ARW FINAL ESSAY

AIMAN AIJAZ
GROUP -B

COURSE: Academic Reading And Writing

COURSE FACULTY: Mrs. Zubair

Submission Date: 25th November’ 19

FALL SEMESTER
ARW AIMAN AIJAZ
FINAL ESSAY GROUP- B
 "War" - a necessary evil. The philosophy and history behind it and what it
hopes to achieve and can it ever end as an option.

“Only the dead have seen the end of War” -Plato

‘War’- modestly disguised as ‘destruction’, is an unnecessary act of disturbance which

causes an imbalance in society in hopes of achieving an agreement between two parties. It
is an organized chaos which has broken apart nations to give birth to new ones. For a
society to flourish, it recquires an ample supply of labour, increased wealth, justice and
liberty. War contradicts society’s purpose as it hinders movement of labour, swallow’s
capital and tramples upon justice and liberty. In short, uniformed leaders claim to make
decisions for the benefit of the state, yet fail to acknowledge that their decisions force
human beings face to face with one another on a battlefield of military advancement. 1

Waging war against other nations require the leaders to be sure that their reasons are far
greater than the loss of human life that would incur. To safeguard human life is a basic right
for all individuals in all courts of law, including moral and religion. Therefore, to reason with
war, it is essential to understand the purpose that it wishes to achieve. Typically, parties
with conflict often have a long history of disagreements and dysfunction; in some cases,
there are attackers and defenders, in other cases, there is an uninterrupted list of causes
that necessitate a nation to go to war. Previously, the chief reason for communities to
engage in war was scarcity of resources, as it would invoke competition between the two
for survival. This claim has been supported by archaeologists who have found evidence
regarding similar patterns of human behaviour. Reasons leading to this discrepancy include:
increased population, unfavourable climatic conditions for food supply and inefficient
hunting practices leading to low availability of animals.2 Competition for resources evoked
either within a community or when an existing community was invaded by an unwelcomed
party. Though, this reason is not valid enough to support why many great wars were fought
such as The Crusades, The Civil War, The Tribal Wars, etc. it still forms to be one of the
reasons inducing war.

Furthermore, the second thought over which philosophers agree has led nations to
participate in war is human aggressiveness. This reason considers the human psychology,
which triggers the human emotions such as rage and hostility, and influences decision
making based on their environment. According to the explanation given by Rosen and
Smith, human beings possess human traits through evolutionary process over millions of
years. Those who survived were successful in adapting well to their surroundings, whereas
those who failed became extinct. The survivors passed on those traits to their off springs
and the generations that followed. These traits comprised the ability to comprehend
challenging information received through the senses and produce an immediate response;
an organ familiar with such a task is the brain. Since war involves the interpretation and
response to information, therefore the causes of war must be the traits of the brain. These
traits can be jointly referred to as ‘aggressiveness’. This theory states that the leaders decide
whether to go to war or not based on human traits of aggressiveness which were developed
1
E.T.Moneta, “The Advocate of Peace,” Stage Publications 56, no. 2 (1920): 29-32
2
John Kekes, “War,” Philosophy 85, no. 332 (2010): 207
ARW AIMAN AIJAZ
FINAL ESSAY GROUP- B
through evolution. Nonetheless, Rosen and Smith’s theory is not fully justified as many
nations suppress aggressiveness through either religious values or morality. 3

Lastly, the ideology that war is fought for the quest of power is supported by Michael
Howard, a military historian. Howard quotes about a book ‘Peloponnesian War’ in which
Thucydides writes about the peak of Athenian power and the fear it ignited in Sparta. It also
mentions that “Athenian strength attained a peak plain for all to see and the Athenians
began to encroach upon Sparta’s allies.”, this had enraged Sparta to the height where it
decided to go to war against Athens and to annihilate the power Athenians held. He justifies
by claiming that nations proceed with war not over petty issues which could be resolved
over negations, but, to proclaim power.4 The reasons supporting his stance leads us back to
the standing question why initiate war? To which he writes: “Wars occur when the
established order, the status quo, is forcibly challenged, and the status quo power reacts.” It
could be understood that Howard is stating that the essence of war lies in two states
involved in attacking and defending. However, wars fought over religion and ethnicity have
little ground over international peace and a great deal with internal order of particular
states. Most of the wars that took place were based on non-negotiable terms by either
party disregarding each other’s crucial terms as vital, thus failing to reach a conclusion and
participating in war.

The essence of ‘War’ and its brutalities bestowed on nations, are often introduced in
literature, through writing, poetry and drama. In different varieties of texts War has been
treated well as it incites conflict, engages in emotions and reasoning by participants. Early
European literature revolves around the romanticism rooted in the cruelties of war itself.
The old narratives chant, often functions largely around the heroism and sacrifice of men
proving their worth and commends the significance of increased industrialization in
fashioning military equipment which sets the military standards for the opposing party. 5

The writers control the authenticities circling the war zone by ensuring a less liberated
approach towards the reality and handling questions of ‘what should be told’, ‘what should
be transformed’, and how much truth should be disclosed. For example, Filippo Tommaso
Marinetti wrote: “War is beautiful, because it combines the gunfire, the cannonades, the
pauses, the smells and the stench of petrifaction into symphony.” In Drieu la Rochelle, War
is described as a theatre production with its failure pointed out as a ‘spectacle’. Another
literary excerpt overshadows the realities by proclaiming “How beautiful are these rockets
that illuminate the night/ They rise on their summit and bend over to look.” After the
Vietnam war, modern literature has initiated to unveil the naked ruin and the torments
‘War’ holds by denying its purpose by adhering to human destruction. Contrary to the
ancient reviews, modern literature tears away the façade by portraying experiences of
families and individuals who have experienced the turmoil and loss at the field. E.
3
John Kekes, “War,” Philosophy 85, no. 332 (2010): 206
4
John Kekes, “War,” Philosophy 85, no. 332 (2010): 207-210
5
Catherine Savage Brosman, “The Functions of War Literature,” South Central Review 9, no. 1 (1992): 85- 91
ARW AIMAN AIJAZ
FINAL ESSAY GROUP- B
E. Cummings has narrated his own experience of being imprisoned during the World War I -
denouncing the sanity in war. Guillaume Apollinaire, a French poet criticized the war “For all
its horror, you can’t help but gape at the awful majesty of combat…Any battle or bombing
raid or artillery barrage has the aesthetic purity of absolute moral indifference.” 6

It is always easier to fall into conflict than to walk out of it, The Second World War and the
Korean War are evident examples regarding this clause. Germany surrendered in the mid
1945, even though the chances of winning the war were incredibly slim by the mid 1944.
Similarly, the Korean War was prolonged for another three years without a distinct victory.
To achieve peace and harmony, it is important to fall back on the reasons of conflict and
question whether war is solving problems and accomplishing the desired results. 7 This calls
on for a basis of determining the performance of the war? What criteria is one recquired to
judge the standard of war against? Termination of War demands parties in conflict to align
their thinking on the prospective outcome of the conflict and to set an identical standard of
assessing victory. It is possible that each party calculates victory along different lines hence
each may believe that fruitful outcomes are possible and continues war. “Failure is seldom
self-evident.” – C. M. R. Mitchell. 8

If it is collectively decided that war is not completing the objectives that were laid out at the
beginning, then to attain peace parties are recquired to present acceptable solutions for
both sides to compromise on. However, even if parties come up with possible solutions
another hinderance that it encounters is the ‘cost of peace’. If one party decides to settle, it
is possible that globally it loses its political credibility, this would further deteriorate its
relationships with its allies and weaken its political image. Presumably, the longer a country
fights, more resources it loses, hence costs are high and stronger an image it presents
globally. The second sets of costs are internal and revolve around the leaders of the country
who enjoy their grip on power, a forfeiture for the country would result in their loss of
control and dominance in the country. It also threatens their self-esteem and psychology, as
they want to avoid humiliation, hence leaders may often engage in the continuation of war
in hopes of getting a better settlement. 9

Obtaining a peace is tough because, the political struggle within a country affects everything
that matters in concluding a war. The society is affected the most as these decisions are
extremely traumatic for a society given the immediate and long-run costs the country
suffers, as well as the global political ruin. Hence these preceding statements illustrate the
fact that even when wars are officially over, it is not certain that political disagreements and
unsettling terms between the two parties may not continue. It is also probable that
completion of one War digs the root to the problem that ignites the next one.

6
Catherine Savage Brosman, “The Functions of War Literature,” South Central Review 9, no. 1 (1992): 91-98
7
Christopher Tuck, “Theoretical Prespectives on the Ending of Wars,” International Forum on War History:
Proceedings, (2015): 112
8
Christopher Tuck, “Theoretical Prespectives on the Ending of Wars,” International Forum on War History:
Proceedings, (2015) :114
9
Christopher Tuck, “Theoretical Prespectives on the Ending of Wars,” International Forum on War History:
Proceedings, (2015): 115-118
ARW AIMAN AIJAZ
FINAL ESSAY GROUP- B
Bibliography

Brosman, Catherine Savage. “The Functions of War Literature,” South Central Review 9, no.
1 (1992): 85-98

Kekes, John. “War,” Philosophy 85, no. 332 (2010): 201-218

Moneta, E.T. “The Advocate of Peace,” Stage Publications 56, no. 2 (1920): 29-32

Tuck, Christopher. “Theoretical Prespectives on the Ending of Wars,” International Forum on

War History: Proceedings, (2015): 111-120