The Dogs of War

Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;  
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial.  

~Marc Anthony shortly after Caesar was assassinated (from Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar')

The military order Havoc! was a signal given to English military forces to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare's words 'the dogs of war') to pillage and chaos.

The prelude to war is worth understanding.  We commonly ascribe a single event, an assassination, an attack as the starting of hostilities, but there's usually much more.

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, for example, marks the start of World War I, but it was not the cause.  The conflict emerged from colonial expansion, competition for wealth, power and prestige, and the economic and military rivalry among the European powers.  All these contributed to a hostile climate and the final spillover.

As the 20th century began, the world was being swallowed by empires. Rulers scrambled
 for the greatest expanse, the largest domain.  Europe's citizens, without thought for the
 people just like themselves in other regions, cheered their conquering monarchs.

Under Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany moved from the status quo to an aggressive stance. Kaiser Wilhelm decided against renewing a treaty with Russia, opting for an Austrian alliance. France and Russia signed an alliance in 1894 united by fear and resentment of Berlin. In 1898, Germany began to build up its navy, alarming the world's most powerful maritime nation, Britain. Recognising the threat to her security, Britain abandoned the policy of holding aloof from entanglements with continental powers. Within ten years, Britain had concluded agreements with her two major colonial rivals, France and Russia. Europe was divided into two armed camps: the Entente Powers and the Central Powers, and their populations began to see war not merely as inevitable but even welcome.

In the summer of 1914 the Germans were prepared to run the risk of a large-scale war. The crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire decided, after the assassination on 28 June, to take action against Serbia, which was suspected of being behind the murder. The German government issued the so-called 'blank cheque' on 5-6 July, offering unconditional support to the Austrians, despite the risk of war with Russia. Germany, painted into a diplomatic corner by Wilhelm's bellicosity, saw this as a way of breaking up the Entente, for France and Britain might refuse to support Russia.

A month after the war began, Germany drew up far-reaching war aims. French power would be broken, Belgium reduced to vassal status, and a colonial empire carved out in Africa and elsewhere.  Other countries had plans for empire of their own.

Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1902

Ruler of Germany and

Prussia

King Ferdinand I, 1914

Romania

Nicholas II, 1896

Emperor of Russia, Grand

Duke of Finland, King of

Poland

King George V, 1911
Great Britain

WWI was a family contest.  

During the First World War, monarchs of countries from both sides were closely related by descent from either Queen Victoria, King Christian IX or both.

• King George V of Great Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia, empress consort of Tsar Nicholas II, were all first cousins. 
• Other relatives who fought against Germany were Romania, whose queen-consort, Marie, wife of King Ferdinand I, was a cousin of the Kaiser and Greece, whose queen-consort, Sophia, wife of King Constantine I, was the Kaiser's own sister. 
• King George V was a first cousin of both Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and King Constantine I of Greece. 
• Other first cousins of George V, whose countries were neutral during the war, were King Christian X of Denmark, Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain (queen-consort of King Alfonso XIII) and King Haakon VII of Norway (who was George's brother-in-law by marriage to George's sister).

The human cost of the war is beyond comprehension.  From the first gunshot fired in anger in 1914 to the 11th hour of the 11th day on the 11th month in 1918, the Great War took its toll.  Of the 65 million men who fought in World War 1:

• 8 million were killed in battle.
• 2 million died of illness and disease.
• 21.2 million were wounded.
• 7.8 million were taken prisoner or went missing in action.
• and 6.8 million civilians were killed.

In every nation that took part in the combat, there were few families who hadn't lost a relative in the war; a brother, a son, a father, a nephew, or an uncle. Some towns and villages lost every male of fighting age. If that community lay near a combat zone, many others were killed as well.

The war was not limited to Europe; it involved multi-ethnic empires such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary and Turkey. The diverse ethnic groups in these multi-ethnic empires were conscripted for military service.  [A] (B)  Losses from the colonies:

 Losses from British colonies

Britain recruited Indian, Chinese, native South African, Egyptian and other overseas labour to provide logistical support in the combat theatres.^[C] British casualties in East Africa include the deaths of 44,911 recruited labourers.^[D] [E]

 Ghana (the Gold Coast): 16,200  Kenya (British East Africa): 32,000  Malawi (Nyasaland): 3,000  Nigeria (part of British West Africa): 85,000  Sierra Leone (part of British West Africa): 1,000  Uganda (the Uganda protectorate): 1,500  Zambia (Northern Rhodesia): 2,000  Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia): 5,716 ^[F]

 Losses from the Republic of the Congo (The Belgian Congo) - Part of the Kingdom of Belgium; 155,000  

 Losses from French colonies

In 1857, France began recruiting men from her West

African colonies to use in military campaigns. During

World War I, and even more so for World War II,

there was a significant expansion of this pool of men

through conscription, as France became aware that their

so-called tirailleurs sénégalais (soldiers from all over

 French West Africa, and not just Senegal), would be

 an important resource in their struggle against Germany.

 Algeria (French Algeria): 26,000  Vietnam (French Indochina): 12,000  Mali (French West Africa): 60,000  Morocco (the French protectorate of Morocco): 8,000  Senegal (French West Africa): 36,000  Guinea (French West Africa): 14,500  Madagascar: 2,500 military  Benin (French West Africa): 27,000  Burkina Faso (French West Africa): 17,000  Republic of the Congo (French Equatorial Africa): 32,000  Ivory Coast (French West Africa): 12,000  Tunisia (French Tunisia): 2,000  Chad (French Equatorial Africa): 1,500  Central African Republic (French Oubangui-Chari): 1,000  Niger (French West Africa): 1,000  Gabon (French Equatorial Africa): 10,500

Askaris in German East Africa

 Losses from German colonies

 Tanzania (German East Africa): 50,000  Namibia (German South-West Africa): 1,000  Cameroon (Kamerun): 5,000 military and 50,000 others  Togo (German Togoland): 2,000  Rwanda (German East Africa): 15,000

After the war, the winners levied harsh reparations and divided the contested lands among them.  Twenty years later, we did it again.  In WWII, 50-60 million died, a third of whom were civilians.

The world was shattered.  People's tolerance for war and destruction was on the wane, and tactics of aggression began to change.  Recognizing that the era of 'conquer and occupy' was ending, power players from the ruling families and their industry counterparts on the global stage turned to exploitation of labor and resources in developing countries to satisfy their aspirations for conquest. 

The era of Economic Conquest begins.  Trade practices were effectively enslavement.  Resources were acquired and exported without benefit to the host nation.  Financial practices were predatory, designed to extract the target country's productivity in the form of interest payments. Refinements and regulations in the financial industry have not abated that extraction of wealth in any measurable fashion.  The developing nations are without defense.

The human cost from today's almost exclusively economic war far exceeds that of the two world wars combined.  The following difficulties persist as the direct and indirect results of political and economic policies in the developed world:

• Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $5 a day per person.
• At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.  1
• More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.  2
• According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”  3
• Around 27 percent of all children in developing countries are found to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
  
  Water problems affect half of humanity:

• Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation. 
• Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day. 
• Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%. 
• 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, each consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.) 
• Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhea. 
• The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness. 
• Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water. 
• A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.(ref) 
• Costs with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region. 10

Firewood:  In developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass - firewood, charcoal and animal dung - to meet their energy needs for cooking. In sub-Saharan Africa, over 80 percent of the population depends on traditional biomass for cooking, as do over half of the populations of India and China.  14

Suffocation from the indoor use of solid fuels [by poorer segments of society] is a major killer. It claims the lives of 1.5 million people each year, more than half of them below the age of five: that is 4000 deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds total deaths from malaria and rivals the number of deaths from tuberculosis.  15

Wealth and Debt: In 2005, the world's wealthiest fifth did 76.6% of private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%.16  

For every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt repayment.2

The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money. 25 

An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:

1. • 3 to 1 in 1820
   • 11 to 1 in 1913
   • 35 to 1 in 1950
   • 44 to 1 in 1973
   • 72 to 1 in 1992Source27

We are what we do.  Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998

Global Priority	$U.S. Billions
Cosmetics in the United States	8
Ice cream in Europe	11
Perfumes in Europe and the United States	12
Pet foods in Europe and the United States	17
Business entertainment in Japan	35
Cigarettes in Europe	50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe	105
Narcotics drugs in the world	400
Military spending in the world	780

And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic services in all developing countries:

Global Priority	$U.S. Billions
Basic education for all	6
Water and sanitation for all	9
Reproductive health for all women	12
Basic health and nutrition	13

Source31

The wealth of developing nations is extracted by the international community; aid and assistance projects do not make up the difference.  

Nigeria should be the best place in the world to raise a child, but it's typical of the developing world; most citizens live in abject poverty in an unsafe environment.  Their exported resources alone are worth more each year than the entire productivity of most countries in the world, but the resulting wealth is consumed by multinational corporations and corrupt power players.  The majority of the nation's citizens are disenfranchised, left without a voice or opportunity for change.

We've been at war (economic war) for more than sixty years with extraordinary advances by the financial industry in the last twenty.  And the rich are winning, but only the rich.

Individuals may or may not be willing to face the question -- how much does your lifestyle illustrate the crime?

Basis

An example?  Try inserting your biggest issues into the scene here.  How

relevant and helpful are your concerns in such a context?  Is there

a larger perspective, a broader view that might be helpful?

It's always a surprise to discover that one or another of our firmly held opinions is baseless.

In Spain, my father had come to visit us while we were stationed overseas. In long walks and talks, I'd lectured my dad on a variety of issues from my position of superior understanding.
Years and years later, he'd laughed as I apologized; he said, "I figured you'd grow out of it."  That was him explaining how he'd put up with the nonsense of my 20's. Like most my age, I'd had emphatic opinions on subjects about which I knew little.
A gracious gentleman, he had offered thoughtful conversation on a variety of issues which took root over the years.

Opinions are easy to come by.  Listening to the news will lean you left or right, incline you to panic or protest, or fear.  Listening to friends who agree with you is the least informative of practices unless somehow objectivity is inserted in the conversation. Thoughtful discussion with those who disagree with you can be wonderfully productive.

Experience is an opinion-shaper, too.  The church in America is loved and despised.  The variance is perhaps based on experiences with some particular group or issue.  Criticisms abound, but are rarely heard.  Appreciation rests firmly among adherents.  Both sides have something to offer, so why the boundary between them?  The church is not the gospel, of course.

Facts and opinions are only distantly related.  Preferences for
such vary from group to group. A larger, inclusive context
 can help clarify things. Can we assist the process?

It's much easier to be narrow-minded and judgmental. It takes a larger heart and mind to make a place in our world for the differences among us, to listen and understand.  It's taken decades to grasp that truth, at least for me.  I don't think it has to take that long, though.

Can we learn early?  Can we model such thinking for our children?  And for our friends?

America Dreaming

Richard Reeves explains inequality and opportunity in America, asking “What are your chances of making it from the bottom to the top?”

So what do we do with what we know?

Histronomics 403

A life alone?  Or ...


Two are better than one.  They can help each other along; if one falls, the other can be there to help them up.

Uncles do kid duty with nephews

in eastern Africa

In family and extended family, each is included. They help each other succeed at life, lovingly filling in where the need is.  It's personal, loving, and relational.

On a larger scale, a community or a tribe carries the same thinking.  We care for our own; we help each other and go forward together.

Brothers with years walking together as men

The larger the group, however, the less personal such help becomes.  The larger the population, the more likely the strong will take advantage of others.  The trend leads to separation in one form or another, a gap between the powerful and the others.  In the end, you have social classes, economic segregation, government and welfare programs ... entitlements replacing the brother who walks with you through difficult times.
Lacking the personal connection, such efforts are 80% solutions at best, benefiting in some measure but often bringing dependence or reduced advancement alternatives to the beneficiary.  The effect of such programs on family and community relationships is troublesome.

Catholic Youth Camp ... in western Africa

Churches can go either way.  A healthy church is like family; they will share each other's burdens and focus on the community at hand.  Not every church is like that, though.  Some exist inside the class and wealth zones that preclude awareness of what life is really like.  Some denominations are bent that way as well.  Have you noticed the mindset of your friends and acquaintances? And your own?

In the 60's, we criticized the Catholic missionaries who worked in the strife-torn countries of Central and South America.  They were 'improperly motivated' and aiding the 'wrong cause', we told each other.  They weren't, of course.  They risked their lives to serve and help.  They still do.

The improperly motivated and 'wrong cause' missionaries on the international playground then and now are the monied interests.  The economic players have no intent or plan to do well by the people from whom they extract their wealth. Goldman-Sachs is financially larger than most countries in the world and extracts wealth from all without regard to the harm done.  They are the typical representative of similar multinational corporations.

The ever-widening gap between rich and poor is perhaps our best indicator of missing the mark, is it not?

So how do we and our family and friends get on track and stay there?

See Histronomics 401, Histronomics 402, and The Deadliest Sin
See Saving Horatio Alger: Equality, Opportunity, and the American Dream

Death Rate

Worldwide, a recent year's gun related homicides totaled 127,607.

Worldwide following the Great Recession (meltdown), the deaths caused by Wall Street, et. al., totaled 900,000+  just in eastern Africa and just the first year.

Worldwide civilian owned guns, 644,008,400.
Wall Street business employees, 165,200 if you count them all.

Do the math.

Wall Street employees are 926.37 times more deadly than guns and gun owners.

If you count just the decision makers, they're 10,000+ times more likely to kill someone than a gun owner, criminal or otherwise.

The recession events brought the deadly nature of national and international finance practices to our attention.  The world-wide impact continues unabated and more broadly than just the single recession event.

"We have learned that the largest financial institutions are a dagger pointed at the heart of our economy." A recent New York Times editorial noted that, regarding the controversies surrounding JPMorgan Chase, “the underlying problem is not only this or that violation, but the fact that the sheer size and scope and complexity of the banking behemoths defy controls, encouraging speculation and bad behavior.”

We would add undermining free-market capitalism and nearly bankrupting the United States. ...

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas analysis of the 2007-09 financial crisis and its aftermath estimates the cost in the range of $15 trillion-$30 trillion, or $50,000 to $100,000 per American citizen. One to five years of output produced by 310 million U.S. citizens is down the drain. 

At the center of these horrific losses are the “Too Big to Fail” (TBTF) behemoths. The Dodd-Frank act claims to end TBTF. Instead, it entrenches the TBTF pathology. Since its enactment, the giants have gotten bigger and the profitability of community and regional banks that might have posed more meaningful competition has been undermined by its complexity.

There is a tenable alternative: Government policy should require that giant banking institutions restructure and streamline their disparate operations into separately owned companies, less complex and opaque, and more manageable and focused.

Lesser actions are incapable of altering the unacceptable status quo or providing for a credible regime shift. For example, higher capital requirements (or decreases in permitted “leverage ratios”) may provide temporary confidence in the capital strength of TBTF institutions, but they offer false security. In a financial panic with liquidity runs, enhanced capital cushions cannot ultimately stem a crisis of confidence and outflows of funds.
...

The only workable solution is to downsize and devolve the TBTF banking entities into units that the FDIC would label “Too Small to Save,” just like the other 99.8 percent of U.S. banks."

From WSJ and Dallas Federal Reserve Bank articles by RICHARD W. FISHER and HARVEY ROSENBLUM