Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War
- Downloads：5410
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-09-06 19:21:36
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Samuel Moyn
- ISBN：1250858712
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
Reviews
Hannah Aziza Ghulam
，
3，5
John Daler
，
I'm at best an impressionistic student of history。 Keeping this in mind， it was the last chapters that intrigued me in "Humane。。。" Is there any chance of ending the endless wars？ Not so many answers， but very good questions were asked there。 Read it。 I'm at best an impressionistic student of history。 Keeping this in mind， it was the last chapters that intrigued me in "Humane。。。" Is there any chance of ending the endless wars？ Not so many answers， but very good questions were asked there。 Read it。 。。。more
DRugh
，
Explores the righteous progression of humane war and challenges the larger issue， violence of hierarchy。
Jack Wolfe
，
Sam Moyn is a law professor， and "Humane" is mostly about legal debates， but， as he reveals in his Acknowledgements （where he also thanks Marty Hagglund！）， he was originally a Literature major。 Maybe I'm biased。。。 but I think that must have something to do with clarity and force of this book here。 "Humane" is about the seemingly subtle but incredibly important distinction between peace movements and movements for humane war， and how the latter have almost completely overtaken the former。 So thor Sam Moyn is a law professor， and "Humane" is mostly about legal debates， but， as he reveals in his Acknowledgements （where he also thanks Marty Hagglund！）， he was originally a Literature major。 Maybe I'm biased。。。 but I think that must have something to do with clarity and force of this book here。 "Humane" is about the seemingly subtle but incredibly important distinction between peace movements and movements for humane war， and how the latter have almost completely overtaken the former。 So thoroughly （so cleanly， and precisely？） has the logic of "targeted strikes" wiped out any larger concern about war in general that I honestly hadn't really thought about it before this book。 （Chalk it up to Obama， I guess， distopia's most charming and persuasive rhetorician， especially if you're hanging on his every word as a dumb college student。。。） But Moyn shows definitively how the choice to end war or to just make it less brutal has been the subject of debates for generations。。。 and how the victory of the "humane war" advocates， while obviously not a complete loss for humankind （see the Korean or Vietnam wars for more on this）， seems to portend a terrifying future of "non violent" but totally unrestrained domination: an American-led global police force that swiftly and legally puts down all those poorer and weaker who deign to challenge its authority。He begins the book， strangely and awesomely， with Leo Tolstoy。 Moyn's early chapters on the fledgling peace movement show just how suddenly and dramatically the call to abolish war arrived on the political scene。 But what's most shocking here is how the Count and his followers perfectly anticipate the problem of settling for less brutal forms of war。 To make war "nicer" but not end it would be like trying to make slavery kinder， Tolstoy argues， which will only succeed in perpetuating it further。 We see this prophecy borne out over the next 100 years or so， when efforts to give war any kind of legal gloss （see: the Geneva Conventions， the UN charter， the Red Cross， etc） are typically met with British and American bombing。 It turns out to be pretty easy for the world's superpowers to dodge strictures that don't jibe with their civilian massacring prerogatives， much to the chagrin of peace activists， who insist again and again that the crime is WAR ITSELF （indeed， the point of the Nuremberg Trials was not to try German brutality （i。e。 the Holocaust）， but the very act of aggression）。The turning point in Moyn's narrative is Vietnam， where a newly hegemonic American empire， umm， went a little too far （but not even as far as they had in Korea， Moyn argues。。。 truly fascinating stuff on every page of this book）。 It is after that debacle that the drive to make war humane finally assumes control。 Importantly， this new concern with brutality is led by the now image-conscious military， who with the help of endless lawyering find a way to make war something that is more cautious， more precise， less likely to receive any public scrutiny， and never-ending。 The apotheosis of this vision is the Obama administration， which is always "reflecting" on its aerial killings even as it comes up with ever-more-elaborate justifications for them （my favorite phrase in the book， to describe the new American doctrine of self-defense strikes， is "extended immanence。" Ladies and gentlemen， the corpse of George Orwell！）。"Humane" is a polemic， for sure， but it's a nuanced one。 Moyn contends that it is unquestionably a good thing that American war now means the deaths of hundreds of people rather than the deaths of millions （hard to argue with him， here）。 But he also argues that this new regime is terrifying in a wholly new way。 Now that war has satisfied the public's expectations of "humanity" （i。e。 we've given up waterboarding， or whatever） as well as the legal community's understanding of what's allowed， what is there to oppose it？ The future Moyn envisions （with a great writer's imaginative instincts for things that policy wonks might miss） is one where America is truly the police force of the world， endlessly monitoring perceived threats （read: poor people） and cutting down all who oppose its reign with ruthless， perfect precision。 That's about as distopian as it gets， surely？Thanks， Obama。 。。。more
B Warne
，
I found it fascinating， though it had no solution as Ukraine has proven。
Erik Ronningen
，
Just couldn't get through it。 100 pages in and the author still wasn't talking about the US。 Interesting idea but unremarkable delivery and slow pacing made this one a hard read。 Just couldn't get through it。 100 pages in and the author still wasn't talking about the US。 Interesting idea but unremarkable delivery and slow pacing made this one a hard read。 。。。more
Lynn
，
Good overview of the United States from the CivilWar on trying to make a more humane type of war but getting into wars at the same time。 Atrocities still seem to go on， but are they more just or safer overall？
Anniebee
，
Picks up near the end around pg 270 where the main argument appears-- Moyn talks about a new kind of war， a form of decreasingly violent global policing practiced by powerful countries （mainly the US in the past 5/6ish administrations） that is so "humane" and "civilized" that it is dangerously close to becoming omnipresent and endless。 Moyn calls humane war the slavery of our times and warns that we be wary of any war that has or will become "safe。" He ends by asking that we aim for a law that b Picks up near the end around pg 270 where the main argument appears-- Moyn talks about a new kind of war， a form of decreasingly violent global policing practiced by powerful countries （mainly the US in the past 5/6ish administrations） that is so "humane" and "civilized" that it is dangerously close to becoming omnipresent and endless。 Moyn calls humane war the slavery of our times and warns that we be wary of any war that has or will become "safe。" He ends by asking that we aim for a law that both supports humanity in warfare while also encouraging freedom but he does not go further into what that law would look like。 Overall good and chilling ---I like Sam Moyn and didn't know that Tolstoy was a vegetarian！ 。。。more
Paul Womack
，
An informative read on the history of peace movements and the eclipse of such by emphases on making war humane， with the irony of war yet being permitted and “rules” adjusted by the powers to satisfy their aims。 Drone technology is reviewed and comes in for justifiable criticism。 As a former interrogator in Vietnam and with tours in Desert Storm and back to Iraq in 2004， my heart was deeply touched by the fact I may have participated in harm when I thought my humanitarian instincts were just。 A An informative read on the history of peace movements and the eclipse of such by emphases on making war humane， with the irony of war yet being permitted and “rules” adjusted by the powers to satisfy their aims。 Drone technology is reviewed and comes in for justifiable criticism。 As a former interrogator in Vietnam and with tours in Desert Storm and back to Iraq in 2004， my heart was deeply touched by the fact I may have participated in harm when I thought my humanitarian instincts were just。 A good back of both historical analysis and ethical perception。 。。。more
Dale
，
interestingWhat I liked about this book is that it challenged my assumptions and personal biases。 By making war more humane on the surface we are perpetuating violence。 Counterintuitive。 The author has done the research and starts off strong with some history and then moves into more current writings on the subject。
Shannon
，
An argument that a recent focus on making war “humane” through criminalization of specific war atrocities （e。g。 civilian casualties; torture） has come at the expense of greatly diminishing a broad antiwar movement that once existed and considered war itself to be the most terrible crime， and peace to be a moral imperative。 The resulting， recent idea of “humane war”—characterized by so-called precision strikes and many lawyers to justify their tactics and targets—now prevails， allowing the US’s e An argument that a recent focus on making war “humane” through criminalization of specific war atrocities （e。g。 civilian casualties; torture） has come at the expense of greatly diminishing a broad antiwar movement that once existed and considered war itself to be the most terrible crime， and peace to be a moral imperative。 The resulting， recent idea of “humane war”—characterized by so-called precision strikes and many lawyers to justify their tactics and targets—now prevails， allowing the US’s endless drone war against parties to whom international law protections are understood to not apply （e。g。 terrorists; terror generally）。 Pointed criticism is reserved for human rights NGOs that condemn atrocities but refuse to take a stance on the legality of war， as well as President Barack Obama， who presented himself as an advocate for peace when it was expedient while simultaneously expanding US drone warfare。This argument is accompanied by histories of global peace movements and of international law， pointing out that laws governing war were selectively enforced， prohibiting war between states but allowing Western powers to put down colonial uprisings or anything deemed an “insurgency。”Absent is a needed discussion， in my opinion， about the Responsibility to Protect doctrine （which Moyn would almost certainly find illegal） and practical responses to wars of aggression。 I am not satisfied with his discussion of US/NATO intervention in the Balkans， in which he questions the actions' legality but does not explore the consequences of failing to act。A recent column by Moyn， printed days after Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine， advocates for UN reform and eliminating the veto。 https://www。washingtonpost。com/outloo。。。Moyn briefly discusses Responsibility to Protect here， arguing that "humanitarian intervention routinely makes the world worse。" https://www。thedriftmag。com/a-new-for。。。 。。。more
Joel Mathis
，
It's been a long time since I've read a book that made me feel so defensive。Even now， having completed Samuel Moyn's "Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War，" I can't decide if the problem is me or Moyn。 Moyn's central idea here is that the United States has made its wars more palatable for public consumption -- particularly with an emphasis on avoiding civilian casualities， but also by focusing ever more on the international laws of war -- and in so doing has made it e It's been a long time since I've read a book that made me feel so defensive。Even now， having completed Samuel Moyn's "Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War，" I can't decide if the problem is me or Moyn。 Moyn's central idea here is that the United States has made its wars more palatable for public consumption -- particularly with an emphasis on avoiding civilian casualities， but also by focusing ever more on the international laws of war -- and in so doing has made it easier for the country to find endless wars with little or no public restraint。 "American concern with war has become focused on ensuring it is humane -- not whether it drags on and on， or even should be fought in the first place，" he writes。I agree with part of Moyn's assertion。 We're a country that goes to war pretty easily。 Sometimes there's a debate， as when the United States invaded Iraq。 Mostly， there's not: America fights or facilitates violence in places like Syria and Yemen with barely a peep of interest from the public and only the scantest attention from major media organs。 And I also believe that America's increasing use of drone strikes has helped make our wars more invisible to that public， letting us spread death to alleged terrorists around the world in a fashion which invites blowback， but which is easy to ignore because U。S。 soldiers are safely immune from the immediate threat of reciprocal violence。 How can somebody in the Middle East take revenge against a pilot based in Las Vegas？And yet， I really struggle with Moyn's notion that the people who try to keep war within certain bounds after it has been declared -- lawyers mostly， those who have developed the laws of war and then applied them vigorously -- have somehow enabled war。 Moyn argues that as the focus on fighting wars "legally" ascended， the power of antiwar forces in American life receded。 "Compared with the antiwar forces of the past， humanitarians were a far preferable foe， occypying more common terrain，" he writes。 Observers were right to ask if the military's "self-humanizations since My Lai entrench violence more than they regulated it。" Is the choice really between arguing against war and arguing against using torture at war？ It seems like I ought to be able to do both， right？ Can't I be a pacifist， yet also argue against targeting civilians while the war is underway？ Am I really assenting to war by criticizing its conduct？ Maybe there's room for "both-and，" but it's difficult to argue against Moyn's contention that it hasn't worked out that way。 In his telling， the lawyers who represent Gitmo defendants might be honorable， but they're also patsies。 I find that hard to swallow。Another source of frustration: Moyn seems to wish that opponents of U。S。 wars would focus more on legal arguments that those wars have often violated the United Nations' ban on wars of aggression。 I find that idea naive （particularly since Moyn points out repeatedly how the laws of war have often been bent and broken with little repercussion） as is the idea that war can be stamped out。 As I've written elsewhere， I've long lived at the edges of pacifism -- but I also believe there will always be wars and rumors of war。 Am I betraying my own stated principles to believe in "don't kill civilians， don't torture detainees" the best second-best I might get？ Am I a hypocrite？ Or is Moyn being impossibly utopian？ That's what I suspect is true， but again: Maybe I'm just being defenseive。If I find "Humane" to be frustrating， I also find it useful -- unexpectedly as a quick primer on Leo Tolstoy and his pacifist activism， but also the rise and development of international humanitarian law。 He also provides a useful thread of how major powers have tended to observe the laws of war loosely， and usually not at all when fighting non-white peoples。 American forces， for example， have often found easy justification for brutality against Native Americans， Filipinos， Vietnamese an "War on Terror" combatants。 The rules are supposedly for civilized people only。 Still， it was perhaps unwise of me to read Moyn while tensions are on the rise -- the weeks I spent with this book coincided with Russia's invasion of Ukraine。 I'm angry and scared about matters of war and peace right now， anyway。 Today， I watched a video of a Russian tank running over a Ukrainian civilians' car with the driver still inside。 If war has become humane， it is difficult to see the evidence this week。 。。。more
Jeff Raymond
，
A little heavy handed at times， but a pretty good history on warfare and international law on a whole。
Pedro Glatz
，
Lo leí por sus buenas reseñas y con un poco de escepticismo porque había leído un libro anterior del autor， el cual me pareció interesante， pero demasiado repetitivo （Not EnoughHuman Rights in an Unequal World"）。Me pareció mucho más interesante y dinámico。 La obra desarrolla una especie de cronología sobre el Derecho Internacional Humanitario， en sencillo， el derecho de la guerra。 Moyn introduce analizando la obra autobiográfica de Tolstoi ， sus apreciaciones sobre la guerra （que experimentó dir Lo leí por sus buenas reseñas y con un poco de escepticismo porque había leído un libro anterior del autor， el cual me pareció interesante， pero demasiado repetitivo （Not EnoughHuman Rights in an Unequal World"）。Me pareció mucho más interesante y dinámico。 La obra desarrolla una especie de cronología sobre el Derecho Internacional Humanitario， en sencillo， el derecho de la guerra。 Moyn introduce analizando la obra autobiográfica de Tolstoi ， sus apreciaciones sobre la guerra （que experimentó directamente） y la influencia que tuvo en el análisis sobre sus dramáticos efectos。 Posteriormente se relata el nacimiento del movimiento pacifista internacional en el Siglo XIX， como fue lentamente avanzando y logrando la regulación de la guerra。 Aquí se plantea la tesis general del libro: las pequeñas y costosas cesiones de soberanía que los estados nacionales han hecho en su administración de la guerra han estado casi exclusivamente centradas en la "humanización de la guerra"， dejando de lado la lucha pacifista por el fin de las guerras， o al menos una regulación internacional de cuando corresponde que se pelee una。Esta idea se desarrolla a través del siglo XX， donde se posa la mirada principalmente en Estados Unidos y cómo se trató este tema sucesivamente en la 2a Guerra Mundial， Corea， Vietnam y los sucesivos conflictos。 A juicio de Moyn， la idea central del libro se cumple a cabalidad， con varios hitos bélicos donde el debate público estadounidense estuvo centrado en la "humanización de la guerra"。 Entre estos， los que me parecieron más interesantes son La Matanza de My Lai y los bombardeos a Serbia。 La parte final del libro analiza la "Guerra contra el Terrorismo" desatada con posterioridad a los atentados del 11 de Septiembre de 2001。 Aquí es donde el libro se pone especialmente polémico， ya que Moyn hace un juicio muy duro sobre la política de Obama frente a la guerra。 Se presenta evidencia de cómo durante su presidencia se creó la más detallada arquitectura que consagró un estado de guerra permanente， la cual fue contrapesada por el diseño de una regulación más "humana" de la tortura y la forma en que se desarrollan los conflictos bélicos。 Esto se expresó en la reticencia a cerrar Guantánamo y especialmente en el uso de miles de drones y numerosas incursiones de Fuerzas Especiales en decenas de países， a los cuales nunca se les ha declarado la guerra formalmente。 El argumento se vuelve aún mas sugerente cuando se muestra el brillante uso político que hizo Donald Trump de la idea de "guerras interminables" en su campaña presidencial。 El epílogo del libro plantea los nuevos desafíos de los avances tecnológicos y qué forma podrían tomar los esfuerzos por "humanizar la guerra" en las siguientes décadas。 。。。more
ANN DIPIETRO
，
Fascinating study of how the humanization of war causes …。。wars ！ Beginning with Tolstoy” War and Peace” Moyn traces the pursuit of pacifism 。
Alan
，
A powerful book that clarified my thinking。 My politics were born in opposition to the Iraq War and torture， and this book provided a superstructure for some of that adolescent political formation。 The epilogue was particularly powerful。 Moyn draws the parallel to policing clearly here， and highlights the violence of policing even absent death。
Ryan Miller
，
DNF—well-written and very detailed。 It was just too depressing to read account after account of how humans in power use violence to oppress。
Matthew Petti
，
The United States military is the most humane army in history， and it is not a good thing。 These are two pretty controversial points， yet Samuel Moyn makes a convincing case for both of them， and it will upend the way you think about war and peace。Today we live in a country where lawyers have to approve airstrikes， and where generals pride themselves on following international human rights law。 Yet this humanitarianism has not prevented the emergence of endless bloodshed。 On the contrary， the en The United States military is the most humane army in history， and it is not a good thing。 These are two pretty controversial points， yet Samuel Moyn makes a convincing case for both of them， and it will upend the way you think about war and peace。Today we live in a country where lawyers have to approve airstrikes， and where generals pride themselves on following international human rights law。 Yet this humanitarianism has not prevented the emergence of endless bloodshed。 On the contrary， the entire world has become an American battlefield， as drones and special forces hunt down the United States's enemies without limits。 Moyn argues that the first helped cause the second — that the rise of "humane， light-footprint" war has helped hide its costs from the public。The book is pretty dense。 Moyn gets into the weeds of intellectual debates， and profiles the individual scholars and lawyers who helped shape global debates on brutality and humanity。 That said， it's not a specialist book， and is about as accessible a book on such a complicated topic can get。 And the sources he cites are really varied， from excerpts from a Leo Tolstoy novel to an activist who disrupted an Obama speech。Moyn begins his explanation in the 19th century， when two European movements began in reaction to the brutality of modern warfare。 The humanitarians， like the early Red Cross， wanted to established new rules for armies that protected civilians and prisoners。 The anti-war activists， meanwhile， wanted to abolish war entirely。 And surprisingly， the two movements were often at odds with each other。 While the humanitarians accused the anti-war side of being unrealistic ideologues， the anti-war activists argued that humanitarians were only putting a pretty face on an evil institution。Of course， neither side got what it wanted at first。 War became more brutal *and* more widespread， reaching its bloody apex in World War II。 Finally， states began to acknowledge the concept of crimes against humanity， and the idea that aggression itself was a crime。 Yet brutality and war continued。 European powers attempted to hold onto their colonies Africa and Southeast Asia through extreme force， which bled into equally-brutal proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union in places like Korea and Vietnam。Things began to change in the 1970s， as countries around the world signed human rights laws like the new Geneva Conventions。 In the First World， the public was disgusted by the various war crimes that came to light during the Vietnam War。 In the Second World — the Communist bloc — governments wanted to take the moral high ground from the First World。 And in the Third World， newly-independent states wanted to prevent the kinds of horrific violence that Europe had unleashed on their people during colonial wars。But as the United States accepted limits on *how* it could fight wars， it shed all limits on *when* and *where* it could fight them。 After the fall of Communism， the USA was left as the world's sole military superpower。 It used this power frequently， and sometimes even justified its wars *through* defending human rights law。 And in many ways， All of these processes came to a head during the Bush and Obama administrations。 In response to 9/11， George W。 Bush unleashed global military interventions and tried to shed some of the laws of war。 But the backlash to war crimes — particularly the crime of torture — from U。S。 lawyers and the general public was intense。 Barack Obama then came to office promising to undo the worst excesses of the War on Terror。 But he continued the war itself， with the same expansive legal justifications， and public debate over *why* America should be fighting in the Middle East died down。Finally came Donald Trump， who brought more fundamental questions back to public consciousness。 First， by railing against "endless wars，" Trump helped break the elite consensus around continuing the War on Terror。 Second， by nearly starting a full-on war with Iran， he reopened questions over what authorities the President should have over war and peace。 After all， a conflict against a regional power is not the same as plinking terrorists in no-man's-land。Moyn then ends by arguing that the evil of war is not necessarily the violence， but the domination。 He speculates that， in the age of robots and AI， it will possible for militaries to take over vast territories with no civilian casualties。 And this outcome， Moyn argues， could lead to a kind of global slavery。 I understand his point， but it felt a bit like it had come out of nowhere。 Going back， I can see how Moyn came to this conclusion， although I wish he had been more explicit in pointing to it。Overall， I recommend the book if you want to have your ways of thinking about war and peace turned upside-down。 。。。more
Philip
，
3。5
Murtaza
，
A surprisingly brisk and readable account of the history of international human rights law， and how efforts to mitigate the worst abuses of war using legal tools have sidetracked efforts to cease wars themselves。 The argument is perhaps counterintuitive but focus on atrocity prevention in conflict has ended up ceding the ground of war itself。 This is akin to making efforts to better the condition of slaves rather than working to abolish slavery tout court。 Interestingly， it seems that human righ A surprisingly brisk and readable account of the history of international human rights law， and how efforts to mitigate the worst abuses of war using legal tools have sidetracked efforts to cease wars themselves。 The argument is perhaps counterintuitive but focus on atrocity prevention in conflict has ended up ceding the ground of war itself。 This is akin to making efforts to better the condition of slaves rather than working to abolish slavery tout court。 Interestingly， it seems that human rights law was traditionally considered inapplicable to non-Westerners throughout much of history and only in relatively recent times was its focus expanded。 The book contains harrowing accounts of colonial and imperial warfare over the past century， and is tied up with a surprising analogy with Tolstoy's War and Peace。 For a book about international law this is as accessibly interesting as it gets。 。。。more
Christopher E
，
I’m a pleasure reader and not an academic， so that may affect what I thought of this book。 The writing style is really heavy。 Not an easy book to skim and I thought the paragraphs were not organized well。 The thoughts skipped around a lot and concepts would shift around mid paragraph。 The general sequence of events could be haphazard at times。 At one point， the author mentioned four separate events through three decades in the space of two pages。 The sum of all of that made it tough to discern h I’m a pleasure reader and not an academic， so that may affect what I thought of this book。 The writing style is really heavy。 Not an easy book to skim and I thought the paragraphs were not organized well。 The thoughts skipped around a lot and concepts would shift around mid paragraph。 The general sequence of events could be haphazard at times。 At one point， the author mentioned four separate events through three decades in the space of two pages。 The sum of all of that made it tough to discern his point。 Maybe he was writing for other Yale professors and I’m not one of them。I think he could have covered less historical events in different level of detail and made a more impactful book。What was the book about？ Well…uh…tough to say… 。。。more
Rick
，
Deeply， historically researched non-fiction about the unintended consequences of efforts to make war more humane。 I encourage people to read this powerfully persuasive book。
Will Norton
，
This book really touched my interests。 The history of literary than legal aspects of the prevention of war crimes are discussed。 Beginning with the idea of "humane" slavery， and the accounts of Tolstoy's literature that decried violence， the path towards justice jus ad bellum and jus in bello are given their complete historical treatment。 The book， of course， dwells on Vietnam for a portion。 This was the quintessential debate on the humanity of war that cried out so forcefully became a political This book really touched my interests。 The history of literary than legal aspects of the prevention of war crimes are discussed。 Beginning with the idea of "humane" slavery， and the accounts of Tolstoy's literature that decried violence， the path towards justice jus ad bellum and jus in bello are given their complete historical treatment。 The book， of course， dwells on Vietnam for a portion。 This was the quintessential debate on the humanity of war that cried out so forcefully became a political staging ground that riles American politics to this day。 From conflict to conflict， the methods jus in bello reach their staging grounds usually after conflict to prevent further conflict and the simmering of the war on terror leads to a need of better conclusions。 The book offers this from both historical and reflective notions of the idea of conflict and its effects to this degree。 This is definitely written from an American perspective。 It is also written from an historical perspective with the names and treaties on the act of making war more humane come into focus with both insight and clarity。 The book is enlightening in this aspect and poses questions throughout。 Anyone interested in a history of movements for peaceful resolutions to war and decry violence to people who deal directly with these issues should definitely read this largely historical perspective。 。。。more
Jessica Mae Stover
，
So then what does the militarized cover say about the book’s premise and producers？ （sigh）
Ernest Spoon
，
A legist history of what the author labels as ¨humane¨ war featuring a cast of lawyers， both within and without government service。 ¨Humane¨ war is drone warfare， sanity， faraway， with few American casualties。 This author does touch on what may be the greatest mitigating factor in the start of ¨humane¨ and endless was: the end of conscription。 He also mentions the ironic death by suicide car bomber in Baghdad， Iraq of an antiwar activist， to what end I don´t know。 Perhaps the author agrees with A legist history of what the author labels as ¨humane¨ war featuring a cast of lawyers， both within and without government service。 ¨Humane¨ war is drone warfare， sanity， faraway， with few American casualties。 This author does touch on what may be the greatest mitigating factor in the start of ¨humane¨ and endless was: the end of conscription。 He also mentions the ironic death by suicide car bomber in Baghdad， Iraq of an antiwar activist， to what end I don´t know。 Perhaps the author agrees with William Tecumseh Sherman´s observation: “War is cruelty。 There's no use trying to reform it。 The crueler it is， the sooner it will be over。” I just don´t know？I might add one of the primary drivers of endless warfare is， what in an earlier time was termed the munitions industry but has been euphemized， the defense industry。 Whenever any political party or politician talks about cutting the ¨defense¨ budget， they mention that the individuals who bear the highest burdon are the line workers， most of whom are unionized， in defense contractor factories。 Fire the generals but don´t layoff folks just trying to make a living。 。。。more
arkadi cloud
，
https://blog。arkadi。one/humane-how-th。。。 https://blog。arkadi。one/humane-how-th。。。 。。。more
Alexey Goldin
，
"Torture， even more than other atrocity crimes， rose to the top of the list of immoral and even illegal acts， which was an enormous advance。 But war fell off the list， and no one complained。""The intense focus of advocacy groups and administration lawyers alike on the legal niceties of humane detention and treatment contributed significantly to a perverse outcome。 The brutal treatment of captives had tainted the legitimacy of a heavy-footprint war under the prior administration。 Now a concern to "Torture， even more than other atrocity crimes， rose to the top of the list of immoral and even illegal acts， which was an enormous advance。 But war fell off the list， and no one complained。""The intense focus of advocacy groups and administration lawyers alike on the legal niceties of humane detention and treatment contributed significantly to a perverse outcome。 The brutal treatment of captives had tainted the legitimacy of a heavy-footprint war under the prior administration。 Now a concern to remove that taint led the United States to kill by preference in the new one—though the country took steps to make its regime of death more compassionate。 While advertising its alleged care， the emerging form of Obama’s war negated the constraints on extending and expanding war itself that previous generations had prioritized。 As the Obama administration continued， the abuses to the laws prohibiting force accumulated almost without counterexample。""Though the United States had once organized the Nuremberg trials to stigmatize aggression， Koh opposed criminalizing it now for fear it would keep a benevolent power like the United States from stopping atrocity。""Beyond the compromises made by advocates outside government and especially inside， the deepest blame for the perpetuation of endless war fell on Obama himself。 He established a working relationship with a public that allowed itself to be convinced that his policies of endless and humane war， though not exactly what they had signed up for， were morally wholesome。 This effect depended utterly on Obama’s rhetorical genius。 It worked through the first-person plural but also required the audience to accept that they shared in the compromises of humane war that politicians chose and lawyers crafted。""In his concern that advocates for more humane war could help make it endless for a public that tolerates it， Leo Tolstoy fixated on corporal wrongs and physical violence。 Advocacy aimed at humane war， he contended， was no more ethically plausible than agitation for humane slavery， with daily episodes of torture replaced by everlasting—but kind and gentle—direction of labor and service。 Audiences who accept endless war out of the belief that its humanity excuses them， the truculent moralist inveighed， were fooling themselves。""Brought to its logical conclusion， humane war may become increasingly safe for all concerned—which is also what makes it objectionable。 Humane war is another version of the slavery of our times， and our task is to aim for a law that not only tolerates less pain but also promotes more freedom。" 。。。more
Rick
，
Didn't really read all/finish， just too repetitive。 In need of significant editing Didn't really read all/finish， just too repetitive。 In need of significant editing 。。。more
Umar Lee
，
Halfway through the opening chapters I was wondering if I missed something and the book is about Tolstoy。 Those early chapters laid the groundwork for an outstanding book about the history of both the attempts to outlaw war and make it more humane taking us right into the present with our last several American presidents， their advisors， and their contradictions。 Something this book brilliantly illustrates is the fact whatever moves towards humane war have been made in the West haven't been affo Halfway through the opening chapters I was wondering if I missed something and the book is about Tolstoy。 Those early chapters laid the groundwork for an outstanding book about the history of both the attempts to outlaw war and make it more humane taking us right into the present with our last several American presidents， their advisors， and their contradictions。 Something this book brilliantly illustrates is the fact whatever moves towards humane war have been made in the West haven't been afforded to non Westerners and non Christians in general who have often been targeted without discrimination between combatant and non-combatant。 Near the end of the book the topic of automated warfare is discussed which makes the reader ponder a dystopian future of killer robots running wild。 。。。more
Izzy
，