Arguments Against War - Essay Example

Wars The aim of the work is to discuss the arguments against war. It should be admitted, that despite the recent campaigns for leading wars in different parts of the world, war itself is absolutely negative phenomenon, though in order to prove its negativity the arguments should be discussed in the more details. It is not always possible to know which of the sides of the conflict is guiltier The present world has become the witness of the fact, when wars were started as soon as any suspicion in the wrong actions has been held or supported. We have become the witnesses of the war between US and Iraq; the recent events show us the intervention of the US to Somali, though there is no clear evidence of the fact that the terrorist organizations responsible for the biggest world terrorist acts take their places in either of the countries. On the contrary, the intervention to these countries has caused chaos and disorder. This statement can possibly be denied by the explanation that the war was not the absolutely desirable way out to stabilize situation in the country, and was actually aimed at creating new society with democratic values, but the fact that presence of the terrorist organizations was only suspicion, and it is yet not understood, after so many years of war, whether this war was the best solution for the problems which existed between the two countries. It has caused deaths of thousands people of the common population but has not yet reached its goal of destroying terrorist groups. Thus, suspicion is not enough to start and hold wars. Thus, we come to another argument against wars – innocent people mostly become the victims of the political games, which often turn into wars. Thousands of innocent people die as a result of any war Modern times represent us with the new kinds of wars, which countries and peoples can have against each other, starting from physical (military), and ending with the informational and oil (gas) wars. The issue of the innocent people is more related to the fact when one speaks about military actions. ‘While the image of bombers flying over Afghanistan and bombing a people whose average lifespan is about 45 years of age and who are suffering terrible deprivation already -- not least due to the Taliban, which the U.S. helped create and empower -- is horrifying enough, it is important to realize that death and deprivation come in many forms. Even without widespread bombing, if the threat to attack the civilian population or outright coercion of other countries leads to curtailment of food aid to Afghanistan, the ensuing starvation could kill a million or more Afghans by mid-winter. Is this the appropriate response to terror?’ (Fisher, 2003) Any military actions at any territory cannot be held without victims. The core of any military action is in its sudden and unexpected character, and thus to save the innocent population from the threat of war is almost impossible. On the other hand, states which come to the decision to start war, hardly think of the common population which will ultimately fall as a victim of war, without any political result for the states guaranteed. War as an action may lead to the state-initiator losing its allies Any state, which prepares a war with another state, has to carefully consider the probability of losing political allies, which may oppose to any military actions. This argument should be taken into account, as a state cannot function without political allies; otherwise it will be isolated or supposed to be illegal. It seems to be impossible to relate this argument to the US; as such a strong state cannot ever been isolated, though the threat of losing its allies still exists and should not be underestimated. On the contrary, war may also become the instrument of the opposite side for coordinating and uniting its efforts with its allies, which may have negative consequences and only raise the scope of the military actions in the world. ‘In the event of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, there would likely be an outbreak of widespread anti-American protests, perhaps even attacks against American interests. Some pro-Western regimes could become vulnerable to internal radical forces as part of such a reaction. Passions are particularly high in light of strong U.S. support for the policies of Israels rightist government and its ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The anger over U.S. double standards regarding Israeli and Iraqi violations of UN Security Council resolutions could reach a boiling point.’ (Zunes, 2002) But the most important argument against any war is probably, that there are always non-military options, which can be used for the peaceful resolution of the problem, without causing deaths and ruins. There are legal and legislative instruments in the modern world, according to which most countries live and exist, and which often appears to be more powerful weapon in solving problems, though some states still believe that physical military intervention is the best means of influencing the behavior of other states. Any invasion (military) into any country always becomes the matter of moral, ethical, military and political debate all over the world. Millions pf people, who have lived through the WWII and were the witnesses of the terrible military actions, clearly understand the seriousness of any war and they also understand, that politicians who make these wars real don’t fully understand the reasons and the consequences. It is often that they don’t clear see the full set of non-military options, or refuse to see them for certain political considerations. War is the biggest violation of any democratic rules and principles With the wish of the US to spread democratic principles all over the world war is the biggest violation of these principles and is against democracy as it is. Democracy is the policy of choice – it means that population has the right to choose, and military actions don’t leave them any choice, making them protect their life instincts forgetting about morality and making them less important. War and democracy are the two notions which are incompatible in their essence; war for democracy is even more incompatible in itself, as war is always against democracy – democracy is the means of peaceful resolution. War should not be eliminated if democracy is to be supported and developed all over the world. Democracy should not be ignored while any state of the world develops its foreign policy. Moreover, democracy should be directed at not creating enemies where they are absent. ‘When any government takes part in dictating to other countries how to manage their affairs, it hampers the worldwide political market. When it pushes around those nations that do not meet its standards, fewer choices are available to everyone. With the wonders of technology, the political market has been growing in many ways. Tax shelters, offshore banking, and the like, which were once only available to the "Jet Set" are today available to the upper-middle class, and are becoming cheaper everyday. If other nations are ever to act as tax havens, blacknets, and issuers of anonymous digital currency, they have to be free of the threat of violent consequences from such government. That is the best argument against the War.’ (Schiff, 1994) Conclusion It is clear, that war is the phenomenon which seems impossible to exist in the modern democratic society; however, with the range of the non-military options present for the resolution of the political conflicts, war appears one of the popular methods, but it is becoming more and more understandable, that war as an instrument of resolution and influence in the foreign policy has far long lost its relevance and moreover, effectiveness. Modern society takes war as nothing except for the weakness of the state which starts this war; it means that the state was not able to find peaceful means of agreement. Wars should be avoided for many considerations, and especially for the fact that it first of all injures the lives of common innocent population. This is, probably, the main aspect which should be accounted, and the state initiating the war must be clear of the fact that this war will ultimately against its own population. No matter how much the American society wants to protect itself from the impact of terrorism, wars are not the best means for this and finally, these military actions may be returned and exercised at the US. Thus, peaceful resolutions should be searched for, but they of course will not be found ever if they are not looked for. Works cited Fisher, Louis. ‘Deciding on War Against Iraq: Institutional Failures’. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 118, no. 3 (2003): 389-410 Pollack, Kenneth. The Threatening Storm. New York: Random House, 2002 Schiff, Frederick. ‘Yes, But…: The Ideological Structure of Arguments about War’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 27, no. 4 (1994): 269-310 Zunes, Stephen. ‘The Case Against War’. The Nation, vol. 275, no. 10 (2002): 11-16 Read More