It
is very inappropriate or inhumane to say that war under any circumstances is
good. It is the destruction of humanity. Whenever wars occur, we only need to
count the loss of many innocent lives. However, when it comes to a stage that
we have to defend ourselves or a stage that we have to deal with an act of
terrorism, war is the only solution. Yes, there can be other ways to solve the
conflicts between states. But, there is no other way to stop terrorism. If the
innocent lives in a particular state are under attack, the state has the right
to retaliate the attackers. Therefore, justifying war to protecting innocent
lives is a right, and it is mandatory for every state to be able to exercise this
rightfully.
War
can be for many reasons, it can be a war on terror, it can be a war on drugs,
or it can be between countries. Even though I don’t like the war and its
consequence, I think a war to protect a state, and its citizens are necessary.
We all know that there was no good outcome from wars in the past, and I believe
that there will be no good outcome in the future wars. The World War I was bad,
the World War II was worse, and there would be no words to explain the
consequences if wars occur in the future. If one country wages war against the
other country, one or the other will be wiped out within a minute. It sounds terrible and crazy, but as a shield
to defend oneself, a state has to go to war to protect its land and its
citizens. The former US President Barack Obama said, “War is justified only
when certain conditions were met: It is waged as a last resort or in
self-defense, if the proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are
spared from violence.” Yes, if war is not justified to protect the state and
its citizens it makes no sense for a state to have a military power. It is impossible to sit and watch when the
lives of the citizens are at risk. Most importantly, when it comes to a case
that the state needs to deal with violent groups or violent individuals
(terrorists), a state has to use military force. The government should take
violent actions to make sure that no individuals threaten the lives of other
people
In
regards to the war on terror, using military force should not be an option. The
government should step in as quickly as possible. However, I do not support for
a foreign state to step in to fight terrorist in another state. The reason is
that the foreign government does not know who exactly the terrorists are. If
the other countries would like to support to fight against terrorism, they
should listen to the direction of a particular state in the areas. For
instance, the US government put its military in Iraq for years to fight against
the terrorist groups. But, the situation gets worse day by day because the US
military was not sure whom they were fighting with. This instead turned the Iraq war as a war
between the Iraqis and the US military. When the situation gets worse, the
Iraqis migrate to different parts of the world. They left their homeland for a
better life, but many died on their way, and many were rejected and die in the
refugee camp. Many countries, especially the western countries stretch out
their hands to provide food and shelter for them. However, it is impossible to
provide enough food, shelter and other basic needs for all refugees. This
migration is a crisis to all human beings. It is not bad only for the refugees,
but it also creates problems for other countries that provide shelter for them.
The refugees have to go through many struggles, and the other states (provider)
have to spend extra money to protect them. To secure the innocent’s lives the
other states (who want to help) should consider helping the immigrants in their
homeland, not until they already migrated to other places.
To
conclude, I would like to say that using force for the right purpose is a basic
right that every person or state can fully exercise. I am not surprised to hear
people against the use of force to protect the innocent lives because they see an
act of violence is plainly wrong. However, according to my point of view, any
terrorist groups that violate basic rights of other people deserve a severe
punishment. There is no mercy either forgiveness in the eye of justice.
Reference
Reference
Nobel Lecture by Barack H. Obama
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-lecture_en.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting post! I agree that it is important for a state to protect their citizens and resources and the use of war should be reserved only for self-defense, as a last resort, or as a proportional response. You mention that there are other ways besides war to respond to conflict between states. Do you have any ideas to how states can determine when a conflict deserves military retribution or when other methods such as diplomacy should be used instead?
ReplyDeleteThank you, Brenna! Firstly, is to bring the leaders of the two countries into a negotiating table. Secondly, it can be through sanctions (like the US does for North Korea).
ReplyDeleteI think you have a really great argument in this post! I definitely agree that war is absolutely not the ideal option to solving problems between states, nor is it ever really a ‘solution’ at all. Based on your argument that states must retaliate and attack if another state attacks them or carries out terrorist activity against them, do you think the consequences of a terrorist attack outweigh the consequences of war?
ReplyDeleteThank you, Victoria! Yes, I do believe that terrorist attack outweighs the consequence of war. For instance, the 9/11 attack.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post, Riten! I am someone who is against war and violent punishment- but I have to admit my anti war perspective leaves question for how to handle unjust war and violence from one state onto a another state. I think your blogpost does a good job of pondering the more difficult war questions. For example, you emphasize terroist attacks and what would be the appropriate way to handle them. So, do you think killing a terrorist group after they’ve attached would stop other terrorist groups from attacking in the future?
ReplyDeleteGreat Post Riten, a just war theory may be necessary to help combat terrorism. You mentioned fighting terrorism abroad, internationally, and how it may not be the best thing for foreign states to attempt. Along with the fact they do not know who they are really fighting, do you think that a foreign attempt at ousting terrorism is a violation of a states sovereignty? or do you think it is necessary because those terrorists can affect anywhere on the globe?
ReplyDelete