“Is war ever truly a solution?” sounds like a misguided question. For something to be considered a solution, it has to be accepted as one first. So, there we go. Right in the first premise, the act of war fails to be a solution. Sane people all over the world understand the power of “the pen over the sword. “Not because intellectual argument and thoughtful confrontation with a problem is inherently better than violence, but because many don’t understand the purpose behind violence. “Why choose war?” is an important question many don’t even think about before stepping down on the battlefield. Violence without any significant purpose is mere bloodshed. A game of revenge, power play, and political supremacy that only justifies animalistic revenge.
In my opinion, a war truly becomes a solution only if it creates a worldview where no wars take place again in the future. Now, many critics would oppose my statement, calling it “naive utopian thinking.” So be it. Majoritarian thought in the history of humanity has always downplayed the importance of idealism in favour of pragmatism. Except that the pragmatism most talk of isn’t true pragmatism. It is a clever psychological defense supporting the comfort and stability that come with minimal change. And, of course, personal benefit. When I benefit from a system, however harmful on a collective scale, why should I bother worrying about the greater? Remember, people who are glorified today for all the changes brought, started off their journeys for reasons we would deem impractical. But only in retrospect do we begin to value them. “History repeats itself,” though cliched, stands true here.
Wars should actually be collectively held as the option of last resort. When nothing works, let necessary violence guide the way. In such a situation, the ones initiating or leading the war understand its significance, what it should achieve, and what it should dethrone. But many take up war as the “go-to” option. Often, political leaders, global heads, who let loose the dogs of war don’t do so because they have a greater ‘noble’ cause in mind. Had they truly worried about humanitarian causes, their rational conscience would never have allowed them to pick up swords. Rather, the order for the launch of missiles in the 21st century. Often, it’s about the lame pseudo-logical claim of the “survival of the fittest. ” To understand why this sounds logical to many but is just a cleverly framed rhetoric wrapped in the garb of deceptive logic, we must separate what differentiates culture from nature.
The animal world organizes itself in line with the constraints and directions of biology. Think about all the activities most animals engage in. All of these activities are not different from robotic programming except for the emotions animals experience. Animals don’t have protests and revolutions every twenty years. Animal hierarchy is completely dependent upon physical might. “Survival of the fittest” works here. The food cycle and the food web work under the influence of physical prowess. Humans don’t dominate the food cycle; rather, we are outside it because our intellectual capacity allows us to control our diet. Generally, cows feed on grass. But humans are scientifically omnivores. Some eat meat, some only eat veggies and animal products, while others confine themselves to a fruit diet only. Someone who eats only fruit isn’t doing so because there is something significantly different about their genetic encoding. Biology doesn’t compel humans to fast. But some do, some don’t. What’s the driving force here? The capacity for intellectual ideation that helps us transcend the limits of biology in certain ways. However, remember that biology does still act as the foundation for every intellectual change we choose to bring about. This is what ideas can do. To summarize this argument, lions are without exception carnivorous. However, homo sapiens’ biological capacity makes us omnivorous. But we still have vegans. And some who only survive on water. The former is nature, while the latter is culture. Nature expands possibilities; culture controls them. Had the “survival of the fittest” claim worked for humans in the culture we live in, which rests on collective ideas we believe in, then slender creatures with relatively minimal muscle mass would not have dominated the globe.
War takes place because neither side is open to the opinions of the other. It’s a classic example of “us versus them” thinking. I am right, and so is my group. The wrong is wrong because of the group they are in. Switch sides and take refuge in the hands of righteousness. Keep your ego aside and work toward a solution that may come with some compromise but avoids unnecessary bloodshed. However, if you deem your cause to be more morally upright than the other’s cause, not because you are rational, but because you can’t afford to lose, then order a naval blockade, launch missiles, give nuclear attack threats, and restrict trade, and the problem is solved. Before another ego clash or monetary gain becomes appealing.
Stockpiling weaponry and technological advancement to combat newer forms of warfare is necessary for defense. But that’s it. It stops there. It ideally should. But in the name of defense, we attack countries to assert power, take the lives of people who aren’t responsible for the conflict, and celebrate death. Sounds dystopic? It should.
Violence has truly achieved its goal if it emerges victorious in what it claims to achieve. A solution. Remember, the solution isn’t wiping out the ‘enemy.’ It is creating a collective mindset that certain ideas that harm humanity must be eradicated. The solution operates in the realm of ideas. So by just killing people, no one achieves much because your ‘enemy’ in the present is gone for sure, but the breeding ground for more such ‘enemies’ remains intact. That breeding ground is ideology. That ideology has to change. If you want to wage a war against terrorism, for instance, then sure, it starts with the people under accusation. But this can’t go on for centuries. We have to harbour a collective belief, much like feminism, that the idea of terrorism not just harms the victim, but it makes the perpetrator a victim of toxic belief too.
This is when we come closer to a solution, if not fully reach one. “Is war ever truly a solution?” My say, it depends on what counts as a solution.
Leave a Reply