Regression of War

I also enjoyed Foucault’s discussion of the evolution of war; the idea that death within war has become more a reflection on the humanitarian aspect of life rather than on the protection of sovereign or country, first struck me as a forward step in the evolution of war; after all shamelessly lying one’s life down in the name of the king hardly seems like a fair expectation. However, when I thought about it more, this idea that efficacy of death within war is contingent on the volume of death emerged, and I was deeply disturbed.

The fact that, “massacres [have] become vital,” in warfare is starkly egregious (p. 137). Modern warfare of the last century has indeed been heavily laden with death. World War I is known for the trench-warfare that killed so many, and did so in a gruesome way. World War II did not see any lowering of death tolls, and with the rise of technology like the atomic bomb, massacre was truly redefined. While the Cold War may suggest that we, as humankind, have the capability to refrain from using these technologies in war, the genocides that have occurred in countries all over the world even within the last twenty years (as in the Bosnian War), indicate just the opposite.

The social “evolution” of death within war that Foucault posits should be seen as a regression, and not an incremental improvement. Many philosophers will argue that war and destruction and death is all a part of human nature; I don’t want to go there right now, but regardless, given the choice, I would much rather die defending, say, King Henry VIII and England, than be a victim of a genocide or atomic bomb any day.