I’m re-reading Raymond Aron, and his critique of vulgar realism. It offers some interesting lessons on war, war crimes, and human nature. Brief thread. 1/7

“The realist,” Aron argued, “who asserts that man is a beast of prey and urges him to behave as such, ignores a whole side of human nature.” Though commenting on inter-state relations, it’s easy enough to apply this claim to the battlefield. 2/7

For some, war is the untameable space, a setting that reveals and intensifies man-as-beast. This isn’t all wrong of course. War is, by design, a cruel and destructive enterprise, that permits (and often demands) conduct that would be inexcusable in any other context. 3/7

But we over-internalise this image to our detriment, particularly when it comes to battlefield misconduct. 4/7

With some morally demented exceptions, virtually no one *celebrates* war crimes. Far too many, however, see them as tragic inevitabilities; acts that ultimately serve to indict war itself, rather than the people who commit them. 5/7

This is unsatisfactory. War crimes are most often carried out by individuals who should – and *could* - have done otherwise. Often alongside individuals that *do* do otherwise. 6/7

This matters for how we think about the possibility of restraint in war. We should demand a lot from the military in terms of appropriate conduct, and push back hard against those who claim that these same forces won’t, and indeed can’t, deliver. 7/7