The poem ‘Two sides of War (All Wars)’ by Grantland Rice highlights the arbitrators of war. How they scheme ‘in council rooms apart’ and create arsenal meant for war. The old is said to be the arbitrators of war at the expense of the innocent young people who know little of the genesis of such atrocities. Ironically, the old are the foremost people making war instead of the young. The old are meant to be peacemakers and reconciliatory personnel whenever the young stray. The old use the young who are symbols for strength and tomorrow’s future to engage in war. They then use their energy meant to build the nation. The image brought in this piece brings forth the debate of justifying wars. The conditions are necessary to have a just war! This enlightens on the irony behind mistrust of the experienced old who allow the young to fight on behalf of their disagreements. Axiomatic justification of war hardly considers the minority before strategic plan is formulated, hence at some degree war can be just and logically, war is never justified.
When the United States under the pretense of curbing nuclear proliferation engages its army into war, is it justifiable? Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Taiwan, and Israel are the main targets of the United States. War theory has given important guidance to presidents, policymakers, and religious leaders to have upright decision-making towards war. However, queer religious ideologies have been incorporated by the old clergy people and justified killings at a certain percentage. Therefore, legislation of such rules allows a country to expand its empire on the pretext of defending the country. Such legislations are very subjective and lethal in this 21st century (Fotion 17). Critically, there are ‘conventions’ of just wars. They were made ‘in council rooms’ of the Catholic Church. Such a bizarre move by the church in the 5th century invented the Just War Theory. Today’s ‘War on Terror’ has the same format of justifying wars.
The poem ‘Dulce et Decorum Est’ by Wilfred Owen is a first-hand account of the scenario on the battlefield. The title means that it is attractive and charming when one dies for the country. According to Socrates, he may attest to the Latin saying that when a man leads a just life ‘Sweet hope is in his heart, Nurse and companion to his age …Hope, captain of the ever-twisting, Minds of Mortal Men’ (Plato 5). A life described in ‘Soldier’ by Rupert Brooke of a soldier’s wish when he dies. Plato reiterated that war is a short-lived excitement that is evoked from human interests and the main reason being; lust for material possession without any civilized morality. Plato advocated for democracy, he even referred to it as the finest of the constitution when he addressed matters concerning the republic. Plato never advocated for irrational desires which control man, like the one Wilfred shows’ sweet’ to ‘die’ for one’s country. Plato would not be a supporter of this Latin adage because it only points at the self innate interest of an individual who hardly controls them (Plato 12). As a result, the view of justifying war is sin and punishable according to Plato. Plato feared wrath from gods and ‘noble fiction’ heroes. Ironically, Plato misleads in this account. He admits that we should justly suffer in accordance with our best self-interest (Plato 22). This is to avoid judgment and wrath from unknown gods! The poem explicitly captures the effect of war on soldiers, moments of attack, and death just for the sake of the country! The ideologies formulated in ‘war manifestos’ are pleasurable to the people who pen them down in comfortable ‘rooms’ but horrific to soldiers on the battlefield. Michael Owen uses a lot of figurative languages to show the horror and reality of the battlefield. He captures the heroification and glorification of war or the justification of war! The term is an ‘old lie’ according to Wilfred Owen.
When a country engages in a ‘just war’, the only driving force is the less cost to be incurred, chances of winning, and paramount benefits after the war. This only explains how war is subjective and so much confining. It does not wholly address issues from all angles. A different form of democracy where the formulators who are the minority see the ‘just’ in wars and the majority have no say. Once a major war is waged as a last alternative, the lives of many will be in a risky situation (Fotion 46).
The deontological theory does not agree to wars under the pretext of self-defense (Fotion 142). The last three poems ‘Soldier’, ‘In Flanders Fields’ and ‘In Green Fields of France’ capture the enigmatic straddles a soldier meets on the battlefield. His is a head-on collision experience on the battlefield. Non-violent wars do not put into consideration of the ontological approach of ethics. For example, a legitimate authority is responsible to authorize war, like NATO and UN, was the Kosovo war legitimate? What about the killings? If the foremost reason for a just war is to establish peace, what about the revenged wars and self-defense? There are no elements of peace if the same tools of destruction are being used however non-violent. If the aftermath of war is peace why do these wars re-occur? Just wars attest to the fact that violence should be directly equivalent to harm caused. Shakespeare’s play “The Merchant of Venice” poses a question to the evil Shylock, how will the pound of flesh be taken exactly without extra or fewer pounds of flesh? If this is the case, then how will a prohibition be controlled on a battlefield? The generalization of using military armaments only to the combatants is unavoidable. Many deaths will occur and no alibi can be given for this under deontological approach to ethics.
Let us look at the various consequences of war. There is heft price increment in the precious oil commodity thus this brings economic crisis. The effects of war on humanity and environment are not addressed in the manifesto before going to war. Socrates made a city in his discussions about war. The city was kept safe by ‘guardians’ in this case dedicated soldiers. In his arguments Socrates would not justify war at any cost, but later he changed his approach towards and he seems to advocate for just wars. The tradition he brought across, for example, war being the last resort contradicts his earlier views of how war is only fueled by the lust and sinful nature of humanity.
Peloponnesian wars were fought to build empires and reduce threats from other countries. Socrates’ ideologies advocates for justice that bring peace and morality encompassed with friendship. He also highlights injustice that is responsible for hostilities, that is, civil battles and individual meaningless fights (Allen 82). When America goes to war and calls it ‘war on terror’ sometimes it is in a position of justification. Sovereignty of the state guards the interest of the civilians. The ‘guardians’ as created by Socrates are responsible to safeguard the citizens and control all that surrounds its borders. The 9/11 attacks were an eye-opener to the ‘guardians’ of the United States of America. This justified the mandatory inspectorate action of ‘guardians’ safeguarding the ‘republic’ according to Plato and not building an empire to control other sovereign states. ‘Enemy’ nations pose threats to America’s national security but this does not justify probing and invading, for example, invasion of Afghanistan.
The poems capture the atrocities and dangers during a battle just like Odysseus, Oedipus a legendary powerful King who led his people to many battles, Hector defending his homeland, and Peloponnesian wars (Thucydides 27). Many of the wars are quite mythological and are affected by the common interest of defense, and empire building (Sophocles 57). Aristophanes and Aeschylus were in a heated rivalry in playwright lines and ideologies about war, but their master Agamemnon is a pious man who knows more about Troy. Agamemnon is a devoted citizen according to Plato’s ideologies of a moral person. American people need to emulate several sentiments from Agamemnon. Agamemnon was a very rational man he spoke for everyone and tragically murdered.
The tragic end in this Greek trilogy has a lot of sentimental ideologies which America has to emulate. America should choose between being an empire and emulating the fine lessons learned from Agamemnon? When America leads armies to invade countries, the way Agamemnon did to Troy, a second thought should cross their mind on the losses they will incur (Thucydides 56). The justice postulated when Clytaemestra is controlled by self-interest and commits murder should be an eye-opener to the American government to think twice about just wars. Unfavorable winds will come their way and prophetically they will encounter tragic losses back in their own country like the 9/11 attacks that claimed a lot of dear lives. Thus, axiomatic justification of war hardly considers the minority before the strategic plan is formulated, hence at some degree war can be just and logically, war is never justified.
Works Cited
Allen, Mandelbaum. The Aeneid Of Virgil : A Verse Translation. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. 1987. Print.
Fotion, Nicholas. War and Ethics. New York, NY: Continuum, 2007. Print.
Plato. Republic. Trans. Grube G. Hackett Pub. Co. Hacket. (2 ed.). 1992. Print.
Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays : Antigone, Oedipus The King, Oedipus At Colonus. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin Classics. (1 ed.). 2000. Print.
Thucydides. On Justice, Power, And Human Nature : The Essence Of Thucydides’ History Of The Peloponnesian War. Ed. Paul Woodruff. Cambridge: Hacket. 1993. Print.