Wars

War comes naturally to humans, since it can be crucial to survival of the group, but in modern times it can have horrendous consequences for millions of people, which makes it very important to control and minimize the occurrences of war.  Contemplating war is complex, since we must try to understand the relationships between testosterone levels in young males, perception of threat (often incorrect), political manipulations of the public,

War can sometimes be necessary to pursue the survival of the nation, but war should be limited to this need.  Aggression and wars for political or economic gain are immoral and should be avoided at all costs.  Preemptive war is of dubious morality and should only be undertaken if there is convincing evidence that the feared attack will take place with a considerable certainty (90 percent?).  Our Iraq war is an example of a preemptive war that did not have that 90 percent certainty, and deception was practiced by the government giving distorted evidence to citizens about the reasons for the war.  The wars practiced historically by European nations in general to “take” territory throughout the world from indigenous societies for economic advantage (find gold; take resources back home; create a captive market for manufactured goods; etc.) are examples of unjustified economic wars (which falls these days under the general rubric of “colonialism”).

Since our groups (tribe, nation, etc.) are absolutely essential to our survival, and since we hire people (a volunteer military) to fight for us, we have become individually willing to have the country go to war without considering the costs of war.  This results in citizens signing up to go to war even when they don’t know the reason for the war.  If everyone watched a video about the horrors of war, we might be more willing to make the decision about going to war on the basis of probable outcomes rather than on the basis of instinct.  Every war will result in some citizens (at least a fair number of soldiers) being maimed or killed, and their loved ones will suffer for these things as well.  We should force ourselves to wisely contemplate the realities of war before we enter one, so that all elected officials, Congresspersons, and all other citizens are exposed to pictures of the material and human destruction that would occur, details about the monetary and human costs (depression, anxiety, disabilities, healthcare) of the war, and comments from veterans of wars about the experience of war.  I am certain that this would temper the flare-up of “patriotism” and the urge to fight.  I will provide this exposure to the realities of war if ever we contemplate war.

Citizens do have to be willing to risk their lives for the survival of the group in certain circumstances, but most wars these days are about economic and political advantage rather than about survival.  We should also be financially responsible for each war.  The practice of borrowing money to pay for a war (as was done with the Iraq war), which will be paid back by future generations, suggests to the citizenry that wars are cheap and that we don’t have to pay for them, and this is utterly false.  Every citizen from now on is paying for any monies that we “borrowed” to pay for these wars when they are active.  I will push for current payments for any military action we undertake, so citizens know how much war costs.

The leaders we choose have an impact on going to war as well.  You may think that you need the most bellicose candidate (the best fighter) as your President, but that will mean more wars.  You can be sure that leaders who are aggressive and dominating will get you into more wars than leaders who are thoughtful and cooperative.  (It is possible to find leaders, such as myself, who are both thoughtful and cooperative and resolute and determined to defend the country.)  Of course, we need to keep our military strong, so as to defend ourselves and our allies as necessary, and if we don’t keep ourselves strong, then China and Russia will no doubt hope to achieve military supremacy (which would not be in our best interest).

To bring a new concept to the table, I will propose a pact, to be entered into voluntarily by any and every country, by which each country pledges to join an active military intervention (together with all other pact members at the same time) against any country that aggresses against another country, whether or not that country is a member of the pact.  If enough members join, especially the larger countries, then no single country will be able to stand against them and conduct a war of aggression.  Any member country that does not contribute to such actions will be excluded from receiving that protection themselves.  (One unlikely possibility is that before the pact gets too big, countries that want to be able to engage in wars of aggression may band together in the same way, thus creating a counterforce.  This could result in a stalemate, but at least this process would identify clearly who wants to use aggression to take advantage of other countries, which would affect their diplomatic and economic relations around the world.  Everyone would know that they cannot be trusted.  The underlying principle would be supported—that defensive wars are acceptable but aggressive wars are not.)  Since the U.S. has no wishes to take territory from other groups, this will not infringe on our sovereignty in any way (although it will require some expenditures that we might not otherwise have currently).