What do you think?
Rate this book
Disarming Conflict
In the past quarter century our world has hosted ninety-nine wars, twenty-nine of these are ongoing. The bill for maintaining huge stores of weapons and some 70 million people in uniform currently stands at $1.7 trillion a year. Of these wars, over 85 percent are not settled on the battlefield; they are fought to desperately hurting stalemates, eventually being turned over to diplomats and politicians who go in search of whatever face-saving outcomes may still be available. And yet, abandoning the conference table in favour of the battlefield is still justified when viewed as a last resort.
In this brave and discerning book, Ernie Regehr, OC, explains the approaches and initiatives needed to steer away from the futility of global military effort. Combining four decades of experience in conflict zones, advising and leading diplomacy efforts, building NGOs and contributing to the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect Act by the World Assembly, Regehr boldly shows that political stability will never be issued from the barrel of a gun.
In this brave and discerning book, Ernie Regehr, OC, explains the approaches and initiatives needed to steer away from the futility of global military effort. Combining four decades of experience in conflict zones, advising and leading diplomacy efforts, building NGOs and contributing to the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect Act by the World Assembly, Regehr boldly shows that political stability will never be issued from the barrel of a gun.
232 pages, Hardcover
First published October 15, 2015
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 9, 2015
While I appreciate Ernie Regehr's largely new views on the idea that there is an alternative to conflict/war - I have a hard time fully accepting the premise that all recent conflict can be solved the same way. It sounds too "cookie-cutter." While it is easy for a reader to understand that the vast majority of wars in the past twenty five years have ended in negotiations for peace - it might not always be the case. Anyone who fought the Nazi's in the Second World War and would have never considered negotiating for peace with Hitler. While I can attest that this is an extreme case, it can me made numerous times, - Pol Pot, and Stalin, just to name two examples. (Albeit Stalin not being a great one as the Allies aligned with the Soviet Union during WW2)
Regehr largely only discusses six wars throughout the entire book - Iraq-Kuwait, Iraq-Iran, Yugoslav Wars & Kosovo, Iraq (2003), Afghanistan, and the Sudanese Civil War. Of the nearly 100 wars in the past quarter century - these six largely fit his thesis - and hence why it appears to be too much a singular solution. The Book does not discuss some of the greater conflicts of human history; and Regehr does not address when he believes force is necissary.
Is force used too often? Yes, I can agree to this point; but I do not believe ISIS can be dealt with at the negotiating table - which is how Regehr appears to lean.
One of the strongest points in the book - on Pg 107 - Military Force can succeed when it has the supporting political climate and social institutions to sustain its gains. This was totally seen in Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan. The gains gained by the coalition forces were hard-fought to keep because there was no institutions to maintain them.
Very little new information with regards to Nuclear disarmament and the NPT; much of the same ideas that are already prevalent.
Perhaps it is the historian in me, I was looking for a deeper analysis of conflict. This book largely only skims the surface of the conflicts it discusses; which is understandable, as each conflict can (and does) have multiple books dedicated to themselves. So perhaps anyone with a deep historical understanding of conflict might feel the same.
Despite this, as it may appear largely as a criticism - this topic still needs to be discussed - and it is very worth a read.
Regehr largely only discusses six wars throughout the entire book - Iraq-Kuwait, Iraq-Iran, Yugoslav Wars & Kosovo, Iraq (2003), Afghanistan, and the Sudanese Civil War. Of the nearly 100 wars in the past quarter century - these six largely fit his thesis - and hence why it appears to be too much a singular solution. The Book does not discuss some of the greater conflicts of human history; and Regehr does not address when he believes force is necissary.
Is force used too often? Yes, I can agree to this point; but I do not believe ISIS can be dealt with at the negotiating table - which is how Regehr appears to lean.
One of the strongest points in the book - on Pg 107 - Military Force can succeed when it has the supporting political climate and social institutions to sustain its gains. This was totally seen in Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan. The gains gained by the coalition forces were hard-fought to keep because there was no institutions to maintain them.
Very little new information with regards to Nuclear disarmament and the NPT; much of the same ideas that are already prevalent.
Perhaps it is the historian in me, I was looking for a deeper analysis of conflict. This book largely only skims the surface of the conflicts it discusses; which is understandable, as each conflict can (and does) have multiple books dedicated to themselves. So perhaps anyone with a deep historical understanding of conflict might feel the same.
Despite this, as it may appear largely as a criticism - this topic still needs to be discussed - and it is very worth a read.
Displaying 1 of 1 review