I am of the opinion that war is a lose-lose situation, regardless of whether or not conflict is justified. Because of the decisions of people in power, whether or not their authority is legitimate, millions of their constituents are potentially impacted directly. Systemic violence and the degradation of infrastructure increases structural problems within societies, who oftentimes are unable to recover. Even when a war is "won" the lives of innocents who may or may not even have a stake in the war are irreversibly affected. It may be justified in order to prevent further injustices, but with conflict comes destruction, which causes systemic problems that may plague society for generations.
In order to tell when a war is justified, I believe adequate evidence of injustices or misuse of power must be present. President Bush facilitating the Invasion of Iraq by making the unwarranted claim that it had weapons of mass destruction is an example of a time when it was not justified. Adequate evidence to actually warrant a conflict is key to rallying support. Keeping in mind the nature of war, it is vital to demonstrate an adequate cause to warrant such destruction for a greater purpose. A cost-benefit analysis must be calculated, and if it is worth it to go to war, then perhaps it is to be considered and carried out.
Diplomacy ought to always be considered as the first solution to a conflict. If we are able to prevent the loss of life associated with war, it ought to be considered. However, when nations disregard any attempt to negotiate or the terms of negotiation are unfair and don't solve the conflict, war may be necessary to have a resolution. It all depends on the nature of the conflict that determines the efficacy of negotiations versus war.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.