Tag: war

Posted on

Against Warmongering

Fresno Bee, June 23, 2025

The warmongers are at it again: Bombs are falling on foreign cities; politicians are being assassinated; tanks are paraded through Washington; and troops are “liberating” Los Angeles.

“Game on,” Senator Lindsey Graham said, cheering the prospect of going “all-in” against Iran. Warmongers see a world of enemies engaged in constant battle. They imagine it is easy to achieve “unconditional surrender,” to quote President Donald Trump’s ultimatum to Iran.

The militaristic mindset explains the Trumpian call to “liberate” Los Angeles from “the socialists,” as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem put it last week. As troops were deployed to L.A., the president told the soldiers under his command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina that the riots in Los Angeles were an assault on “national sovereignty.”

This aggressive language is a prelude to moral disaster. Moral judgment about the use of force requires careful deliberation informed by the wisdom of the world’s traditions, most of which teach us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. If violence is ever justified, it should emerge as a last resort from out of a background commitment to nonviolence.

But that’s not how warmongering works. Rather than making arguments grounded in patience, love and justice, the warmonger rants and raves. And, indeed, that is the way war works. Violence is dumb, inarticulate and morally mute. It kills and disables. But it makes no arguments — it does not convert or convince, it only destroys.

Violence is seductive because it is spectacular. It is quick, loud, decisive and even fun. Bullies and abusers enjoy what they do. Otherwise, they wouldn’t do it. Some sinister part of human nature likes to blow stuff up. Sigmund Freud called this the death drive. He saw a key challenge of psychological development as learning to transform cruelty into something better. Civilization develops as we learn to sublimate aggression.

Moral development should lead beyond cruelty, rage and revenge. Retributivism is a step in that direction: Rather than simply lashing out in blind fury, retributive justice tells us to apply violence in measured doses according to the old recipe of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life. The retributive scheme is meant to moderate rage. It sets a limit on violence.

It was in response to the old law of “eye-for-an-eye” justice that Jesus said we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies. Christian pacifism emerged in the ancient world following this ideal. But some Christians argued that there was a right to kill in self-defense — and especially in defense of others. The “just war theory” developed, allowing defensive war as a reluctant last resort. The elaborate edifice of the just war theory aims to limit warfare and minimize bloodshed in pursuit of just causes.

In my own scholarship on this topic, I have argued that just war is much easier to describe in theory than to carry out in practice. The “fog of war” makes it difficult to master events, to predict outcomes and to ensure compliance with moral principles. Another problem is “the just war myth,” a wishful idealism that thinks it is easy to fight a just war, and that “the good guys” win because they are good.

The warmongers ignore these difficulties. They are “all-in” on war. Perhaps they think war is like a movie or a video game where widows and orphans never appear on screen. Or perhaps they are really just cruel and aggressive.

In reality, very few wars live up to the moral ideal. Good people die. Bad guys sometimes win. Atrocities are committed. And noble soldiers suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and moral injury.

Our culture inclines us to ignore all of this. Parades do not show off the injuries or the trauma. Films and video games make violence seem exciting. And warmongering makes war appear easy to justify.

As soldiers deploy on American streets and bombs rain down on foreign cities, we need to think more carefully about the justification of war. We also need to listen carefully to the critics of war, whose voices are often drowned out by the warmonger’s ranting. Cruelty and war are ancient maladies. But the argument against violence is as old as Jesus who advised us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article309092545.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Imagining a world beyond identity and war

My latest article in Shuddhashar FreeVoice is: “Imagining a Pragmatic Post-Identitarian Peace,” published May 1, 2025.

Here are some excerpts. The entire essay is here: https://shuddhashar.com/imagining-a-pragmatic-post-identitarian-peace)

John Lennon’s song “Imagine” provides a template for world peace that asks us to imagine that there are no countries, no religions, and, hence, nothing to kill or die for. The point is to stop fighting about the abstractions of religion, politics, and identity. Too many tears have been shed in defense of empty words. And too much blood has been spilt over lines drawn in the sand.

The compulsion to fight about identity is an understandable manifestation of the human struggle for recognition. But this struggle can be manipulated by political opportunists or hijacked by authoritarians, who may channel it in sinister directions. And in the long run, an over-emphasis on identity lies at the root of a variety of dogmatic and militant points of view. Rather than remaining mired in struggles for identity, we should reconsider rigid identity claims from a pragmatic and less dogmatic perspective.

*****

Identities, words, and categories are helpful aids in cognition. But these tools are not metaphysical absolutes. They are convenient social constructions, which provide a useful map of the world. But this map is not set in stone. Rather, it is produced by the ephemeral currents of history, politics, culture, and ideology.

*****

We don’t have to draw lines in the sand, nor do we have to kill or die for such abstract, arbitrary, and transitory things as nations, religions, or civilizations. The struggle for recognition is serious and important. However, identity politics can fail to account for the lived experience of diverse individuals. And identitarian movements of all kinds — religious, nationalistic, racial, or civilizational — can become dogmatic, fanatical, and violent. When we understand that most identities are ephemeral social constructions, we may begin to imagine a path toward peace.

Read More: https://shuddhashar.com/imagining-a-pragmatic-post-identitarian-peace

Posted on

Beyond Blood and Iron: Pacifism and the ‘Blood-Swollen’ God of War

Blood and Iron

Published at FreeVoice, August 1, 2024

Iron and blood may be the grease that enables the gears of history to grind, but only hearts and minds can change ideas and beliefs.

There is a tendency to think that history is made by iron and blood. There is some truth to the claim that the gears of history are lubricated by blood. But the ideology of blood and iron is fundamentally flawed. Critics of violence and war argue that we ought to develop our humanity beyond blood and iron, toward something more spiritual, reasonable, and enlightened. These critics hold that the materialistic logic of iron and blood ought to give way to spirit, reason, and law. . .

******

Militarism is a doctrine primarily in service to the blood-swollen god of war. It is indifferent to political ideology and can be employed by revolutionaries and reactionaries, fascists and free marketeers. Pacifists argue that it would be better for social and political reality to develop rationally and without the carnage. The pacifists suggest that human progress must be spiritual instead of sanguinary. Wars do not change hearts and minds; only other hearts and minds can do that. Blood and iron do not change ideas and beliefs. Rather, we need fewer weapons, less bloodshed, better beliefs, and more reasonable ideas.

Read more here: https://shuddhashar.com/beyond-blood-and-iron-pacifism-and-the-blood-swollen-god-of-war/.

Posted on

War is the problem

The upsurge of protests on college campuses has been too narrowly focused. These protests have picked sides in the current war, without addressing the larger problem of war itself.

The challenge is not merely Hamas or Israel. Rather, what needs to be addressed is the stupidity of war itself. Violence does not solve problems. But we tend to believe it does. This faith in war lies at the root of current controversies, including the growing threat of violence in the protests, counter-protests, and police crackdowns.

Social and political problems are not solved by military force. And yet, many people have a simplistic and foundational faith in warfare. This bellicose faith rests on a false assumption, which holds that physical power is ultimately what matters most. And it is reinforced by a world that celebrates violence in culture, history, and politics.

Violence is animalistic and subhuman. Human beings are animals, of course. Our bodies bleed and suffer. So, we may be coerced in the short run by physical force or by threats of violence. But coercion and violence breed resentment and animosity without resolving spiritual, political, and social conflicts. Physical violence rips through the human world, aiming at the body rather than the spirit. The logic of war is about killing and dominating rather than about changing hearts and minds.

Human dignity demands respect for reason and autonomy. Ultimately what makes us human is our ability to be persuaded by rational arguments and by human emotions linked to justice, compassion, and love.

Some people argue that violence can be justified as an appropriate response to violence or injustice. The “just war theory” maintains that war can be justified in self-defense or to protect others from harm. That theory also teaches that war must be limited, proportional, and only directed at legitimate targets. There are important lessons to be learned from the study of the just war theory (as Jennifer Kling and I have discussed in our recent book). Just war theory would condemn atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7. The same theory also condemns atrocities committed by Israel in its brutal response.

But beyond these obvious judgments lurks the fact that war is subhuman. The current conflict exposes a common historical truth, which is that most wars fail to be just. Limited violence may be justified in theory. But in practice actually wars often exceed those limits. And in the long run the solution cannot be simply to continue to fight wars. Humanity demands a better way.

That better way is the path of nonviolence and the broad commitment to peace that is known as pacifism. Advocates of the nonviolent path have long called for the abolition of war. This way of thinking may seem naïve to those who have faith in war. But pacifism has a strong lineage and has been advocated by thinkers such as Tolstoy, Gandhi, William James, Jane Addams, Bertrand Russell, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Albert Einstein said, in 1952, that “war is no better than common murder” and that “the only solution is to abolish both war and the threat of war.”

More recently, political scientist John Mueller has concluded, “war has come to seem not only futile, destructive, and barbaric, but profoundly stupid.” And Pope Francis said, “the moment has come to abolish war, to erase it from human history before it erases human history.”

The critique of war as a subhuman way of solving human problems deserves much further reflection. But in the media, on campus, and in the congress, pacifism is rarely mentioned. Instead, the hawks hog the stage, egging each other on.

War will not be abolished overnight. The war abolition project demands a radical re-evaluation of our understanding of human nature, political life, the value of nation-states, and the power of the military-industrial complex. This is a multigenerational project.

Nor can war abolition be adequately reduced to a protest chant or slogan. But the tenor of the current protest might improve if war abolition and the general critique of violence were central themes. This would direct our attention beyond current hostility toward the whole system of war and the faith in violence that lies at the root of these conflicts.

Posted on

Just War, Pacifism, and the Abolition of War

Fresno Bee, Oct 15, 2023

As war and terrorism rear their ugly heads, it’s useful to recall basic moral arguments about war and peace. The just-war theory teaches that it is wrong to deliberately target noncombatants. So, the Hamas attacks that assassinated and kidnapped Israeli civilians are wrong.

The just-war theory allows for targeted retaliation in response to aggression. But it does not allow indiscriminate violence. So, if Israel responds indiscriminately, it also is wrong to do so.

Critics may suggest that the just-war theory is a feckless attempt to regulate the inherent brutality of war. So-called “realists” say that moral judgment does not apply in war, where the goal is attaining supremacy. Realists maintain that power trumps morality and anything goes in pursuit of victory, including terrorism and terror bombing.

The just-war theory rejects this. It demands that violence be limited to legitimate targets and minimized by rules of proportionality. These limits aim to prevent escalation and atrocity.

But what does a military force do when responding to those who do not play by moral rules? Some militants and militaries ignore moral limits. They employ terror tactics and commit war crimes, as Russia has in Ukraine. It is tempting to respond in kind. But tit-for-tat retaliation is wrong. An atrocity committed as retaliation for an atrocity still remains an atrocity. And retaliatory violence tends to provoke further atrocity.

Pacifists have often pointed out that the logic of war tends toward escalation and depravity. Pacifists argue that few, if any, actual wars live up to the standards of the just-war theory. Pacifists also suggest that nonviolence can be effective.

The critics of war also argue that war should be abolished. In 1950s, at the dawn of the nuclear age, Albert Einstein said, “the only solution is to abolish both war and the threat of war.” Pope Francis reiterated this idea last year, saying, “The moment has come to abolish war, to erase it from human history before it erases human history.”

War abolition may seem a naïve goal at present. And it is not clear how nonviolence can effectively stop terrorists and criminal armies. The realists will say that in a world at war, the only thing that matters is supremacy. The just-war theorists worry that realism is a recipe for moral disaster. And the pacifists complain that it is all a kind of madness.

To cure that madness, pacifists call for radical change. War abolition would require the construction of just and equitable global systems. More fundamentally, it would require a change of human consciousness such that terrorism and war are simply unimaginable.

Abolishing war would be like abolishing slavery. It would require the evolution of our economic, cultural, and political systems. The analogy with slavery reminds us that brutal systems can be abolished. But it also reminds us of the extent of the challenge. Slavery existed in human culture for millennia. In America it took a terrible Civil War to abolish it. War has a seemingly more permanent hold on the human spirit. War will not be abolished simply because Einstein or the pope wishes it were so.

And yet, the pacifists argue that this is what we must work toward. In his argument against war, Pope Francis said, “War is a cancer that feeds on itself.” Cancer provides another useful analogy. Cancer is avoided by preventative health care, including fundamental changes in lifestyle. By the time chemotherapy is needed, it’s already too late. The same is true of war. To abolish the cancer of war, we need the preventative measures of justice, equity and love. By the time the bombs are flying, it’s already too late.

The just-war theory is a guide for present emergencies. This theory condemns terrorism and war crimes. It allows for limited and targeted responses to aggression. But history shows that war fighting often exceeds those limits. So, the just-war theory is not the end of the story. We must also continue to imagine a better future.

In the long run, we must find nonviolent ways to prevent atrocity and reduce animosity. We must cultivate global justice and a sense of our common humanity so that terrorism and war become unimaginable.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article280473439.html#storylink=cpy