War is peace. It was one of the slogans of George Orwell’s novel 1984. War is definitely not for peace but is it always the case? Wars can be fought by people who are in search of wealth and they want to exploit resources of other nations who have plenty. The wars waged on the old Indus valley civilization is attributed to this fact. Another reason is of expansionist approach, the will to have a great empire. The imperial endeavor of Roman civilization, Alexander’s wars, Genghis khan’s regime are some of the examples of this approach. Wars are also fought by nations craving to create hegemony of their civilization or political ideology. American war with Soviet block is based on the very belief that the system of capitalism is better than communist ideology. Although there are material benefits for ruling civilizations but on the surface their claim is of a superior set of ideologies.
Wars are also fought by the oppressed class of people against the oppressors. The oppression can be economic or ideological but it is one of the main reasons of many wars. The wars between Catholics and Protestants were fought because the latter were oppressing the middle class of the society. French Revolution was brought forth by the shear despotic rule of Louis XVI and it resulted in subsequent Napoleonic wars. These wars helped the oppressors vent out their loss against the oppressors but these wars bear witness to the fact that wars are also fought by the oppressed against the oppressors.
Can wars bring peace to the society? Wars have certainly benefited humanity through rapid technological advancements but these wars make human divide sturdy thus slowing down the process of global consensus. Global consensus is the goal of humanity on this earth because it is something that extracts all the goodness in human beings and guides them towards the fulfillment of their purpose of life.
Can we move on towards global consensus (thereby making wars obsolete) through our current political systems and separate national identities? No, in my opinion it is very difficult to do so in the present scenario. The boundaries between nations seems to be mocking this concept of global consensus. Wars will thus remain a potential threat unless we move towards greater understanding of our fellow beings and begin to appreciate the goodness in them.
If we suppose that a Utopian nation is founded on the basis of this coherent consensus of people, does it mean that it will not have any friction with other nations? It will have no friction if others have gone through a similar experience. It means if the basis of this global consensus is formed on the common grounds of what every nation believes, it is possible. It is possible then to make the world a true democracy. It is with extreme difficulty, we humans can be able to perform this feat. The challenge is to cope with those whose authority resides in their vested interests of discontent within people and societies. If we create a world where this consensus can become the driving force, those oppressors will eventually come to the right path or they will be left within small confines of their own world and their authority will be stripped down from them.
From these views I have to conclude that peace does not depend on wars rather it is totally dependent on the ‘will to will the common will‘.
P.S: This post was inspired by nmr.
Khud Guzini 
When this topic came up, the first thought that came to my head was the Robert Fisk (war correspondent) quote, “War is the total break down of the human spirit.” I believe that, I guess it is my dogma. I just look at the brutality that results from a war environment and I think , “Well, THAT’s why those angels were giving God a reminder when He created Adam.”
I think war can be avoided if people engage in meaningful dialog and their will is to avoid war. Unfortunately, it only takes one megalomaniac with a plan to start a war. Also, there are so many elites that benefit financially from war activities, with the recession that follows burdening the vast majority of the population. Sigh.
War also represents to me a total dice game. Things are going to change for both the ‘winners’ and the ‘losers’ and these outcomes are impossible to predict. The British “won” WW2, but lost their Empire. The USA “won” WW2, but as a result women and blacks (who got war jobs while the white men were fighting overseas) started demanding their rights- social upheaval ensued. Penicillin, nuclear bombs, rockets to the moon, and the internet are products of war. It is such a mixed bag.
I liked what you said about “those whose authority resides in the vested interests within people and societies”. Very true.
I am starting to think that people who are trying the consensus model are muslims (with a small “m”, versus people who follow the dogma and canon of Islam- they are Muslims). So yeah, you could be a secular humanist who wants to build a consensus society and I would call you a muslim, and if you were a megalomaniac who prayed 5x a day, went on hajj, gave zakat, and is going to impose your version of shari’ah law on the population no matter how many people disagree, then I call that person a non-muslim because they are not following the consensus paradigm. Just my weird jargon, I know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the comment. You are very right about the definition of ‘the muslims’ in this context. It is hard to unlearn what you have been told for ages.
LikeLike
I have been meaning to read “Dirty Wars” (J. Scahill), “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” (J. Perkins), and “War is a force that gives us meaning” (C. Hedges), but haven’t gotten around to it yet. Chris Hedges is a very good writer, but frankly, after reading his “Death of the Liberal Class” I was completely depressed for weeks. I think that is why I am dragging my feet.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I have read J. Perkins Secret History of American Empire. It is a serious take on the what have been the motives of US in Indonesia, Vietnam and Iraq.
LikeLike