When you sit in front of monitors and maps showing countless trajectories from Lebanon into Israel -- into the very places your friends and family live -- it can be quite agitating. Some of us were becoming very impatient, and in the many dead moments there were debates whether our response should be harsher. Of course, none of us were in any position of real influence. It was somewhat of a relief when the ground offensive was escalated, even though virtually everyone had people who were very close to them in combat units. I had some very tense conversations with people who were about to enter Lebanon, trying to prepare them without letting out really sensitive information. Talking to friends and family back home sometimes proved difficult because they would ask questions I could not answer -- either because I did not know the answer or because it was sensitive. Even today there are some very basic facts about the conflict that I would like the entire world to know, but divulging them would mean that we'll have poorer intelligence in the next round.

An excerpt from a long but fascinating (at least to me) interview with an IDF officer, by Michael Totten.

[Update a few minutes later]

Meanwhile, Europe has a serious Israel problem. I think this is right:

Perhaps the best explanation, then, is one given by Stephan Vopel of the German Bertelsmann Foundation for why many more Americans and Israelis favor a military strike against Iran than Germans: "While Israelis subscribe to the maxim 'never again,' the German dictum is 'never again war.'" Pacifism, in other words, is the driving force behind European animus toward both the US and Israel.

Yes, it's easy to be a pacifist, when you've had someone else subsidizing your defense for decades.

The US Subsidizes the Defense of Israel and has
for over 50 years. I don't see any pacifism there.

The difference is the Germans paid a tremendous
price for initiating and losing two wars, the Israeli's
haven't yet lost.

Yes, it's easy to be a pacifist, when you've had someone else subsidizing your defense for decades.

Maybe the Germans have come to fear their own capacities more than others'. Maybe all Europeans have. Our American military mentality is quite different and more confident.

The Germans learned a different lesson in WW2. They learned that war is bad, it leads to the destruction of your country.

The Allies learned that war may be inevitable and avoiding it may make it worse.

I don't mind the Germans being pacifists, their political instincts as a nation are almost as bad as the Palestinians. I just wish they'd learn that fact and be less preachy.

The IDF officer says something all military or ex-military people deal with. Keeping secrets. Non military people always think that once your out of the service you can spill your guts. Not so, and sometimes you'd really like to.

Maybe it's just evolution in action. Perhaps most of the Germans who were genetically predisposed to warfare were killed in 1870, 1914-18, and 1939-1945, and present-day Germans are largely the descendants of those who strenuously avoided combat.

Maybe it's just evolution in action. Perhaps most of the Europeans who were genetically predisposed to support Israel were killed in 1870, 1914-18, and 1939-1945, and present-day Europeans are largely the descendants of those who were anti-semites?

Um...why would pro-semites have been preferentially killed in any of Germany's three great twentieth century wars?

Um...why would pro-semites have been preferentially killed in any of Germany's three great twentieth century wars?

I think Toast that he was cunning on something, but either he failed logic or history.

My comment wasn't meant to be taken serously.

I assumed Carl's comment was likewise in jest. Given that there are over 30 brain areas implicated in aggressive behavior it is very unlikely that there is a genetic component to aggression/anxiety that could have been removed from a population in the suggested manner.

In particular, one would have to consider that:

(a)the vast majority of the combatant fatalities in the wars were male,
(b) other deaths would have been due to random bombing etc that could not be worked into Carl's equation. So for example females were not preferentially eliminated in the wars.
(b) this war-gene if it exists isn't expressed in the female in the same manner as in the male, since if not the current female Germans would be warlike enough, irrespective of how many males died in the wars,
(c) is probably recessive since if not the progeny (male in particular!) of the war-gene carrying female Germans would express this today

Anyway those are just a few of the reasons off the top of my pate why it was obvious to me that Carl could not be serious. Now we know Carl WAS serious, which is fun. So please let's go on, hypothesize if you will on how this war-gene operates and how it was severely diminished in the wars. :-) Maybe you are on to something.

Couple more thoughts on the removal of the war-gene..

If the gene were on the Y chromosome, that might help Carl except for the observations that
anyone married to an Italian American such as myself knows only too well that the war gene is probably on the X chromosome.

The German people did not show a progressive decrease in their war-like character, if you want to call it that between, for example, the last two wars mentioned. So a gradual diminution of the prevalence of the war-gene as argued is implausible. If anything it went UP between the last two big ones.

Those individuals with the best expressed war-gene were more likely than not the survivors. In fact this might be used in a counter-argument to argue why the Israelis are more war-like than the current Germans. Those with more modestly expressed war-genes were the cannon fodder.

The combatants weren't voluntary. They didn't self select to make war, so the corelation between the war-gene and being in combat is suspect, therefore the combat deaths were not necessarily those with a preponderance of the war-gene.

The war-gene if it exists is an aggression/anxiety gene. With the pretty placid German society of today, 6 week vacations and compulsory spa visits, universal health care, tours to Thailand etc,. there just isn't enough tension to get the gene really going. That might be a better explanation for why the Germans don't want to make war.

I think we should remember that Hitler's ascension to dictatorship required a betrayal by both the German military and government. And frankly, it demonstrated the utter folly of the course that Germany had followed since its creation in 1871 at the conclusion of a series of wars since Germany had experienced two extremely humiliating defeats by following an aggressive military course.

In comparison, the US military has always acted as part of the civilian government. And the US government has never engaged in the degree of military adventurism that preceded both world wars. My take is that the difference in opinion on the use of military force mirrors the relative experiences of Germany and the United States concerning their militaries.

Like rjschwarz I'm delighted the Germans have become pacifists. In fact, I'd be even more delighted to have them completely disband their military. And I'd be ecstatic to have the US remove all our troops from Germany.

I'm delighted the Germans have become pacifists. In fact, I'd be even more delighted to have them completely disband their military. And I'd be ecstatic to have the US remove all our troops from Germany.

Then, having completely disarmed, you'd no doubt be rapturously thrilled when the Russians once again decided to move their troops in to Germany.

The poles would have a few things to say first

Oh. I see, Anonymous Moron.

So the Germans should rely on the Poles for their defense, instead of the US?

Let me know how that works out.

Geez, TnT, you're pretty far out to lunch on your genetics here.

(1) What makes you think that if males are killed, only genes on the Y chromosome are eliminated? Men carry the other 22 pairs of chromosomes, plus the X, you know. If a man is killed before breeding, he does not pass on any of his chromosomes. Hence you can easily modify the genome of a tribe by whacking only men with a particular feature. For example, if you kill all men with blue eyes, pretty soon you won't have any blue-eyed people left. Doesn't matter that you left the women alone.

(2) The German people did not show a progressive decrease in their war-like character, if you want to call it that between, for example, the last two wars mentioned.

Who says? Certainly in the First World War they showed a greater willingness to fight in a frontally-aggressive, human-wave, heroic style that resulted in huge amount of casualties. In the Second they were far more likely to try to be clever. Additionally, you have forgotten that much of the difference in German carnage is the result of Allied action: the First World War ended with a negotiated peace, while the Second was -- because of the Allied demand for unconditional surrender -- fought to the bitter end. Nor did the Allies bomb the hell out of civilian Germany during the First war.

(3) The combatants weren't voluntary. You are confusing serving in the military with actually fighting. They're not the same. You can be in the military and do your best to avoid combat, or you can take part in combat willingly and aggressively. If you do the latter, and you're on the losing side, you probably die.

Furthermore, the usual reasons why someone might not be drafted -- has a family, working in some intellectual field where he's better off behind the front, has bad eyes or poor health -- could easily correlate with diminished tendency to aggressiveness. That is, the draft might well be designed (possibly haphazardly, or unconsciously) to preferentially select those who are most likely to be aggressive warfighters. I mean, that's how I'd design a draft, if I could.

(4) [the war gene] is probably recessive since if not the progeny (male in particular!) of the war-gene carrying female Germans would express this today

Well, as I said you've misunderstood genetics in assuming the females of today inherit only from the females of yesteryear, instead of from both their mothers and fathers. Furthermore, you're confused if you think all genetics is Mendelian, and can be characterized as the interaction of dominant and recessive alleles. That's ridiculously oversimplified. It works for eye color, but certainly not for something as complex as emotional and aggressive tendencies.

(5) The war-gene if it exists is an aggression/anxiety gene.

Yeah, says you. Like you have even the faintest hint of a clue. (No one else does either, to be fair.)

I don't know why Germany of today seems more pacifistic. But an argument based on natural selection is no more unsupported wild speculation than is an argument based on sociological currents, changing patterns of work, or (silliest of all), changing philosophies among educated Germans.

Carl, you need to bone up on your reading skills, especially when reading someone else's comments.

Granted my post was in two parts, but I clearly said that IF the war-gene happened to exist on the Y chromosome, then a preferential elimination of the carriers of the Y chromosome would buttress your argument about selection. Nowhere did I make the assertion that if you killed the males only genes on the Y chromosome are eliminated. You made that up.

The argument was that if you reduced the pool of war-gene carriers you would have a net effect of reducing the warlike tendency in the group. If this war-gene happened to reside on the Y chromosome, it would be more effective to kill that bunch of males whose behavior happened to indicate that they had that gene. I offered that as a point in support of your thesis!

Your comment on (4) contradicts your example used in (1). You use an example of a recessive gene (blue eyes) to argue something (which I agree with) in (1) and then attempt to negate that argument in (4) Further in (4), how you managed to figure out that I "assume the females of today inherit only from the females of yesteryear," is mind boggling. Where on earth have I made any such assertion? This strategy of putting words in someones statements in an attempt to win points in an argument is silly. At least if you have to do so, try using ideas slightly less ridiculous. The fiction may go over better.

With regards to the war-gene being a form of anxiety/aggression gene. I guess you disagree from your comment.

You need the anxiety to build the case/argument/need for war and you need the aggression so you can proceed with action to alleviate the anxiety. If you felt no anxiety, you would have no need to fear. If you had no aggression you would be killed; knowing the latter you wouldn't indulge in war. This should be self evident. More to the point, a collective anxiety is needed so that aggression can be justified. Collectively if both these traits are present, one can argue that they could easily emerge from a preponderance of individuals having these traits. Do you really think otherwise?

It really doesn't matter where the war gene or gene complex is, if there is one.

The point is quite simple. If a gene influences behaviour, even to a small extent, and the behaviour it favours makes it more likely that the organism carrying that gene will be killed before breeding, then that gene or complex will die out.

An example: Large predators such as lions and tigers appear not to like the taste of humans; maneaters are usually so old or infirm that humans are the only prey weak and slow enough for them to prey on.

Is it not possible that this is an evolutionary adaptation? Armed humans, in groups, are the most competent prey, AND the most lethally efficient predators, that the world has ever seen or is likely to. Tigers don't even come close. If we wanted to, we could exterminate lions in a month or two.

Lions don't like the taste of human meat because the ones that did are dead - and didn't get the chance to breed.

I think that this example may be relevant.

Rand, if you don't object, I'd like to suggest this piece on the Israeli Historian Benny Morris as related and informative:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031001496.html

I knew I should have left the following in my previous comment:

I'd much rather have our forces in Poland, the Czech Republic, and other Eastern European states.