War, huh, yeah, what is it good for?

Slick’s room, Monday 23 May, 22:42

Good evening readers, and congratulations on making it through the Rapture on Saturday. Now, with all of the crazy evangelicals out of the way, we can get on with life between now and the apocalypse in a few months in peace.

In light of the smouldering fires of conflict which burn extra brightly in the world just lately, it behooves us to ask, what exactly is war good for?

Well, therein lies the rub surely. If history teaches us anything, it is that war is as ingrained an aspect of the human psyche as love and religion. The question of course is, is this a good- or even an acceptable- state of affairs? And, tangentially to a discussion of wider human conflict- war, it is important to consider the parallels with smaller scale violence and inter-personal conflict.

As usual, I shall set the dialectic off by giving a brief outline of my own feelings, philosophy, intuitions etc. I am, as those of you who know me can readily attest, a lover, not a fighter. Cliche’s aside, I have an almost perversely non-combative nature, generally favour diplomacy and reconciliation over combat and retribution, and consider physical violence the first resort of the ignorant, and the absolute last resort of any true gentlemen. That being said, I am neither a pacifist nor a conscientious objector- if I determined that physical violence was the only solution to a problem (I.e. myself, a friend or someone who seemed to me to be helpless was in imminent physical danger from someone) I like to hope I would act quickly and decisively to end the threat. Similarly, I believe that, while war should be the last resort of any civilized nation, there are parallel reasons why war might become not only permissible, but necessary- i.e. a concrete threat to oneself, an ally or (perhaps more controversially)a “defenceless” third party.

Now hopefully everything I’ve said so far is considered a reasonable, if not self-evidently the most reasonable position.  Equally, I’m sure the extreme pro-war position (i.e. war as totally acceptable practice for, say, expanding one’s national borders) is, in this mostly civilised age, to be abhorred. However, i’d like to go a step further and claim that the other extreme- absolute moral pacifism- is almost as bad, in its own way. The problem with the absolute pacifist- the person who disagrees with my philosophy as outlined above, claiming instead that physical violence and its older brother, war, are never the only solution to any problem- is an almost wilful naiveté about humanity and reality which can have disastrous consequences. In failing to realise that sometimes physical conflict, on a personal or national level, is necessary, the pacifist is merely strengthening the position of those who use violence to exert their will over others- essentially, pacifism is a form of surrender (except when Ghandi does it. But most people don’t have his talent for passive resistance and lapse instead into just plain old passivity.) But more than this, the pacifist, personal or national, makes of himself/his country a burden on others who consider it a moral duty to defend the defenceless. In submitting to someone who intends to inflict violence upon you, you give neutral parties two choices: a) intervene, despite their reservations or b) allow it to happen, thus tacitly condoning the initial act of violence- neither of which is particularly palatable. Pacifism is the default state  of affairs in a perfect world, but here in our imperfect world it is positively dangerous.

The Theoligian Aquinas outlined three criteria which, in his opinion, rendered a war just: firstly, and most problematically, a just cause (i.e an unselfish, noble reason for war), a rightful intention (to be honest I can;t really see how this is different- except perhaps that a rightful intention simply guards against the original Just Cause being perverted or used a as mere front) and the authority of a legitimate political entity- in Aquinas’ day, the sovereign, but more aptly these days the will of the people. Again, nothing particularly controversial here- except of course, that everyone will always disagree over what may be considered a “just cause”- for example, is avenging a perceived, grievous slight against one’s faith a just cause? I would obviously say nor, but, sadly, there a re many who disagree.

Of course, the last of these criteria- that war be conducted only by “rightful;” political entities- dramatically complicates an already thorny, though very current issue- Civil War. Here, the waters become incredibly murky- who is the aggressor, and who the victim? Does the moral duty to protect the defenceless overrule our modern political convention of non-interference? In any case, in a rising of the masses, who (if anyone) is deserving of support? Are the rebels genuine freedom fighters, or are they simply populist terrorists? Obviously, these questions have no easy answers.  As the recent string (or maybe at this point it’s more of a rope) of rebellions, riots and full-scale wars in Africa and the Middle-East have shown, the right course of action is elusive and difficult, where it is even possible. I must confess, I am actually too ignorant of the world, and the uprisings in question, to say much more.  But I shall try anyway.

– In any sufficiently large popular uprising, the benefit of the doubt should lie with the rebels- if sufficient numbers of ordinary people are motivated to take a violent stand against the well-equipped government, there is likely to be fire behind the smoke- as is the case with Libya. It seems apparent to a casual observer, like myself, that this kind of uprising is the result of long and brutal oppression.

– That being said, I do believe that all countries have… let’s call it a qualified duty of non-interference. Except to secure basic human rights (which I suppose is half the issue), it is wrong to interfere in the governing of a sovereign nation, regardless of how you feel about the way they go about things. For example, I consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women, homosexuals and religious minorities abhorrent, but would never suggest armed intervention to correct it- otherwise we would all be at the mercy of whichever country proved itself strongest and most convinced of its own moral superiority *hint: it’s America*

– Ultimately, history has show that the masses tend to get what they want in the end. Sure, they can be oppressed, often for long periods of time, but I think that, if nothing else, the recent uprisings have sown us that the human urge for freedom dies very hard indeed. As Thomas Jefferson said ” A government should fear it’s people, not the other way round”

Peace and love,

Slick