<p>the topic is "when is war justified?"
Please let me know if you want to read it!</p>
<p>The Bittersweet Taste of War
War is a disruptive force that can only be justified under strict circumstances. Aristotle once said, we make war that we may live in peace. This quote shows that there is beauty in the darkness of war that can prove that war is a necessary for stability. Contrarily, Pacifists such as Mohandas Ghandi will argue that violence is never the answer and secular progression can be better supported with nonviolent approach.
While this argument between war and peace does not seem to have an impending solution, the lives that are lost as a result will forever be considered both as victims and as heroes.
If one is defending their natural rights or the freedom of their country, war may be justified. While the concept of natural rights is not explicitly defined in the same way for every person, it should be similar enough to protect an individual from oppression. For example, the African people in Darfur should not be forced to experience the genocidal attacks from the Sudanese government. Peaceful protests and negotiations have not stopped the murder and rape of innocent people. The same is true for the Jewish victims of Hitlers holocaust, where around six million people died from Nazi Germanys efforts of cultural cleansing. One bears the right to protect himself/herself against violent opposition. Ulysses S. Grant alleged that he never advocated war except as a means of peace. If peaceful measures cannot redress the issue, the issue of war is appropriate as well as justified.
The battle in Sophocless Antigone between Creon and Antigone is an example of how war is warranted on moral grounds. The obstinate Antigone felt morally obligated to bury her brother whom Creon deemed a traitor of Thebes. Overriding mortal law with divine law, Antigone chose to fight and die for what she believed was a moral decision. While the punishment of death for her actions can be considered a drastic punishment that doesnt suit the crime, Antigone did not let the threat of death deter her morals. While war can clearly be exonerated when the reason is for self defense, it is also legitimately justified when one is protecting their family.
One can make the case that war is essential as a means for a society to gain authority. Barack Obama stated that war, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned. It was
the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences. The early Assyrian Empire is historical proof of this statement. Military power supplied with war chariots and iron weapons augmented Assyrian domination; concurrently, hatred formed from brutal treatment of subject people of conquered states. Ethnocentric arrogance overshadowed the rights and equalities of the oppressed. From an Assyrian perspective, war was a defensible means of survival; to the surrounding cities, sentiments were quite the opposite. In modern times, this rationalization of war as a method of empire building is no longer a viable excuse.
For those who believe in sin, war may be one of the best examples of the evil innate nature of man. Typically, the causation of warfare can be narrowed down to a particular desire or resource that is demanded by an opposing group. On a primitive level, tribes may battle for food or hunting grounds, while larger cultures may fight over oil reserves or gold deposits. Athenian philosopher Socrates would have an interesting outtake on war and life. He once said that having the fewest wants [makes him] closest to the gods. Countering the Athenian attitude at the time, Socrates placed value on knowledge and ethics instead of material objects and physical desires. War with the sole purpose to acquire natural resources or power would not be justified by Socrates, who felt that He is richest who is content with the least. The insatiable demand for control of the surrounding lands brought about the demise of the Athenian empire.
Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War reflects the Athenian justification for going to war. Athens, leader of the Delian League, was preparing to battle the formidable Spartan Peloponnesian League. As an effort to gain support, Athenian representatives met with Melian representatives to coerce them to join their war effort. Through false promises of independence and a might makes right mentality, the Athenians pressured the Melans to pick a side. The practicality of going to war and the benefits of joining Athens did not appeal to Melans who knew chose to be neutral in the issue. Stubbornly, the Athenian ultimatum eliminated the neutral stance and claimed that Melian could either be an ally or an enemy. Since Melian remained neutral, Athens felt insulted by the inferior Melans for refusing their formal control. As a result, Athen envoys blockaded Melos, killed the men of military age and enslaved the women and children. Athens knew that justice is for those who are strong enough to legislate it- powerful countries are not denied by those of less importance- and the price was the lives of thousands of Melian people.
Another justification of war is the concept of proportionality. This theory states that the good that will result from the war must outweigh the cost. As seen in the American Civil War, the Northern Union battled the Southern Confederacy in what Lincoln described as an effort to preserve the nation as a whole. The fundamental differences of slavery and industry between the North and South caused a schism which made war inevitable. Lincoln took drastic measures, such as the Emancipation proclamation and suspending habeas corpus, to prevent the secession of Border States from joining the Confederates. He compromised his abolitionist views and aimed at rectifying the country instead of ending slavery. This view was verified when the war was over and the North stood victorious. Lincoln pardoned Confederate leaders and required only a ten percent loyalty vote under the Proclamation of Amnesty and reconstruction in 1863. While many northerners wanted the South to be punished and responsible for the war, Lincoln wisely knew that a lenient readmission policy could only provide a quicker road back to the reunification of his beloved union.
The controversial decision to go to war may not be a matter of right and wrong; rather, war is deemed appropriate or not as a function of the outcome. For example, George W. Bush reacted to the September 11th attack on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon by invading Iraq. A mournful and vengeful American sentiment flooded the nation causing many people demanding retaliation. Juxtaposed to that reason was the assumption that Iraq had of weapons of mass destruction and the effort to find Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Military Intelligence connected Hussein to terrorist group Al-Queda, presumably blaming them for the attack during 9/11. Since the weapons of such severity were never found and the war became an endless battle against the intangible enemy of terrorism, the Iraq war lost popular support. Since the initial rationale for sending soldiers to Iraq did not correlate with the reasons given at the end of the war, it is deemed in the minds of many as injudicious.
Contrarily, one can make the case that the positive outcomes of the Iraq war are sufficient enough to justify the loss of lives. Saddam Husseins totalitarian rule was responsible for the loss of countless innocent lives and needed to be brought to justice. Despite the fact that there was little evidence that connected him to Al-Queda, his demise was a progressive step in freeing the oppressed people of Iraq. Also, the deployment of soldiers in the region protected civilians against violence as well as promoted regional stability that allowed a government structure to form. Although secular discontent with American foreign policy has increased in recent years, the utilization of the American military in countries like Iraq has positively affected the lives of desperate people. Under this perspective, the war in Iraq can be substantiated.
Another example of an unwarranted war is the internal war a person can wage against himself/herself. The song War for Your Mind by the band Flobots provides examples of how the media fuels this internal battle that causes major health concerns such as eating disorders and drug abuse. This type of war is irrationally justified by the individual, who is burdened with the pressures of contemporary society and the idealized images on television. The song explains that people are victims of silicon shrapnel who are controlled by industry insiders like puppets on marionette strings. The images of beauty, success, and perfection are somewhat distorted by American culture, leading to self inflicted punishments for not being equal to these standards. Suicide and depression plague the contemporary youth who battle with themselves and die from preventable and unnecessary deaths.
History has an uncanny tendency to repeat itself and people often repeat mistakes theyve made in the past. The mistakes made by the early imperialistic empires such as the Assyrians and the Athenians are less likely to reoccur, whereas the oppressive actions exemplified by Nazi Germany under Hitler and the Sudanese government in Darfur are current issues that have not been rectified. Socrates blames the intrinsic envy that corrupts human nature which occasionally fuels the rationale behind war. These mistakes and the intentions behind the decision to go to war are controversial and debatable- one can say that justification depends on perception. Conversely, those battling for their freedom and in self defense clearly have a descent reason for war. Regardless of the circumstances, a Socratic approach should be taken to evaluate the situation so necessary measures to prevent war can be taken.</p>
<p>Read the whole thing and I still don’t know when you believe war is justified. It needs to be tighter and better organized. You’re arguing a point (I’m assuming) not giving a history lesson.</p>
<p>The intro is just terrible. Admissions officers are going to skim this thing. The only sentence that will get read in its entirity is the first. You really need to pull them in so that when they skim they’ll be more inclined to pay closer attention.</p>