On The Issue Of War

The generalities of left and right labels continue to frustrate me, as I see my esteemed colleague, Bronson Picket, assail in his latest entry that the left sees diplomacy as a “panacea for all conflict,” and that we do not understand the necessity of war and it’s historic relevance. I have seen such sentiment from others as well.

I take issue with this as a student of at least American History if not an on-going student of World History, in that some seem to misunderstand that not only are we readily aware of the historic context of war, we are trying, desperately, to learn from it’s consequences. He cites a whole list of conflicts as if they are equal. As if the solution for one is the same for the next – and in so doing I think he misses the specifics of each situation. Yes it took war to end slavery in this country, but it did not take a war to end it in Britain – where it was no longer readily practiced and in fact outlawed in 1833. The solution for United States was war but not for England. (and of course let’s not forget our Civil War was about more then just Slavery – it was about economics)

So I find it hard to understand how war is treated with such a reverence as a solution – when it is clear from history that the same issue can be resolved by more then one means – and not necessarily with bloodshed.

Take the tension between Islam and Judaism. In the middle east, as we can see this week, this tension results in blood shed, with one side wanting the annihilation of the other and both stuck in a cycle of violence dating back not just decades but centuries. Yet in this country there is little to no violence between the followers of Islam and the Jewish people. In fact here in Los Angeles you can find a Synagogue on one corner and just down the street a Mosque and just around the corner a Buddhist Temple, all with-in a short walk from any number of Catholic and Protestant Churches.

So I find it hard to imagine that violence is the only solution inn the Middle East. And frankly I find the concept of war to be an easy and less then courageous way to go about winning. Destruction is easy. Understanding and compromise is difficult and takes humility and patience. It takes self control.

Just think about the last fight you had with your spouse – at a certain point you either reach an understanding or one side simply stops the argument to protect the larger relationship. (not to mention let’s be honest – most of the time we just want to be right until we get bored of the topic)

But that is not to say there is not a time to intervene with force against aggressive and illogical enemies. The Iraq War to kick Hussein out of Kuwait is a clear example of using force to admonish an invader and protect a weaker ally. (Of course – I would imagine it would have all been avoided had Hussein not been put into power in the first place.)

In the Gaza conflict all that needs to occur is for both sides to agree not to attack the other. That seems simplistic I know. It is. That’s why, it seems, it is so hard to achieve.

I think we like conflict too much. We have a lust for it. We revel in it. We want war to happen, even often when we say we do not.

There’s a game I used to like playing called Civilization – this computer game allows you to rule over your own civilization starting at the dawn of man and determine it’s destiny. The game has three likely outcomes as you advance along with other nations. One way to win is to build an advanced space program and launch a ship past the solar system, the other is to reach a point when the game stops calculating the score, but you can still keep playing. And the final is world domination. You destroy all other civilizations on the planet.

And like the board game, Risk, the temptation for the latter result is very high. You don’t have to look much farther then our country’s fascination with first person shooters (I was playing one on my iPhone earlier), our enjoyment of World Wrestling, our love of Boxing, the pleasure we get from a good war or spy movie….and the list goes on…we like to see things get blown up and destroyed. We like shooting the enemy- whoever it might be. We love to give into that impulse so it should be no surprise that we often turn to that impulse as an answer for every day conflict.

This is where I think there might be a clear delineation between the Republican and Democratic parties as they are currently presented. The Republicans seem to see a military solution as superior to a diplomatic one, and often do not, in my opinion at least, see the opportunities diplomacy might have achieved – as I think they do not go about diplomacy with the tact and understanding it demands.

“Win without fighting.”

According to the Canadian Army Journal, a former president of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences, aided by historians from England, Egypt, Germany, and India, came up with some startling facts and figures. Since 3600 BC, the world has known only 292 years of peace. During that period, there have been 14,531 wars, large and small, in which 3,640,000,000 people have been killed. The monetary value of the destruction would pay for a golden belt around the world 97.2 miles in width and about thirty-three feet thick. Why can’t man ever achieve peace outside of Christ? Because there isn’t any peace outside of Christ!

Soli Deo gloria - to God alone be glory

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.