So you think going to war in Iraq was stupid...

If you think that the reasons for going to Iraq (and staying there) were stupid, try reading a little bit of the history of World War I. Most likely, you'll come out of that endeavor confused, frustrated, and acknowledging the wisdom of Solomon when he stated that there was nothing new under the sun.

I mean, come on, can we even now understand the foolish reasoning of a war that engulfed nearly all of Europe and much of North Africa and the Middle East? I remember growing up, and learning that World War I was triggered by the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo (yep, that Sarajevo, famous for the Winter Olympics, the bombings of the Bosnian War, and Christmas Night Over Sarajev0). But that was the the extent of my knowledge.

But here is the gist of the start of the war: Archduke Ferdinand is assassinated in Sarajevo, Austria attacks Serbia, Germany invades Belgium, and then invades France. France mounts a defense and Russia begins preparing to attack Germany. Does that make any sense to anyone? And that is just the beginning of the War.

A little more background and detail does not bring much elucidation: A Serbian nationalist assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Ferdinand, while he was in Austrian-controlled Bosnia. Austria retaliated against Serbia. Russia, who was allied with Serbia, prepares to intervene. Germany, who is supportive of any action by Austria, decides that it is in their best interest to try to neutralize its biggest threats, France and Russia. Foolishly, it decides to attack France through neutral Belgium, breaking longstanding neutrality treaties, thus irking the wary British who feared the industrial power of Germany and Germany's rising threat to the British naval supperiority.

See what I mean? Very confusing. The pretenses for war were "legitamate" (in their eyes) but the reality is that each country had its own selfish reason for joining in.

Why do I bring all this up? I used to think that people seeking higher office should be intelligent people who were altruistic. But I now think it should be more than that. Perhaps all public officials in higher office should be well educated in either history or ecology. Why history? Even principled leaders are doomed to bring pain and suffering to many if they are not aware of how history shapes the current landscape, much less the lessons of history themselves. (As a sidenote, I find it interesting that the Matrix Trilogy explores the interplay between history, free will, and fate/destiny.)

Why ecology? I think that ecologists are at least aware of the interconnectedness of things. They may not be be experts in economics, but I imagine that they would at least know to look or anticipate how an action may inpact other areas. Same thing with foreign policy. Anyone can learn the "facts on the ground." But it takes the insight to look for and seek the bigger picture of things. And that requires a mindset that has trained you to see the connections of things. I guess history teaches that as well.

Perhaps instead of debates, we should have history questions for the candidates. Would that give the voters anymore insight?