Is War Necessary?

Warfare has followed the human species since the day man came into existence, but debates on the need and relevance of war continue even today. Decisions on conflict resolution require much deliberation as wars have been so destructive and widespread that to span across the world, affecting communities of all persuasions. Much debate remains on what methods best meet safety concerns at the individual and national levels. Whereas some believe that military action is a valid approach to conflict resolution, others firmly believe such tactics no longer apply in today's society. Regardless of which side individuals take in the debate between diplomacy and aggression in handling conflict, the consensus seems to agree on non-violent options "to make peace." This paper argues that seeking alternatives to war should be foremost in handling conflict.

One of the top-ranked arguments against wars is that war brings about unreasonable suffering. Wars bring about pain and destruction on many fronts, which include loss of human life, property damage, and the displacement of civilians, all of which combine to inflict brutal physical and psychological trauma. The effects of battles regarding local economies cannot be overlooked since it may take a relatively long period before such economies reach their pre-war levels of stability. This reality, the stark truth of it, so vividly appears when, in conflict processes, the fighting destroys complete infrastructure and usually takes vast investments and extended periods to rehabilitate damaged infrastructures in such regions. The humanitarian toll of this impact is elaborately destructive; civil wars of recent times in Syria have caused losses of a global estimate of 250,000 added by killer diseases in various regions (Staubus 3). Of these, PTSD, depression, and anxiety are some of the common mental disorders that arise due to substantial mental stress caused by conflict. Most of the time, this leads to the displacement of civilians forcefully. The result is erosion of cultural heritage or identity, besides adding more to agony. The negative impacts of such consequences make it hard to justify the support for a predictable society or indulge themselves in non-violent methods. This, in turn, perpetuates the current condition of the world.

Another argument against war is that alternatives that are not as catastrophic can be used while upholding citizens' freedoms. Other methods of peaceful resolutions can be made using economic sanctions, international diplomacy techniques, and nonviolence. These work to make a more feasible decision without extreme measures of war. International diplomacy techniques include various forms of diplomacy to create conciliations among nations through discussions between governmental officials and mediators such as United Nations representatives. However, with several states' attempts to collaborate and solve the problem amicably since the beginning of 2011 through the influence of the UN, among others, the Syrian civil war is still ongoing.

Moreover, there have been over two hundred and fifty thousand human lives lost so far (Staubus 3). Therefore, a collective commitment should be made to strengthen the preventive mechanisms by managing conflicts accordingly and limiting the extent of the threat to citizens. Boycotts, protests, and civil disobedience have much to offer regarding effecting change through nonviolence. These powerful tools provide opportunities to raise awareness of crucial political issues and consistently foster significant dialogue between and amongst citizens and leaders. When well thought out and implemented effectively, such actions can achieve changes in how governments easily, without violence or destruction. Generally stated, this approach is representative of a potential means of providing non-violent solutions, amply illustrated in certain circumstances, by being as successful in accomplishing the objectives, which are, in turn, held to be of equal value as the violence.

Equally, to be just in our judgments, we must allow a pertinent opposing opinion concerning whether we need wars, whereby some would affirm that wars could never be necessary under any circumstances. Situations arise when such wars are means through which we can defend freedom. The underlying argument, usually, is that military intervention in highly repressive regimes might be justified because it ensures the rights and freedoms of individuals and their realization by people under such tyrannies. Under these circumstances, the declaration of war becomes an imperative approach because it gives us an unparalleled opportunity to save traditional principles such as democracy and freedom from destruction by brute forces of violence. We must safeguard our fundamental rights at all costs, whatever other interests may be present. Such rights include freedom of expression, religion, and vote. Even when exploring alternate options has been exhausted, and no progress has been made towards preservation efforts for such liberties, military intervention may be necessary as a last resort. Unfortunately, during the Second World War, allied forces had no choice but to confront Nazi Germany's enslavement rule, significantly detrimental to preserving human dignity across Europe, disregarding an entire population of individuals explicitly oppressed as enslaved (Edel 2). Only after the war ended did freedom values return within society stemming from this necessary combat use. Combat must always be considered a viable tool, particularly when violent ways become increasingly oppressive against vulnerable populations who suffer atrocities relentlessly, as seen particularly among Bosnian Serbs during NATO interventions throughout Bosnia's conflict during the nineties, where military forces managed to prevent further genocide while safeguarding helpless inhabitants (Arnold 568). Defense against oppressive regimes is essential to protecting the Allies by force deployment, for example, in America's actions during the Cold War, which protected Western Europe from Soviet totalitarianism, which would have led to increased suffering (Hossain 3). War is a tragic course of action, but it must be considered when fundamental freedoms and rights are threatened and stripped away.

War should be considered only after exploring all alternatives since it poses a necessary but dangerous proposition with extensive financial and monetary costs if taken too lightly. One cannot ignore the grievous aftermath of wars, wherein multitudes of innocent individuals succumb amidst overwhelming carnage, leaving deep scars that may take years to heal. War has severe consequences on the global community that are paramount to understand, as it causes fragmentation and tension between countries, which can harm their financial stability for years to come. Policymakers would do well to consider ethical implications closely before committing forces into battle since unforeseen scenarios resulting from actions can create new conflicts or complicate existing ones further down the road. While responding proportionately against emergent threats through force, one must ensure the protection of civilians. Communities can make a positive impact by favoring peaceful dialogue over military action. Economic institutions such as the United Nations advocate for international norms prioritizing human rights to support diplomacy and coexistence, creating favorable conditions for progress.