Is War Necessary?
Many wars have happened in history. They date back to the bible ages, and in one way or the other, wars have become a part of the society. Although there are different definitions of war, its effect remains unchanged. In simple words, war is a state of conflict where opposing forces attack one another to capture or defend their resources. Different arguments have been presented for and against the necessity of war. The firm question remains whether it is necessary. If it is, is the just war theory conceivable? Conflicts arise solely for the benefit of a portion of people, and the perception that it is necessary is misguided. The goal of this paper is to argue that war is indeed not essential. It will try to prove this assertion by using data on American invasion of Iraq. It will then compare it with people proposing that wars are necessary.
The statistics on war victims are awful. Taking Syria into consideration, it becomes obvious how needless war is, and how terrible it can be. It is vital to engage an audience mentioning the ravaging effects of conflicts in countries such as Iraq.
War is an important issue, and it has gathered numerous controversies over the years. Some assert that it is necessary, while others who have been termed as pacifists stress that war is unjustifiable. In her book Warfare is Only an Invention - Not a Biological Necessity, Margaret Mead argues that a conflict has been deemed as a sociological inevitability or a biological necessity due to an aggressive, warring, and competitive nature of humans. She objects this and argues that its psychology of humankind has led to the invention of war. The author is offering an alternative to an argument that a conflict is an attribute of human nature. She stresses that war is a terrible and poorly conceptualized invention, and it is waiting for a better one to render it obsolete.
Margaret Mead equates war with an invention that has been learned and accepted. Thus, people can assume that it will be hard for them to relinquish it. To design a new invention, the society must recognize that war has numerous defects and try to make a difference.
In her research, Margaret Mead has examined that war differs from culture to culture. Some peoples proudly identify themselves as warriors who demonstrate their prowess by committing acts of war, while others see war as undesirable, but they recognize its reality, and therefore, participate in it to defend themselves. There is a total absence of war in very few cultures, like the Lepchas of Sikkim who simply find conflicts illogical. Therefore, peace is not a mirage. People must continue establishing peace all over the world while ensuring its relevance for the age. The matter, however, is that this is not as easy as it sounds, but it is not impossible.
Some assert that war is necessary for security, and that it is important as it gives people freedom. However, at the same time, conflicts create a loss of confidence and infringe on human rights. People lose their freedom, and people lose their lives. The key point is that the American invasion of Iraq has cost the country about 4000 Armed Forces members. The death toll in Iraq has risen during this violation. These devastating numbers are a cruel reminder of how terrible wars can be. The conflict in Iraq has occurred on many grounds, one of them relates to the opposition against Saddam Hussein who ruled with an iron fist at that time and found ways to eliminate those who did not back him. Consequently, he was deemed to be a threat not only to his country but also to the neighboring countries. However, if that had been the basis for the invasion, America could have attacked a host of other nations.
If the Iraq war is anything to consider, bigger problems arise. Due to the invasion and its prolonged stay, the American people have lost confidence in the government demanding to bring their boys back home.
Are there better options to explore rather than to invade a country? Apparently, at the time when the Bush administration launched the invasion of Iraq, issues of reconciliation or justice should have been high on the agenda. It is such rash decisions that reject pacifist ideology. Richard Niebuhr writes that in matters of war, the fallenness of man will let them choose violence instead of reconciliation due to self-interest.
Many argue that the control of oil fields in Iraq was a key motive for the war. The conflict in Iraq, as some theorists explain, was purely based on economic gain. Muslim countries control a big chunk of oil reserves, and thus Iraq has served as a proper source for the U.S. Neibhur further asserts that this self-interest is destructive as it brings forth a counter assertion which provokes more arguments from other opposing parties. What is the point of war if all it incites is hatred and violence? Do people expect violence to make peace when partaking in war?
Additionally, wars are very expensive ventures. They cost nations millions of dollars producing unfortunate results that could have perhaps been easy to avoid. Accordingly, the biggest cost of wars was of the First World War in which Germany spent 37,775,000,000 dollars. This can heavily influence the economy of the country in question. A country like Iraq was heavily affected, and its productivity reduced greatly. The adversities of the war impacted the workforce considerably. Women and children were caught in the crossfire, and most if not all the citizens of Iraq amassed hatred towards the Unites States. It is no wonder that many young people will be very eager to do the same to Americans, hence the spread of terrorism. Syria has staggering statistics with one in ten Syrians wounded or killed since 2011.
Arguments on the other side develop that war is necessary, and it has been there for years. In the Bible, God is a supporter of war where he is frequently on one side fighting against another. So if He supports it, then why do people disobey? These notions do not in any way conform to the just war theory. Actually, it becomes a bit pointless and unrealistic, as in a conflict the strongest will always do what they will while the weak ones try to do everything to survive. Waging war, therefore, connects with relative strength and never with ethics. Morality can never take place in a conflict.
Arguments supporting the invasion of Iraq arise that the war has been justifiable. They develop that the violation is a perfect example of a just war since the country has committed serious offenses such as harboring a training camp that has been manufacturing chemical weapons, training hijackers and an al-Qaeda agent who was responsible for assassinating a US diplomat and much more. However, weapons of mass destruction were not in use. Manufacturing of chemicals was in the first place for a specific reason. Using these weapons automatically guarantees civilian casualties. Therefore, on both sides, Iraq and the US, the notion of a just war becomes ridiculous.
In the same vein, what about terrorists who care naught about other people? In this cases, to remain indifferent and do nothing when these atrocities against innocent people occur is a solution? Does war become necessary in these cases? Does the just war theory apply in this situation? Orwell feels that such instances make war justifiable. He asserts that sometimes peace can only come when there is war. In his quote about war and peace, he affirms that endless war spreads between nations or people as long as the basis is for maintaining peace. However, this now maintains a deceiving facade that the country is in pursuit of peace while in fact it is not. It also protects the incumbent government and maintains its control over the people as they now digress from the main issues affecting them as a nation and now direct their energy into fighting the opposing force.
Conclusively, having examined the thoughts of Mead and Orwell, and the wars people have had in the past, conflicts should only appear as a last thing to defend innocent people. A country should realize that once it attacks another nation, the latter will defend itself until the aggressor stops oppressions or attacks with all its might. Wars are just a vice, and society should find all other ways to reach a solution before provoking a conflict. Accordingly, violation is unnecessary because its history shows that someone has committed it because of the desire for power and resources. This greed is what drives wars and facilitates them even further. Therefore, it even becomes a matter of people wanting to choose a different and more progressive path. Human beings are not the creations who just follow one course. They explore. They are capable of much more. So war is not necessary, and nations just have to make a right decision.

Kate Willimason, writer at https://topwritingservice.com/ and a blogger. She is a modern art lover and she can talk about the importance of street art for hours. Kate enjoys sharing her spare time with friends by examining coffee houses all around the city.