War is its own brand of peace

I have faith in peace. I know that it is useless. War, on the other hand, I have no faith in whatsoever because it leads inevitably to a time of peace.

But that's only a personal opinion.

Apart from being a time of unrestrained belligerence, one-to-one conflict, be it between one man and another or one country and another, is a time for quick decisions that are moderated with immediate survival on the one hand and a slow securing of broader goals on the other. It is not unfair at all that shields cannot be thrust in between in the name of diplomacy or humanitarianism, and it is definitely not unfair to engage with purely physical means as a way of ascertaining an advantage.

War is as necessary as the countries that fight it. A man can learn his real place in the community that his nation hosts only when he answers the call to arms with a firm foot forward, and ascertains right there that communality is only commensurate with who it is peopled with. War is when the common man realizes it's not all just padded waistcoats and waving swords about, it's not about a jolly drink afterward. It's when he realizes that it's the sanction backing the legitimacy of his citizenship.

War is a continuation of politics by other means.

- Gen. Carl von Clausewitz

Peace, however, is a farce. It's not so much a curtain draped over conceit, deceit and selfishness as much as it is a thin veil. Conflict is avoided (with a conflict as deterrent) and a chance to be done with differences swiftly is passed up on so men, women and children can be roasted slowly over a political fire. Peace keeps some people healthy and silent, and these are the people who have profits to rake up. If not, why wouldn't they fight?! Profiteering is the soul of discord.

War becomes meaningless only when equality prevails - and I mean the complete transcendence of race and religion to occupy a dark room like light - because only then will inequalities finally subsume the act of war. Until then, they are distinguishable entities with their own purpose: inequality is the more dissonant variant of power-hungriness whereas war is the less dissonant variant of progress.

I used to believe in the possibility of abstract manifestations of such things as polity, government and development. At one point of time, however, it dawned on me that they are completely and absolutely irrelevant for one simple reason: if they do assume relevance, then they must have done so in a real environment that has been pieced together with discrete choices all consciously made.

Agreed, each choice must be held accountable for any casualty incurred thereof, but beyond that, a purely substantive approach caters to long term goals while assuming that a providential collateral will manifest itself to solve short-term problems.

The alternatives, as far as war and peace are concerned, are:

1. Peace at all points of time because warring is wrong


2. Peace at all points of time to ensure peace at all points of time


3. War as and when becomes necessary now to make way for peace

#1 - This seems like an escapist's notion of survival, to distance oneself from conflict only so one is considered to have been "right" all the time. Simply, it does not credit war with its due advantages. It disregards them altogether when they are most necessary to ensure certain goals that require belligerence.

#2 - Peace at all points of time cannot ensure peace at all points of time. This fact is easily substantiated by considering the current geopolitical scenario: diplomacy is given an importance that far, far exceeds the importance given to war. Consequently, gaps that are created in a diplomatic field between those whose voices are heard and those whose voices are not find it easier to widen because the latter are disinclined to pursue a non-peaceful solution to bridge the divide. In due course, victimization becomes built into the diplomatic process when:

• The gap in authority represents the difference between being able to do and not being able to do


• The gap in authority is occupied by forces that are more selfish and less nationalistic

Needless to say, somewhere in there is a vicious cycle.

#3 - Yes, I dread the "make way for peace" part of the option, but like I said, that's only me. Victory in war is the definite establishment of the level of equality between the nations that fought, and with that establishment, a suitable plan of action for the immediate future can be hatched. That doesn't mean I'm asking for peace to be put down and done with - although I still think it's a farcical notion - but only that when needs do present themselves, when direct conflict offers an end that is much more reasonably desirable than an end offered by prolonged "talks of peace", it must be taken.

Irrespective of whether a government has the right to take the life of any of its citizens, war that follows voluntary conscription ought to be deemed just as legitimate a course of action as diplomacy. Furthermore, easily conceded diplomatic failures are prevented by the deterrent of conflict.

(I said earlier that conflicts are avoided with conflicts as a deterrent, but within the limits of reason, going to war knowing that peace offers a more viable solution and the easy concession of diplomatic failures are as disagreeable as resorting to peaceful alternatives when war is necessary.)

I've centered my arguments on war and peace around the notions of inequality and profiteering. Therefore, it would be an injustice to all the time I've spent writing this if I don't elaborate on my opinions about equality, its place in the polity and its association with power and justice, and about profiteering, the governmental models that both abet and restrict it, and the reasonableness of capitalism. However, that must wait for another post and another day, when my focus on the subject is fresh once more.