I think Patton said, to his soldiers, something to the effect of "your job isn't to die for your country; it's to make the other guy die for his."
I'd have hated serving under him, but I gotta say: It's hard not to love his quotes...
In a large conflict, casualties can be crippling to a military, but in a small one they can be used by the most cynical of politicians to keep the conflict going.
Yeah, I remember hearing something about Nixon (via Kissinger) deliberately crippling Johnson's attempts to bring the war to a peaceful conclusion in order to get elected.
Politicians, in general, use the "sunk cost" fallacy very often in small wars, e.g., colonial or colonial-like conflicts, especially, it seems when those costs are human lives (just not human lives they care about; at least the pre-19th Century crowned heads would expect their sons to be out with the army in the field, not at home boffing the servants): "we can't leave Lower Elbonia because so many of our boys have died fighting the menace of big-enders."
I think that's the case with most all wars: And modern day, ironically it's easier for politicians to adopt the mind-set because they stand to lose nothing to lose of their own (their kids don't fight, and even if they served in uniform, they'd probably be far from the front lines).
Sure numerous young guys who aren't so lucky (many of them without enough money to go to college) get sent off to get their limbs blown off, and when they come back, they get a nice prosthetic arm, but rather than be allowed to go back home and chill out; they get sent off (seemingly for no other reason than) to get something else shot off/blown off.
I've become more and more of the opinion that national governments need wars to justify their existence, so they'll fabricate them as needed.
Depends on the nation: Iceland has managed to be pretty mellow, but some nations can't seem to keep their nose out of other's business, they usually have considerable proportions of their industry built for war, heavily funded by powerful financiers who have long since learned the Golden Rule (That's right: "Them that's got's the gold makes the rules") and often finance both sides, and profit handsomely -- they almost never manage to get tried for anything like treason or trading with the enemy (something that mere mortals like you or me would be strung up for), because they operate through intermediaries, are smart enough not to blab about it, often have ties to the various intelligence services, as well as strings of corrupt politicians (held in line by indebtedness and compromising secrets), and can create tragedy on demand (using all the above) if they get even remotely close to being cornered.
WWII was to end all wars and bring a lasting peace. It didn't happen.
Technically that was believed to be true of both WWI and WWII...
I am of the opinion that lasting peace can not be achieved through conflict. Rather, it must be the will and desire of leaders of our great Countries supported by the people they represent. Will it ever happen? I sure hope so!
You're basically right, though I'm not sure if it's possible to have peace in terms of no conflict (conflict seems invariable to some extent), but I think it's possible to reduce the frequency, the scope, and intensity of them. I think much of the conflicts occurring around the globe could be settled in much more level-headed ways if powerful people with nothing to lose weren't funding both sides and profiting hand over fist.