On The Subject of Justifiable Wars

Commentary, Executive Papers, Truthiness Comments (1)

Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came …. Fondly do we hope — fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. – Abraham Lincoln

 

There are wars of oppression, there are wars of liberation, there are wars of pure conflict and wars of simple hate, and of course, wars of greed. Basically the 7 deadly sins (to use an Anglo Saxon analysis) provide us with a reason to war.

 

Religion itself does not cause war. Most religions that are for serious consideration actually are against killing, especially the mass killings that wars are based on. Those who war using religion do so have more fundamental reasons than “religion.”.., but without being so esoteric, and limiting the scope to the last 10 years, then yes, it has been the single greatest reason we are currently warning on this planet.

 

The problem now is that war is a political tool, used for political purposes. No more is it to save oneself or someone else; thou that is a reason general given by politics. Those who are more powerful recognize the first purpose, the oppressed last’s chance for hope, or to stop and injustice, and instead sometimes threaten that /very/ injustice to get what they want. This is where we are now.

 

Background: An Eye for an Eye.

 

The theory of an eye for an eye is both liberating and constraining. Simply examined, it states:you hurt me and I must hurt you as well; however, in truth it says also: you may not take any more than I have harmed you. The one that lost the eye would want more, revenge, but he cannot. He is prevented from taking more than an eye. In effect, and eye for an eye limits response action, so that the action does not escalate into war. Such is the theory of “responding in Kind or ” a proportional response.” which is where it should end, but humans have no limiter, which is why certain wars have gone for 100-800 years, each side escalating more and more, without a limiter.

 

First, what is a justifiable war, and why start one?

 

Justifiable War, case 1 – The perfect case: to Fight Oppression.

 

When is war justifiable? Classically, when all means of communicating with the oppressor, all means of diplomatic, or negotiation or even sometimes begging for the situation to change, has resulted in no reprieve, and the injustice that continues, and will continue, unless steps are taken. That is the classic defination which defines when war should be used.

With this classic definition, war is supposed to be the last bastion of hope, and the last act of definace for the oppressed, the abused and the downtrodden. It is with this act (war), this reverting to the base nature of man, of kill or be killed, that man who calls himself civilized must return to his animal roots to change his situation.

 

However, without the limiter of an eye for an eye, and another limiter: the end does not justify the means, then even a justifiable war, can quickly spiral into traded revenge. This case, fighting oppression, can be corrupted, when those who are fighting oppression state any means of continuing said war or even winning said war, is acceptable; including immoral actions such as the total extermination of the other combatant(s), without being under such direct threat themselves, or to directly involve non combatants who want to escape. To be truly justifiable then, response has to be proportional to threat and the end cannot justify the means.

 

Justifiable war, case 2 – The Resources War – Justifiable, but not always moral

In it’s second incarnation, war became a way to improve one’s situation thru some violent means. Wars wars of “land and personal acquisition” were common. Taking land and resources was quicker by war, than growing or cultivating it oneself. The threat of war (using the defination above) generally meant the war would stop if some neogation of give and take happened: Give me 4 barrel’s of hay and I will not have to take it.

 

This type of war would be justifiable if the second party was being stopped from gaining hay they needed, or their people were starving by the first party, however, most times, its just that the waring party was too lazy to actually gain the resources themselves. Not being able to gain said resources because it’s being kept from you is an oppression and is justifiable. Let us not confuse the two. This type of war is about taking resources, or fighting over limited resources, instead of finding another way.

 

It is said, when gas runs low, these war of resources will be common, as one faces the collapse of one’s society. These are governmental wars, where those we’ve given power to, (governments) generally must take what they need so that they can remain stable. All governments, like people, are self preserving and faced with annihilation -even ideological annihilation – will act to defend itself.

 

Unjustifiable war, the political tool?

 

The above is a question, because here is where war becomes more ambigious. Wars to change someone’s mind, either a leaders or a country becomes a political tool. Ergo, why a religious war is just another example of a war of politics. Even if the reason is justifiable under the reasons above, if you are not the affected party, it is a political tool. It relies on men to convince other men that something must be changed, and the only way to do so is by violence. . Let us not avoid the counter intuitiveness of a political war (or a third party war). It basically states, we promise to harm you, so that you shall stop harming others. Aka, more pain than you can stand.

 

It is the rare political war that is justifiable. It is a rare country, man, or being, who can indeed carry on a political war, and remain moral. The immortality of those you fight, changes those who fight, and sometimes, they see the only way to continue is to utterly destroy their foe, so the world would not be bothered by them again.

 

Summation

 

War in the past, no matter the reason, has been worse than those in the present, save the modern day wars of extermination. In the past, such wars have involved killing every living single thing the warriors ran across; Razing and area, after everything was taken and depleted was common as dirt. The common justification? What you cannot carry, should not be left for your enemy and a person left alive, would harbor revenge in their hearts, and be a thorn later on.

 

Fighting over limited resources is evolution and darwinian, and thou it is tragic, it is how things are. We as humans can usually come up with ways around the resource gap if given enough time and such ingenuity has made our society prosperous.

 

Taking something that doesn’t belong to you is just robbery and is no reason to go to war. There has to be another way to safe guard yourself or your people than to force someone to give you what you need, unless they are being oppressive about it.

Politics starts more wars than it stops. To Politics wars are a political tool, and ends up carrying with it the weight of lives lost for nothing gained except a new political reality.

 

The problem now is that war is a political tool, used for political purposes. No more is it to save oneself or someone else; thou that is a reason general given by politics. Those who are more powerful recognize the first purpose, the oppressed last’s chance for hope, or to stop and injustice, and instead sometimes threaten that /very/ injustice to get what they want. This is where we are now.

 

Am I for war or against it? I believe there are too may dictators, and genocide is allowed to continue for far too long before we do anything about it. I believe in if we are hurt, we shall hurt you 10 fold in return, and I believe in the Darwinians of it all. I don’t however believe that all dictators can be stomped out by a wash of marines, and those who are willing to commit genocide have way too much hate to be negotiated with.

 

And thus, I also believe in Snipers.

 

OceansOfThought @ January 28, 2008