The fallacy, as far as I can tell is employing a faulty rhetorical device to drive a dialogue, i.e. 'false pretense'.
Usually the word fallacy is reserved for a mistake made within the context of a logical arguent. Since this article was not making an argument but answering a specific question, that is, "what is philosophy," how could the rhetorical introduction to that answer be a fallacy. Even if you totally disagree with the introductory thesis (which says, "rhetorically," "the world generally exhibits bahavior which is both irrational and self-desructive and the cause of that inexplicable behavior is the absence of sound philosophy"), how would that contradict the discription of the nature of philosophy that follows. Even if you believe the world is a perfectly sane place and the behavior of all its denizens are perfectly rational and there is no need for philosophy at all, that would not make the description of philosophy itself different in any way.
I may be mistaken about this, but I believe you had the impression the author was arguing against war in the sense the usual pacifist does, and that impression misled you somewhat about where the article was going. I can understand how you got the impression, and I too would have been put off by it, if my original impression had been what I believe yours was.
I suspect, if we really understood each other's essential principles, we would not really be in disagreement on this, or at least not very much disagreement. I do admire your strong sense of contempt for the illogical and for liberals (which are usually the same thing), even if we disagree on everything else.
Hank