In past eons, the purpose and rationale for war have, for the most part, been obvious and clear. In a world primarily dominated by scarcity, “other people” (tribes, etc.) sometimes had what you and presumably your people wanted and likely needed, so you took it all by force and celebrated the conquest as the spoils of war. The conquest included not only mass murder, but a large-scale dose of raping, looting and pillaging those you had defeated. 

For millennia, there was nothing special about states conquering enemies and taking what they wanted.

War’s rational underpinnings have become more complex. At times people have dressed up their conquests as something much more benevolent. The Crusades were seen by Christian Europeans as repeated missions to drive out the “heathens” from Jerusalem and restore a Christian holy land, to “make Jerusalem great again.” The resulting centuries of spoils were ideologically considered by crusaders as only a minor part of the gig.

Many times, war has been used to enslave—get free labor—from a people. Don’t tell any Confederate sympathizers, but on rare occasions, war can be also used to free a people.  

Sometimes war can be like a bargaining chip—just the threat of war can change the dynamics of a conflict. 

Generally, the rationale for war has gotten increasingly murky in more modern times. The war in Viet Nam (or in Korea, Afghanistan, the Falkland Islands, etc.) is a good example of this “murky” condition. People I knew as a young man fought, killed and died in Southeast Asia, but could barely articulate a coherent explanation as to the why of it all. 

Lately, on PBS, Ken Burns tried again on Viet Nam. Perhaps, like me, you have an opinion about how well he could have possibly succeeded in his presentation without ever seriously mentioning the revelations in the Pentagon Papers. 

Currently, we have Putin’s war in Ukraine. Recall, Putin has declared it is not really a war. After all, he suggests Russia could not fight a war with a “nonexistent” country like Ukraine. Further, he claims that the Ukrainians are brothers and sisters to Russians, and these poor Ukrainians are currently under the yoke of the “fascist” regime of Volodymyr Zelensky. The Russian army is merely trying to liberate them. Apparently, that is why they must bomb civilians, especially children. It is all “for the children”—the bombs, I mean. 

Putin thought he would defeat the Ukrainians in a couple of days. In retrospect that was an error. The Ukrainians are not Syrian civilians, pelting combat troops with stones and using handguns against artillery and Russian aircraft bombardments. Lately, the “holy” government in Iran is providing Russia with military drones, presumably with the blessing of their brand of God. That is problematic, especially for Ukrainian civilians who continue to be murdered by Russian troops committing widespread and documented heinous war crimes. Nonetheless, the Ukrainian army continues to press its successful and steady counteroffensive.  

Perhaps Putin should seek help by contacting Republican legislators for details about obtaining that “Jewish laser from outer space,” but he may already have a similar weapon. 

If you sniff hard, you’ll find that war is hardly ever a tool for good. This does not mean that in the rarest of circumstances, (e.g. WWII) it can’t be. But, in large and small varieties, war has been largely omnipresent in all recorded human civilization. 

Doubtless, the overall continuing consequences of war for our species grow increasingly dark. So can we use our minds to wrestle with and find solutions to our conflicts that don’t include the specter of war? 

That is one paramount question for humanity in the 21st century. So, go ahead, I have my pen and I am taking your answers.

John Pace lives in Honesdale, PA.