Thanks very much to Kendra for thinking up this idea. It’s very creative. I didn’t even know someone could post on another blog. My post today is going to be rather hippie, I think. That means, in Southern tongue, very idealistic. I’m going to ask all of the readers of this post to bear with me, because I’m going to look at an issue in a different way that it is usually looked at.
It seems as though destruction is as deeply rooted in human nature as the desire to create. Or, more specifically, the desire to fight at least is programmed into human nature. And these fights range from striking your little brother’s head to soaring over an enemy nation and watching a city disappear after the press of a button. But in modern ages, and in civilized countries, we like to say we are more sophisticated. We don’t go to war over land, power, or even religion. No, don’t be silly. We just go to war for money and politics. Well, that may be a little harsh, but one can argue that economics were a huge factor in every United States war. But so many countries have been saying that we go to war because we have to. It’s the last resort, but it’s necessary.
Is it? Believe me; I’ll continue that argument later.
For now, I want to clarify that there is a difference between cowardice and despising war. So many bumper stickers, (although practically all political bumper stickers beat up on another political group,) and blunt conservatives say that liberals are afraid. They say that pacifists are afraid. They say that those who don’t like war are afraid. Is this true? In some cases, most definitely. But does this mean all liberals and anti-war activists are afraid? No! What is so terrible about hating hate? What does cowardice have to do with being brave enough to try peace? I think sometimes those who dislike war and do something about it are the truly brave ones. They are brave enough to try to find an alternative to war.
Moving onto another topic, many have received the impression that war is the only way to peace. The true irony of this thought would make me laugh if it wasn't so serious. There is no such thing as forced peace. If this was true, and America has been overwhelmingly strong for this long, how come there are no results? No peace? To try to achieve peace through war is to shout at another nation, “Stop! Don’t hurt anyone else! Be peaceful or we’ll blow you to bits! Be peaceful or we’ll kill you all!” It just doesn’t work. Peace isn’t found through hate or even through a war stirred by truly good intentions, if that is possible. Peace is inspired, not forced, by trust, friendship, and the ability to forgive and forget. (I was about to say love, but that would sound too cheesy. I doubt the world will all hold hands and sing “Kum-ba-ya” anytime soon.
Another thing! In my opinion, war is almost the same as it has been since the beginning of time except with more powerful weapons. Imagine a caveman used to fighting with sticks and stones, suddenly with WMDs at his disposal. Well, what I’m trying to say is that it is becoming far too easy to kill. (Killing inflation: imagine that!) Ever since the Revolutionary War, it is no longer necessary in battle to see the death of the person you shoot. One no longer watches while a man with a knife through his heart dies a slow, pain-filled death. One watches a speck be shot, and remain a speck. One sees sky through the window of an airplane before and after they drop a bomb and kill tens of thousands. If it was ever “too easy” to pull a trigger, it is outrageous how “easy” it is to kill now. Imagine that thousands of just died because of your mission, and you haven’t given it a second thought. Now, I’m not blaming soldiers. I think soldiers are incredibly brave, patriotic, and even selfless. I just think they’re serving the wrong intentions.
I’m almost finished! I have finally gotten back to the question, “Is war necessary?” And I’ve decided. Sometimes. Oh, that word made me cringe. Realism sometimes makes you cringe, doesn’t it? I think in this modern age, sometimes war is impossible to avoid. I do think that war is far too often NOT NECESSARY. Look at Switzerland. It’s in a neighborhood of countries which have been constantly at war in history. It has remained pacifist. No! It is not impossible to avoid war! For so many countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, it is impossible. But for America? Think! America has put so much effort into an unbeatable offense we have neglected to put effort into an impenetrable defense.
Politicians tell us war is always a last resort. Is this true? Wouldn’t it be rather easy for America to remain pacifist if it didn’t decide to make war on certain countries unnecessarily?
In conclusion, sometimes I think you have to look at war like a child would. Why is it that when a city of tens of thousands of people is swallowed by flame, only the children cry? Why is it that when thousands are slaughtered by flame and gunfire just like the snap of a finger that we can still crack a smile? When will we raise above war? Thanks again to Kendra for letting everyone post on her blog. Thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You make a good point in saying that it takes bravery to NOT go to war, but in many cases, it takes foolishness as well.
ReplyDeleteI do not mean to offend or flame, but I found your view of our armed forces at the same time arrogant and naive. To act as if you know the thoughts of our soldiers, and to then claim that they do not care about the lives they have to take in order to protect YOURS, seems to me, to be the epitome of ingratitude. No disclaimer of how you “think soldiers are incredibly brave, patriotic, and even selfless” will disguise what you really meant. Personally I will always be grateful to the men and women who endure such terrors as war provides in order to ensure I will never have to. I believe that most if not all veterans who endure combat come home scarred for life by the things they had to do to stay alive, and I know that if I were in their shoes, I be haunted for the rest of my life by what was done out of necessity.
I know that every American thinks they know everything going on in their own country and in the rest of the world, but in reality, what looks like a simple decision to you due to the fact that you know only a fraction of what there is to know, could very easily be a messy complicated issue for our President, who knows a GREAT deal more than we ever will.
Yes, if everyone would agree to stop fighting, there would be no need for fighting. This is kind of obvious. Also kind of obvious is that we will NEVER EVER get everyone to stop fighting. So if all the “good” people lie down and refuse to fight, that leaves the evil people free to do whatever they want, free to ensure the good people will never be ABLE to fight, even if they change their minds.
Good post! I enjoy hearing your comments and posts.
ReplyDeleteAs Einar said, I would agree with you 100% if it were possible. I would say that the war is not necessary, but but I probably wouldn't get a chance before a nuclear bomb was hurled at me by some terrorist..
I believe that America is at war not offensively, but defensively. The terrorists brought it upon themselves, and the innocent people around them.
Thanks for posting!!
~Kendra
First off, Einar I found your comment a little harsh and offensive. It seems like you and Bard can't just be like Kendra or Liberty and express your views not so harshly. Anyway, I think it's important to know that I really don't believe in the existence of true good vs. evil. It's an interesting literature architype, but it just doesn't exist. Also, in this day and age, soldiers don't even know who they're shooting at. Most is done through snping from a distance as this has proven to be safer than combat. Althopugh some are scarred, not all are and some actually enjoy it. I once talked to one who did, and it was a little weird.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I was talking about. I find it incredible that people can enjoy freedom bought with someone else’s blood, and then accuse that person of being callus or coldhearted. Why don't you join the military, kill a terrorist, and then see how easy it is to cope?
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that there are weirdoes who join the military, but they are CLEARLY the exception, and not the rule. Yet you, as usual, refuse to see the good, and focus on ONE person you know, who would obviously be an unstable jerk even if he were not in the military.
It never ceases to amaze me how ungrateful anti war protestors can be, if you don’t want war, that is fine, take it up with your representatives in the government. But don’t take it out on the warriors who are bleeding and dying for you, that is just plain wrong.
Einar: Like I commented in Alex's post above, what do we acheive by offending each other? I'm not calling you childish, but I will call the action of being personal during a debate childish.
ReplyDeleteI said very explitictly during my post that I do not blame shoulders. The phrase "I'm not blaming soldiers" at least seems to express that very clearly. Personally, I think some liberals are nuts because they pretend the soldiers are the bad guys. They're not. They're extremely brave. That's what I said! The action of war is wrong, not exactly the action of carrying it out. You'd think you were the only one who knew that soldiers can be good people.
Well, is that your philosophy? It won't happen anytime soon, so why try to stop it? The whole world will not be converted to Christianity anytime soon, but based on what I've read from you so far, I'm guessing you try very hard to change that. Personally, if no one else will, why can't we try to change it?
Kendra: Well, it was really fun and a great idea. I loved reading the other posts.
Well, you're right, it's hard to not react when nuclear bombs are being used, although terrorists don't typically use nuclear power, or at all. But I did say we could fight defensively more instead of offensively. I know it seems impossible, but how will we ever get something if no one fights for it? Almost all of the Congressman in the year 1776 said a similar thing: they would welcome American independence if it was offered, but thought it wasn't worth trying. And look how wrong they were. We need something to fight for. Why not peace as well?
I have to agree totally with Einar here. It doesn't matter how harshly he put it. He's correct. Sometimes you have to be a little harsh to get through to people. You all care too much about "feelings" and not enough about FACT.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Einar, and Kendra, that if it were possible, it would work. Just like it would work if we all agreed to stop arguing on Kendra's blog. Now is that going to happen?
If I offended you with my post Christopher, I am sorry. In my second post, I was mostly replying to Alex, I know you don't blame the soldiers, but you still seemed to say that you thought they did not consider the deaths they have to take, which is the main thing I took offence to. If you were not trying to say that, and I apologize for my misinterpretation.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend near my age who is in the military, and many older friends and relatives who fought in Vietnam, so I tend to overreact when I think someone is ignoring their sacrifice.
And for the record, there is no impenetrable defense. But a good defense combined with an offence that seeks to screen and deal with threats before they show up is very close. Until Obama began encouraging people to sue the CIA for doing their job, we had that, the best protection in the world.
Alex, thanks for including me in your comments even though I haven't said anything on this post. I am not sure what I have said that you think is so harsh, but that has nothing to do with this post (sorry if that sounds harsh).
ReplyDeleteChristopher, thanks for bringing up a great subject!
War is ugly and beautiful, unnecessary and required, outright wrong and absolutely right. That is to say the righteousness or perversion of war is dependent on the reasons for it. When war is waged to protect the innocent from the wicked, it is beautiful, required, and absolutely right. Even then, there is ugly, unnecessary, and outright wrong actions...this is hard to reconcile. We want everything to be either ugly or beautiful, but sometimes love is a reaction to hate, and that makes it all the more beautiful. The pain and suffering of Christ on my behalf is both the most wretched and the most beautiful thing there is.
So, all that to say war can be good or bad. Peace via war is not a contradiction, in the face of a violent oppressor, war is the only way to peace. Peace through war is not about forcing tyrants to be peaceful, but rather securing peace by resisting evil (sometime via war or at least the ability to wage it.)
Nuclear weapons seem out of place in this discussion because they haven't been used in over 60 years, and you can't make the case that using them was far too easy. The CIA is not particularly relevant either (IMHO).
I especially liked what you said about cowardice vs. courage. These are vital to this subject because they represent the struggle. A coward could be a general who bombs an entire village to avoid the danger of sending in his men to confront an entrenched enemy. A coward can also be a President who avoids declaring war and continues to rely exclusively on diplomatic efforts that are ineffective because war is not popular. Courage is doing what is best even when it is difficult. Courage and cowardice can be found in both soldiers and protesters, because what matters is why they do, not what they do.
Bard, the CIA was doing a good job of providing a sort of screening offence that could exist outside of war, but even that is under attack.
ReplyDeleteAlex (and slightly less so) Christopher,
even when you break things down to their most basic level, such as in sword fighting (which I know a fair bit about) a combination of offence and defense is better than just defense.
The simple fact is, if we focus on only defending ourselves, we will eventually fail, and Americans will die. Whereas if we bind a balance between the two, FEWER Americans will die. Going to war as a defensive strategy is essentially causing the enemy to die, rather than us. We see more value in American lives that we do in terrorist lives. If you see things the other way around, that is your choice, but don't try to take something you believe and force us to deal with it whether we like it or not. America was built on this foundation (we had to fight a war just to BECOME America for cryin out loud) so if you don't like it, find some like-minded people and make your own country, or move to one where their views coincide with yours. Just please stop trying to change this one.
Christopher, I know the nature of your post was not so extreme to warrant a response like this, you were mostly just expressing your personal views, which is fine, so long as you do not then proceed to tell us we need to change OUR personal views. I was mostly responding to Alex, based on what I know of him and his views.
Einar, Although I believe can see the points you are making (and the context you make them in), I have to say that it would be better to leave out comments like, "...and if you don't like it find another place to live!"
ReplyDeleteYes, the CIA has it's part to play in war. Intelligence is critical to success in war, and often in avoiding it through diplomacy. I would say the CIA would be a great subject for another post, but is a distraction from the main theme of this one.
There is such a thing as preemptive strike. If you see somebody looking at you in a malicious way, with a baseball bat raised over their shoulder, you might want to "beat them to the punch". This is called initiative and is very valuable in war. If you know you have an enemy and are sure they are going to attack (or attack again), it may be wise to the one choosing the battlefield.
In addition to this aspect of "the best defense is a good offense", you also have the morale issue. When Osama Bin Laden was interviewed and asked about defeating the US in Somalia, he had this to say:
"America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled..."
To a tyrant, a weak enemy is an invitation for attack. A successful, decisive attack against an enemy strengthen morale of your soldiers and gives your enemy pause, especially when it is in response to an attack.
No, I did not tell you to change your views. But if anything, we should not debate to declare the right answer, for there is no right answer. Personally, I posted on this blog to inspire.
ReplyDeleteBoth of you have presented valid points. However...sometimes, I think, you have to question what is realistic. Like in the case of Gandhi, there is often a way to use peace when violence is "unavoidable." Fight violence with peace. Hate with love. Isn't that what God teaches us in the Bible? Fight with peace instead of killing in response to killing, like a savage tribe would do
What I mean is, try thinking about it like a child might. Think about a thousand army men not as soldiers, but as brave and patriotic men who have families praying that they might stay alive.
And when I said I'm not blaming soldiers, I meant that. I know it sounds like I am, like I said the soldiers were the ones who are heartless, but I didn't. When I said it's becoming easier to kill, I did not at all say that soldiers don't give a second thought about it. I meant what I said. Is pressing a button on a flight not different from individually slaughtering every man, woman, and child in a city? It is. And, again. That was not an attack at the soldiers. I think people in general should adopt this mindset, not just soldiers.
I know I have spread some politically weak points in this post and comment. But I'm not talking about what we should do politically, for now. I'm not saying, "Drop everything, throw away all the guns, and let the terrorists back in if they want!" I'm saying this is a goal we need to work for. If not to have global friendship, then to prevent global destruction. We are one race--humanity.
I was heaqring most of that in your post. I didn't think you were condeming soldiers or saying we should not have a military.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that there are other ways to pursue and protect peace besides war. You might say that Ghandi waged a non-violent war.
Excellent post Christopher.
ReplyDeleteI think that America should stop trying to play world policeman. That would stop a lot of the conflicts we've gotten into in the fifty years- from Vietnam to our current 'war'. Which would be very, very good.
I hope I am not too late to comment on this. Christopher's post is possibly idealistic, but must be considered by everyone very carefully.
ReplyDeleteI would like to take this opportunity to point out that although war has not ceased, it has begun to lose some of its most horrifying aspects. In this age of warfare, there are few, if any, pitched battles. Yes, there are snipers, traps, and bombs. But so far, the death rate of soldiers is unbelievably low. That phrase about waiting to "see the whites of their eyes" reminds me of the vicious battles of a couple centuries ago, as for everyone else. But it's the high death rate of that time that impresses on me. Battles were close-range slaughters. Those who could limp away would often die of disease soon after. Death is still terrible, and our brave boys still come home with nightmares and tears for fallen brothers, but war is still not as bad as it used to be. In the old days, entire countries went to war. In those days, there was a blip in the charts with every war, as thousands upon thousands of the able men of the country died in the space of months. Economies changed, people moved, war affected the entire nation. Now, war is localized. Our whole country does not need to engage. There is no "homefront." As of today, 4,373 american soldiers have died in Iraq and 951 in Afghanistan. (Numbers from: http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Index.aspx)
That's over 5,000, and the numbers are substantially higher for the local troops, but think back to history class. How many were killed on the beaches of Normandy? Hundreds of thousands of Americans died in WWII, and millions of soldiers world wide. And that was less than a hundred years ago. Look, let's at least appreciate what we learned from the horror of WWII and Vietnam. We now do war in a way that spends high on weapons and machinery and low on human life. The terrorists have no such scruples. They strap explosives to their own men and send them into mosques, marketplaces and schools as well as against military targets.
A certain amount of hardness is needed for war. If it is personal, that hardness may be all too easy to come across. An example was given in which a father sees his child kidnapped by some men. One of them was tackled and captured. Now, that man can be questioned about the location and identity of the other criminals, and time is of the essence. How far would that father go to get that information? I'd think, pretty darn far. Anything short of torture, and maybe that with a loose definition of torture. And he'd be justified on some level. Now, consider your soldiers as your family. Consider other humans to be as precious as yourself and you'll be as willing as that to do what is necessary to protect them against the wolves that are out there.
Our enemies today are people who wish to rule through fear. Leaving them alone is not the peace we want. I have an acquaintance in Pakistan, and because I know him, I care about what happens over there. It's that sort of feeling that makes me hope for peace in his world. I'm hoping for a day when it isn't only the internet gamers or bloggers like me who meet people from all over the world on a regular basis. That is what really creates the desire for peace. Of course, this brings up the necessary step that people be able to understand each other's language.
For the men on the ground, this is almost the ideal war. It is at least less messy than anything we've had before. Politically, it's pretty messy, but on some level, I appreciate the fact that we don't have to accept this war. It doesn't truly effect the majority of Americans, although sometimes I get the impression that the war is like a pit fight which everyone is betting on. At the end of it, the fighters are beaten bloody and they only reason the audience is arguing about the merit of each bruise is because they have some political stake in *how* the fight was won or lost.