The crucial role that technology plays in war, makes for good reading. From the ground breaking use of chariots, to cannons through to the far more advanced technology employed in 20th Century up to today, from tanks and long range missiles to atomic bombs. He says, “One is reminded of the world press’s reaction in 1911 when the very first aerial bombing took place. An Italian airman threw grenades out of his monoplane onto Ottoman troops in North Africa. The world’s press were outraged at the ‘unsporting’ nature of the venture, on the grounds that the victims suffering on the ground were unable to retaliate.” And yet today we have the US using drones, with the ‘soldiers’ or gamers, sitting in a safe and secure unit, thousands of miles away from the violence and killing they are creating.

Grayling explains that, “The history of drones is surprisingly long, as a special form of ‘unmanned aerial vehicle’ (UAV) long since developed to undertake tasks considered too dull, dirty or dangerous for human beings.” In Vietnam alone, apparently they undertook more than 3000 reconnaissance missions. He adds, “After 2001 military UAVs increasingly became central to US operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and in hunter-killer roles. The Predator drone became operational in 2005, the Reaper in 2007; since then they have grown in number to constitute almost a third of US aircraft strength, and have been used in many thousands of missions against targets across those regions.”

There are quotes and aphorisms a plenty in here, from sources like Herodotus to Maria Remarque. He also quotes from the “Los Angeles Times” and the “New York Times” revealing some genuinely disturbing stories of rape victims in the on-going Congo wars. Some of his own thoughts and conclusions include, “Stop censoring television news. Show the reality.”, which is a sobering way to combat the romanticism and sanitisation of war, which is a good start.

There are many interesting topics covered in here, but you are unlikely to find too many profound or original insights into the cause and effects of war. But this doesn’t mean it’s not worth reading, this is a well-researched (apart from claiming that Pearl Harbor happened in 1942. I have no doubt that Grayling knows it was 41, so we'll put that down to a typo), book, and Grayling is lucid and reasoned as ever, his tone, pace and approach make this mostly a pleasure to read with plenty to learn along the way.

“War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” Bertrand Russell

[Tammam Aloudat · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a deeply thoughtful and optimistic book, which is a surprise in a book that talks about war in our current point in history when it seems so pervasive and so destructive. Grayling has written three small books in one big one: a book on the history and theory of war, another on the causes and results of war, and a third on the ethics and laws of war. He ends his volume with a view on the future of war. All written, and analysed, with the single-minded thought of how do we end wars and, until then, how do we limit their effects. All this is done in a beautifully readable and eloquent language that is a pleasure to read and easy to absorb.

Even though this is a book of introduction, and avid reader on the topic would have heard of many of the concepts in it, it is yet one that puts those concepts and histories, anecdotes and analyses beautifully together and in a sequence that unambiguously serves the central idea of the book. A feat worth contemplating.

Some of the better parts of the argument are those that relate to the causes of war: it is not in our nature and we are not condemned to fight, it is rather in other parts of society that are related to our organisation and socio-political structures rather than in our DNA. This is a well put argument that is optimistic and opens the door for another discussion on how do we end this artificial malignancy that has plagued us for millennia?

[CHAD FOSTER · Rating 3 out of 5]

This philosophical journey through the history of warfare has great intellectual and moral aspirations, but falls well short of them. This is understandable given the grandiose scale of the questions that the author explores, but it still left me a bit disappointed.

The author's arguments are those of a globalist, one who believes that war is a function of how humans organize ourselves rather than of human nature itself. His answer, ultimately, is to bring global systems and organizations such as the U.N. to their full realization. If only humans would just submit themselves to these organizations and a common set of rules, we would be able to, as he says, "de-institutionalize" war.

In the end, the book falls a bit flat, although its treatment of some of the history of war-making and the evolution of theory and ethics of warfare are quite informative. Overall, it's not a bad read, but if you are looking for a groundbreaking set of conclusions, you will not find them here. You will, however, find a hopeful (if unrealistic) narrative that manages to avoid the smug pretentiousness that normally accompanies works like this.

[Neil H · Rating 4 out of 5]

The idea that war, as an intention as passive or active has been with humankind for as long as we can remember. Grayling goes through the various battles of the past. Weapons forged, intentions unmasked. Reaction and reasoning for and against war and organised violence made by philosophers, leaders, villiains. The circumspection we should adopt in the inevitability of war; all options aside from war is exhausted, realistic adherence to avoidable civilian casualties, percentage of success assessed before embarking on war, justification for war of a defensive or offensive nature, etc. All these prescriptions in the event of organised large scale violence has evolved throughout the history. If violence is a biological predisposed essence of the human nature or is it a cultural construct? Grayling argues persuasively for overseeing our propensity for the politics that make up our mind for the use of war. Whether we choose to see it as a justice rational or a violent enactment, humankind cannot deny that we perpetuate the existence, the technological burdens of war and the crime of acknowledging the necessity of having the means to destroy ourselves ever present.

[Andrew Garrie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has its moments, but really only during the discussion on the causes of war. Half of this book is a survey of mikitary history and theory but the author relies on only a handful of very dated sources. Given that the book was written in 2017, it is to the author's discredit that he failed to update his knowledge of the field before writing a meandering and often incorrect survey. Grayling clearly is not overly familiar with military history or military operations in general. He skips back and forth over 4000 years of history and glances over strategy, tactics, technology without any effort to identify the differences between these factors. He fails to mention the operational level whatsoever. 4000 years is a lot of history to cover in 100 pages but he is wrong on so many points that this book is founded on a poor basis.

That being said, there are some decent parts, which is clearly where grayling returns to his more comfortable ground in philosophy. Chapters 4 and 6 are worth a read, but other than that, Grayling is so far out of his depth that the book has little value.

[Simon Fletcher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having read Grayling's Among the Dead Cites a number of years ago I had never got round to reading any of his other books. To be honest I was a bit concerned he may be too much much the vocal atheist a La Richard Dawkins.
My view was changed after seeing him talk on this book in Oxford earlier this year. After the talk he was doing a signing soon got a copy which he graciously signed. Its taken me a whipe to get round to reading it though as is always the case with having an ever expanding to read list.
Having finally gotten around to reading it I have to say, sadly, its not as good as Among the Dead Cities. Its a little less focused than that book. It is good though and is well argued. I just felt it could have gone deeper and would have been better for it. That said I will definitely be looking to read more of his work.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well written and researched, thoughtful, look at the history, causes, effects, and methods of war. The text flows smoothly, making it simple to read, although more in depth analysis and discussion might make this book more useful from an academic perspective. Additionally, it is written from a purely western perspective and makes many of the same ommisions that current western academics, policy makers, and military leaderships fail to consider. However, the book provides a wealth of though provoking passages and considerations that make it extremely useful for anyone interested in, studying, or involved in war.

[Kent · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved Grayling's essay books, where he talks about one subject for a few pages. But for some reason I just couldn't really get into this one. It's filled with great information about the history, future, cause, and effects of war, but overall it was a slow read. I would recommend his other books before diving into this one.

[Benjamin Richards · Rating 3 out of 5]

I actually preferred the historical pre-text to the heavyduty material. I picked this book up to confirm in my mind why war is bad, but this one was too dense for my intellect, at times.

[Casper · Rating 1 out of 5]

Granted, I did not make it past the first 50 pages or so. Perhaps this work transforms into a well-supported piece past that point.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with most Grayling, there isn't masses of new stuff here, but it's a fairly good and well written overview

[Aazir · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was quite excited to read this book as the philosophy of war is something I only have a cursory knowledge of. Unfortunately, after reading it, the last part of that statement remains true. This book seemed to focus more on a basic history of warfare rather than the philosophical underpinnings of it. I was dissapointed as I've heard good things about A.C. Grayling and this text makes me much less likely to read more of his works. It seemed to be written for a very junior audience, which doesn't quite make sense given the topic at hand.

[Arianne X · Rating 4 out of 5]

War, this is What it is Good For?

Vices yes, Virtues no! "human folly in all its glory and in all its horror" - Voltaire

Those who so carelessly defer to war as a solution must not have any real idea of the suffering and agony such actions in the world cause. Perhaps it is as easy to read over the history and gloss over the theory of war as it is difficult for me to write about the nature of sheer agony when it is witnessed firsthand. The suffering of people, victorious soldiers, defeated and vanquished enemies, the disease, plaque and starvation victims, and the victims of sheer deprivation has an altogether unique and unrivaled feel that overawes the human capacity to sense when experienced first-hand. There is that stench of agony and death, unique as it is unforgettable, the hideous visuals that overwhelm and shutdown the ability to imagine, sounds driven into brain that are never again silent, tactile sensations that at once crawl up the skin as they curl the flesh. An actual and weird taste of death becoming embedded on the palette as a constant companion to embellish the experience of existence. It is a totality that overwhelms the human capacity to feel and comprehend; it is the stuff of madness. One becomes beset by a creeping madness, constantly peering over the edge into the darkness that awaits. Many are horrified by their contact with this one who is the madness, lost in a darkness that becomes the root of all passion and all insight; beyond word and beyond ordinary experience. Who among the humans is not be a stranger I wonder? Sometimes I am afraid of the terrible things that are real, in the darkness of the unreality of things that I am and the things that I have seen. Reality now only comes to me through a fissure from the depths where through I get a glance of the light of the burning darkness of the underworld. Deep inside me is a perpetual seething. I can still hear the voices of reason, but they have been reduced to howls over the whispers of madness. Sanity is no longer my highest value and the madness of the ghosts in my brain are impossible to resist. I will say no more other than to say that this stuff of madness is the path into darkness which leaves one grouping in that darkness for the creation of a new kind of self-understanding after dreadful first-hand experience. There is no phenomenology of such exponential agony and suffering because there is no possible description of what it feels like when one feels it. Is this the price of progress? Perhaps it is the only way to understand the obvious, why war must be ended.

War has already had its chance to demonstrate the madness and stupidity of the human race in applying primitive principles of competition and combat to human relations. War is not worthy of humans. War is conducted by aliens; for it is aliens that we become when we treat our fellow human beings as anything other than as fellow human beings; when we treat them as aliens by making war upon them we become aliens.