The statement above may not be easily answered by yes or no because those men who had been key players in planning and waging the war were all great men whose principles are as a great as their courage to risk their lives in battle. Nevertheless, war is destructive to both lives and property and perhaps there may not have any justifiable objectives can satisfy every wife who lost her husband, every mother who lost her son, or the children whose future become bleak because their father were taken from them, who died in war just like a mosquito.The question that probably deserves answer is who can understand the legitimacy of war? Were all those soldiers who had risk their lives really understood what they were fighting for or they were simply obeying orders from their superiors who were also following those who are above them? If this is the case, it turns out that only a handful of people really understand the legitimacy of war. Paul M.
Edwards writes: “There had been many false hopes during the war. There had been many changes of policy as well as decisions made and then reversed.There had been several promises of getting home by Christmas. All involved had received a great deal of false information about who was involved and what they were fighting for.
When the firing actually stopped and the troops were free to stand upright and move around, they were certainly grateful of the relief. But they were not overjoyed” (p. 5). Legitimizing war Perhaps, the man who really understood the legitimacy of war is the medieval philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli who was one of the more famous of the early advocates of war.
Machiavelli according to Edwards, viewed war as a political tool, it is a means of “maintaining and expanding the influence of the state” (p. 5). Machiavelli’s view of war has long been held by early great powers such as Greece and Rome and by early twentieth century great powers such as Germany and Japan. However, Edwards noted that the history of war in numerous occasions shows the legitimating of war as fulfilling God’s will. Edwards stated: “The history of war shows the numerous occasions during which war has been legitimized by an affirmation that the ultimate goals were determined by God or had some divine inevitability.
If the goals are seen as a necessary response to the call of God and the victorious achievement of those goals as fulfilling His will, then the success in battle is divine. That is, victory illicit God’s pleasure. Such a belief makes limited peace appear a violation of God’s will, thus likely to invoke divine displeasure” (p. 6) But this legitimating of war can hardly be accepted by the innocent victims. The damage and destruction caused by war to lives and properties would be in sharp contrast with one of the main attributes of God, which is Love.
The question therefore is how a loving God can allow unbearable atrocities committed in order to fulfill His will. War certainly cannot be an instrument to achieved peace unless probably if all nations on earth will be put into one government in which the ruler is genuinely committed to achieving universal peace. But this may be is next to impossible if not impossible it self. Thus, legitimizing war in terms of fulfilling God’s will not be appealing to all since the idea does provide damage than advantage.
For most people in the modern era, war in view of human involvement is a kind of disease, which is something that cannot be avoided. Graham Charles Kinloch and Raj P. asserts that war is legitimize as a highly regulated kind of killing, as a violence that either attacks or depends. Human involvement in war may not really be like a disease but war it self is a cancerous disease that spread across contaminated nations. Its main complication is genocidal violence directed against specific victims.
Kinloch and Raj P. Mohan explain: “Genocidal violence must be regarded as an independent type of violence, that is, a variety that can take many forms of violence but is necessary accompanied by specific, clearly defined motivation—annihilation” (p. 44). However, Edwards has a different concept about war, in which he views it as a choice. He stated, “That a nation might decide to wage less than total war and, in fact, managed to limit the war, it suggests that war is not a disease but rather a choice that can be avoided” (p.
6).Edwards further explains that war is nothing but a political instrument being justified as god-ordered or disease infected by many organizations for the regulating of national and international systems. Machiavelli explained that behind the value presented as the cause of war, there are people behind who support it primarily to take on goals (Edwards, p. 6). This view amplifies the statement of Edward that war is just an instrument of bigger organization for a purpose of regulating something.
On the other hand, those people who engage in war find it as a legitimate one because of the immediate value attached to it.Thus, war is seen as a legitimate means of maintaining peace than as a result of external forces, mystical movements, or divine values. Basically, nations enter into war in anticipation of gaining or preventing something without realizing the greater motives behind the mind of its executors. Some Views on the Values of War Speaking of the value of war, Ronald Glossop emphasized some positive values of war in human kind based on the thesis published by Thomas Malthus at the end of the 18th century. Citing on the thesis, first, he noted the rapidly increasing population that tends to “out grow food supply” (p. 97).
Malthus sees war as a device by which human population can be checked. Glossop, however, argued that warfare has not been the major force in controlling human population growth but disease. Second, Malthus claims that war “improves the genetic quality of humans because it provides a means by which the less skilled and less cooperative members of human society are killed or disgraced while the better warriors win mates and produce offspring” (p. 97).
Although this has been disputed by Glossop but at least it gives us idea of the value of war.Third, it contributes to the development of new technology that is beneficial to human being. Glossop cited the view that war stimulates the pace of invention and social change: “Societies tend to get ruts and continue doing things in the same old way until some crises, such as war, forces them to adopt a more efficient social and production system, to do without some resources to which they are accustomed, or to be creative in the development of new weapons. Progress require challenges, and war serves as the most intense kind of challenge to the society as a whole” (p. 98).Although Glossop refuted all this view on the positive values of war, it cannot be denied that war indeed may have served some good for the international community of nation and it provide an opportunity for heroism and an occasion for our most impressive behavior.
But all this are shallow bases compared to the damage that it brings to human kind. They simply cosmetics in an attempt to justify the evils of destruction of war. Despite of all the supposed positive values of war, it remains a powerful tool for the destruction of human kind and established properties.Its impact leaves a nation in ruined and houses and buildings in burning rubbles. It leaves many children orphan, and many women widow. It leaves a nation reeling from the economic loses and infrastructure destruction which may take years before it can be fully rehabilitated.
With all such horrible impact of war it is quite interesting to ask, why nations engaged in war or perhaps the question that deserves to be answered is what causes the war? Causes of war Greg Cashnan and Leonard Robinson, point out that leaders are influenced in their decision for peace and war by their personality. In his book ‘What Causes War?An Introduction to Theories of International Conflict Greg Cashman pointed out that one of the causes of was during the World War1 was misperception. Cashman Remarked: “Misperceptions fall into a number of readily identifiable patterns: Misperceptions of the opponent and his intention, of the opponent’s military capabilities and of the relative balance of power, of the opponent’s willingness to give in to one’s demands, of the risks involved in pursuing one’s policies, of the intentions and capabilities of third countries, of the inevitability of war, of its eventual outcome, and one’s self” (p. 62).Cashman cited that the First World War was initiated by over perception of threat. Quoting John Stoessinger, Cashman writes, “When a leader on the brink of war believes that his adversary will strike him, the chances of war are fairly high, when both leaders share this perception about each other’s intent, war becomes a virtual certainty” (p.
63). Cashman noted that the reason for the German’s hostility during the Second World War was based on the misperception of the German leaders of their opponent’s intention.Perception plays an important role in the decisions and conviction of the leaders of the different states, and perceptions also can influence leaders to avoid war or to stop war. Cashman argued that in all the crises that ended in war in the twentieth century, misperception of military balanced played a significant role as each leader of the initiating countries grossly misjudged each other’s military might and were sure of victory if the crises will result to war. Thus, Cashman asserts, “we can be fairly confident in stating that misperception was a direct cause of the war”.Another cause of war is the leader’s perception that war is inevitable at a particular point in time.
Cashman noted that it was the leaders’ perception of the inevitability of war that has drawn European leaders to an all out war. Cashman explained: “World War I constitutes the classic example of a situation in which leaders on all sides’ perceived war as inevitable. It should be fairly obvious that if leaders perceive that war is inevitable, they will not be inclined to vigorously pursue methods to prevent such war.In retrospect, one of the most interesting things about the July 1914 crises is that, while all of the European crises that immediately preceded it led to international conferences of leaders or foreign ministers, attempts to settle the Austro-Serbian crises by means of an international conference never really got off the ground, we can speculate then, that it was probably seen by many as a useless waste of time, given the perception that war was inevitable”.
Cashman stressed out that the German and Austrian leaders, however, not only perceive that war was inevitable, they also perceived that the summer of 1914might be the last opportunity to win the war. Theories on the Causes of War There are various theories about the causes of war or how war was initiated. Stuart A. Bremer identified some of these theories, which are helpful in our understanding why nations go to war and in our attempt to legitimize war.
Bremer pointed out, systemic theories “rest on the promise that the structure of the international system as a whole, its major characteristics, and the key processes that take place in it, account to a large extent for the level of conflict and war in the world at any given time. Bremer explain that in the systemic patterns of conflict, there is something or systemic dispute that happens overtime, which become an early warning indicator of system change or system transformation.Bremer noted: “There are several ways of conceptualizing systemic stability in terms of disputes and war … the number of disputes begun in a given year represents potential instability, just like the initial indications for the eruption of volcanos, heightened dispute activity seems to foretell the coming wars” (p. 44).
Bremer also noted that the number of interstate wars can be an indicator that war is eminent. Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R.Wittkopf identified human nature as the most conceivable causes of war for the reason that the individual nature, according to Kegley and Wittkopf is closely related to aggression citing the studies of prominent psychologist notably Sigmund Freud.
Freud Studies reveals, “Aggression is an instinctive part of human nature that stem from human’s genetic programming and psychological make-up” (p 404). Citing Konrad Lorenz works, Kegley and Wittkopf pointed out that human kind is one of the few species practicing intraspecific aggression or the routine of killing of its own kind.To explain this further, Kegley and Witkopf asserts: “Ethnologist are joined in their interpretation by those proponent of realism who believe that all humans are born with an innate drive for power that they cannot avoid, and that this instinct leads to competition and war. They therefore accept the sociological premise suggested by Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection: Life entails a struggle for survival of the fittest, and natural selection eliminates the traits that interfere with successful competition, such as pacifisim, which rejects the right of people to kill in order to obtain power”.
Perhaps the most important question regarding war is, how war can be avoided, or is there any way that nation can live in peace totally with absence of war? Some Philosophical theory believed it can be dependent on the influence and type of government. Liberalism believes the kinds of political institutions that states create to make policy decisions, and predicts that the spread of free democratically ruled governments will promote peaceful interstate relations (Kegley & Wittkopf p.411).Immanuel Kant in 1795 argued “In perpetual peace, when citizen’s are given basic human rights such as choosing their leaders through ballots as well as here speech and a free press, these democracies would be far less likely to initiate wars than would countries ruled by dictators and kings, because a government accountable to the people would be constrained by public opinion from waging war” (p.411).The realization of Kant statement came in the light of liberal reformers such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Woodrow Wilson, who all believed that an “empire of liberty would one freed of the course of war, and that if democratic institutions spread through the world, the entire past pattern of belligerent international relations would be replaced by a new pacific pattern (p.
411).
