Hell’s Handmaiden recently posted on the topic of War As Altruism –
The more I think about it, the less the idea makes sense. The machinery of war is the machinery of destruction. Soldiers are a body of individuals trained for destruction. The concept is one of violence. War is meant [to] force one group of people to bend to another group’s will. It seems difficult to justify the use of such a tool as ‘altruistic’.
Very well said. Unfortunately, while the article continues to argue that war can never truly be an altruistic act, the author also fails to reach the ultimate conclusion that war is always a negative thing. Instead, in his closing paragraph he falls prey to that final wall separating a truly peaceful man from one still on the journey to genuine freedom-
Before someone suggests otherwise, I am not opposed to taking sides. I wish we’d taken sides in Rwanda. I’m glad we took sides in WWII against Germany, but had we not taken sides when we did we’d have likely been forced to take sides later out of pure selfish self-defense.
I am not opposed to taking sides, either. But I am no longer limited by the traditional belief system that “choosing sides” must mean going to war. The military is a powerful destructive force, but it is still one of violent destruction, as pointed out so eloquently above. Instead of accepting the false reality that violence will ultimately be the final solution we must strive to use nonviolent means of coercion, be they social, economic, educational, or some as yet untried system.
Ultimately, war is the real enemy.