War is the saving grace and indispensable iniquity of the 21st century. For thousands of years, the human race has neglected to see the reality which the various wars have inflicted in our world. Or is it simply a choice which was made in vain hopes that it will bring something better in exchange? Taking into consideration the noble purpose and the tragic casualties that war produces, is it really possible for us to eradicate it?
War is considered as a game of strategy, like chess, in political philosophy. War is compared to a fire or epidemic in cataclysmic philosophy. And of course, in eschatological philosophy it is considered as a denouement of a drama if not a mission. Even so, this does not shatter the views that people have from centuries past. When one goes to war, it is considered as an act of chivalry. Act for those with noble hearts and noble intentions. War was always thought of as an outlet for aggressive intentions and instincts. War has always served a purpose of giving people a sense of action, adventure and fulfillment of their death wishes. (On War, Rapoport, 17)
In previous centuries, war was thought to be a way to fight or destroy the enemy’s army and to occupy the enemy’s capital. The basic principle involves two massive forces clashing with one another. War was attrition warfare if not a bloody enterprise wherein the winner may even take higher casualties than that of the losing party, similar to the casualties incurred by Ulysses S. Grant in the Wilderness and at Cold Harbor.
Nonetheless, this is still the same circumstances that are present during the 20th century. Not so long ago, modern technology has provided the military forces with ways in which military casualty on their side will be lessen incrementally.
Technologies such as information dominance, stealth, advanced Air and water crafts and long ranged precision strikes were utilized to incur fewer casualties. Up until now, war is still considered as an enterprise not only because of the Military power needed but also the colossal monetary investment. This is the reason behind the fall of the economy of the winning or losing party. Similar to the war in Iraq, this leaves a scar in both enemy parties economy since it is hard to get back the financial investment, but not as hard as getting back the human casualties lost during the war.
A professor of the military strategy at the Army War College, Conrad Crane says that the U.S. has been successful against the odds of war when they are able to triumphantly march through the enemy capital such as Mexico City, Richmond, Berlin and Tokyo. This is to make the enemy capital aware of the triumph of the other, and to bask in the glory which the soldiers, generals, and strategists worked so hard, to the point of death, to achieve.
On the point of view of the realists, war is simply serving the purpose of the state. The purposes of the state for engaging in war would be to preserve national interest. Long ago, St. Augustine remarked that the purpose off all war is to ultimately get peace (Adington, 1984). The personal advisor of Pres. George W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, said, “The idea that America should be guided by strategic self-interest, and that moral considerations are secondary at best.”.
This was well exemplified in the war of Iraq. Human Casualties were no longer placed on highest consideration, but instead national interest and long term peace were given top priority. This is why realism has always received unsavory connotations among the liberals and the neoconservatives who aim to liberate the oppressed. Realists were always branded as cramped, cynical and callous. In the post-Cold War era, we have been reminded of idealism which promotes both humanitarian interventionism and American values.
The Pacifists on the other hand introduces the demolition of military forces of all nations. This is all in the belief that war should be resolved in a peaceful manner such as diplomacy. Pacifists believe that International conflict should be resolved by the government without the use of military power. This is where peace talks and diplomacy comes in. According to the most powerful religious organization of our time, Christianity, we must follow the example of Jesus Christ with regards to war.
Jesus Christ being a pacifist, must be imitated by the His followers. The Church strongly believes in pacifism, that a state cannot protect its subjects or defend another state with the use of military power or with the use of violence. Pacifists believe that violence against and on behalf of a country or a government is prohibited.
With the existence of war, the world suffers in terms of economy and man power. War promotes violence, killing one another and suffering of both parties. Although it serves the national interests and gives glory to the winning party we are still to consider the losses. Even with all the disadvantages that modern day war contains, it is still impossible to eradicate it. Although the act seems thoughtless, the possible casualties were still accounted for and thought about before engaging into war. It is a measure taken only when all other options, to bring about peace, are all exhausted. In conclusion, War is an impossible evil to get rid off that has always served the purpose to bring about peace between nations.
Bibliography
Adington, L. H. (1984). War patterns since the eighteenth century (2nd Ed.). Bloomington: Indiana university press.
Cleave, J., Geddes, G. D., Griffiths, J., (2004). GCSE Religious Studies for AQA Christianity: Christianity: Behaviour, Attitudes & Lifestyles. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publisher, p. 75.
Carl Von, C. (1968). Writing on war. Middlesex, England: Penguin books, 164.
Heindel, M. (2004). The Rosicrucian philosophy. War philosophy, 2 (6), 11.
Kem, J. D. (2006). “Ends, ways and means of military transformation”. Journal of airspace and power 4 (7), 13-18.
Rawls, J. People and law. The journal of ethics. 11(2) (2007): 161-175.
Riper, P. V., and Scales, R. H. (1997). “War preparation in the twenty first century”, parameters 27 (2), 10.
Rapoport, A., (1968). ”Introduction and Notes on War”.
Weidhorn, M., (2004). “Pacifism Lost”. International Journal of Humanities and Peace 20(1): pp.13-18.