War Sucks

Put Afghanistan out of your thoughts for a moment. And Iraq, and Vietnam and Korea and World Wars One and Two and any nation's civil war or revolution and any other specific armed conflict between nation states and instead consider war as a real manifestation of its broader definition: armed conflict between opposing groups. Ignore for now any argument for or against the idea that a nation is justified in defending itself against violent aggression from another nation and any philosophical debate regarding the relative merits of a war of choice or a war of necessity. I don't intend to challenge your personal beliefs about any of those fine points, I'm not going to trick you into changing your mind. And, in fact, as much as I might wish that anyone who reads the words that follow will embrace my anti-war philosophy I am certain that you can read on without fear of a mind-altering experience. In fact, I strongly suspect that the next sentence you read will affirm for you that you are wise and I am but a fool.

War, friends and neighbors, sucks.

I could use a better term then "sucks", I suppose - but here in the world of the early 21st century it's one that can be widely understood. I can offer you a well thought out, intellectual argument supporting that statement. It would be full of undeniable supporting facts, numbers, and statistics. I can reference experts throughout history to buttress my points. I can appeal to your better emotions, too. I can describe atrocities - better yet, I can show you pictures and video and save myself the effort. I could crush any argument that anyone would dare to present in a feeble attempt to refute my irrefutable point: war sucks.

And I'll present that argument - the moment anyone dares to speak up in opposition and presents some intellectually or emotionally tantalizing counter to that simple, two-word truth. None but a handful of psychopathic thugs (to use a term of convenience) are likely to view war as desirable, and all but the worst of them would experience second thoughts after experiencing a few seconds of war. So I doubt that any opposing argument is forthcoming, and certainly not from anyone capable of providing coherent points that might be worth the time required to respond.

"But what of the Nazis?" you may be wondering at this point. If so, it's because you've already forgotten my first paragraph. I blame myself for failing to make it more memorable.

No one is more anti-war than the warrior, the old saying goes. But it isn't true. Enough of us mere mortals are anti-war that claiming all of us are is close to true. The degree to which one is or isn't is a point of contention, and from such disputes arguments grow. If you wish to look me in the eye and claim "I'm more anti war than you" I'll offer no words to the contrary, and will even pledge to strive to improve myself with time.

The wise and careful reader will note that in the two previous paragraphs I've accepted blame that might not truly be mine and acknowledged a willingness to avoid arguing a certain point that some might believe worth arguing. From that one might conclude that I'm a pacifist or a pushover. Were this an in-person discussion an aggressive person, were he perceptive enough to have caught those signals, might wonder just how far he could push me, what advantage he could gain. I'm an honest person, so I can provide a candid answer: that depends on the circumstances, and none that I won't yield willingly. If that response is insufficient, perhaps it's best for us both that a more specific answer remains forever unknown.

"Ahhh", the more gentle reader might conclude at this point, "he's somewhat belligerent after all." Purely in the interest of civility, I will not disagree. I will, however, assure you I will strive to improve myself with time. Continuous improvement is essential to a life worth living, don't you agree?

But forgive me, please - we seem to have gone off on a tangent. Let me restate our topic then, and we'll press on.

War sucks.

To the vast majority of humans who realize that - and perhaps more importantly to those of us who might participate in the endeavor - the question becomes how best to avoid it? There are those who say we as a nation must be powerful enough to ensure that none would dare attack us, and there are those who argue that we should oppose violence in all its forms - even as response to violence. That's not a description of two opposing camps - it's one description of the spectrum of authentic anti-war sentiment throughout humanity. Nor is there anything approaching an even split among the numbers of people in the two groups I've described - the pure pacifists are a small group at one end of the anti-war spectrum. (Though oddly enough, most people wish they could be part of that group, and many believe in some future when they - or their children - can). Proponents of "powerful enough to deter" represent a huge majority of the spectrum, with widely varying definitions of "powerful enough". Some may prefer the presence of standing armies at the ready, though their definitions of "standing" and "ready" (and "trained" and "equipped") are equally variable. Others might favor maintaining a capability to rapidly beat plowshares into swords should the need arise.

As long as we're discussing this generic anti-war spectrum, it's worth noting that with few exceptions membership in some specific group doesn't necessarily establish one's position on that spectrum. You'll find doctors and lawyers and farmers sprinkled throughout. Likewise members of opposing political factions are interspersed, and can be found sharing (often uncomfortably and frequently denied) common ground. (This is less true with regard to specific wars - but our discussion remains generic.) And while Quakers have anchored themselves firmly as pacifists, you'll find Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics all over the anti-war spectrum too - and plenty of them can provide you a valid explanation of why that particular point is the appropriate place for them to be. War sucks, after all, and they've established the best position from which to effectively deter it. To be too weak or too strong is to invite it, but right here is morally and intellectually just right.

The possible variables are endless, a two-dimensional spectrum is an oversimplified conceptual model (but sufficient for this discussion) and to further complicate the issue, no one - at least damn few people - stakes out a fixed position on that spectrum, declares themselves immovable, and occupies that spot for their entire lives. We are human, and change is in our nature.

To give one ironic example of that change point above, specific wars tend to turn some warriors into pacifists, and some pacifists into warriors. There's nothing better than experience to change our expectations, that fact of life encompasses much more than war.

Short of war, nothing prompts a reevaluation of our positions along that anti-war spectrum more effectively than the threat of war. Questions rise, we wonder if we are where we truly thought we were. Prompted by noticeable discomfort, we seek our comfort zone. Whether we shift a bit or not, we look nervously about to see who's with us, and maybe adjust a bit more. Our individual decisions are based in reason; but for some reason the whole of those reasonable decisions is chaotic and defies simple explanation. In short, what results from that shuffling will vary from case to case, but while the shuffling is predictable the end state is not. Unfortunately, if the end state is insufficiently preventative, then war will be upon us whether we like it or not.

And if you thought I was kidding, I'll say it one more time: war sucks.


End of part one. More to follow...