War has existed at least as long as written history. Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, in War Before Civilization, claims that 90-95% of known human societies have engaged in organised warfare. Some historians take the opposite stance arguing the lack of clear evidence for organised war in our prehistoric past. What is puzzling that many peaceful, non-military societies have existed throughout human history and still exist (Otterbein, Keith, 2004, How War Began. Texas A&M University Press).

Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons

Contradictory Views in the War-Peace Debate

There are two contradictory views in the peace-war debate:

1. Prehistoric & primitive peoples were more peaceful than modern humans
2. Premodern peoples were more warlike.

On the whole, evidence points to a midway stance as warfare among primates, prehistoric people, early agriculturists, & primitive people have been influenced by contextual conditions, e.g., power structures, military organization, and whether coercive diplomacy worked or not.

Irenology and Polemology

Peace Studies (also called Irenology, derived from the Greek word for peace, eirini) is an inter-disciplinary effort aiming at the prevention, de-escalation, and resolution of conflicts.

War studies; on the other hand (also known as Polemology, derived from the Greek word for war, Poleimos) aims at the efficient attainment of victory in conflicts. The definition of “peace” varies among cultures, religions, and time periods, and there are many theories. In Gandhi’s vision of peace justice is an inherent and necessary aspect. For him peace requires the presence of functioning justice in addition to an absence of violence. Martin Luther King was of a similar mind when saying that “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.”

How Leaders Behave in Wars

Contemporary political leaders are so eager to talk about peace that they should start resembling doves with honorary doctorates in Irenology. This behaviour is totally in contrast to leaders from the past.

In the absence of a media climate like nowadays, leaders of past superpowers like Egypt, Assyria or Rome could afford to be brutally honest about their intentions in killing more efficiently. The Persians, the Assyrians, the Hebrews, the Egyptians all castrated their vanquished enemies with public ceremonies in order to demoralize and deter enemies. The Egyptian Pharaoh Meneptah proudly claims that in 1300 B.C.E., he had 13,230 penises cut off from the soldiers of an invading Libyan army (with six of those phalli belonging to generals). In the ancient days the threat of violence was the prime method of ensuring that one’s territory was not invaded, and the people were not robbed or raped by others. This threat had to be renewed constantly with fresh examples of gruesome acts.

Wartime Technology Advances Protect Only Soldiers

Throughout history, we have seen how the greatest innovations are driven by military requirements. This usually means killing more effectively than the enemy at minimal costs. If we think about radar, submarines even the Internet, just to mention a few inventions, they all have origins in the defence industries. The majority of innovative technology on the planet today is somehow connected to inventions driven by the imperatives of war.

Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons

From the currently ongoing wars, we can see that technology advances protect only soldiers and not civilians. The percentage of civilians killed in WWI was 5% of total casualties. In WWII it was 65%. In Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian casualties increased to 90% of all casualties (from Lancet estimate to Iraq Body Count). Advancements in military technology only save the lives of high-tech army soldiers, rather than civilians. In spite of all the talk on the political stage about saving lives, surgical precision in weapons usage and ensuring democratic values etc, the opposite seems to be taking place.

Mainstream media all over the world hardly criticizes the efficacy of war as a means of achieving peace as politicians starting wars claim. Even in functioning democracies, which are proud of their “freedom of speech” or “way of life” people take it for granted that war conducted by their governments are justified. Hardly anyone flinches at news items “35 terrorists killed,” or “NATO soldiers kill 45 extremists”. Like sheep, we buy the justifications given by our own and allied governments. It is comfortable for us to assume, against all historical data that governments do lie, corrupt the public trust and serve special interest groups in differing degrees in every human society.

Even the Church Advocates “Just War”

Now, should soldiers from high-tech armies kill more efficiently? Hawkish leaders who advocate the doctrine of “just war” claim yes. Moral theologians, ethicists, and international policy makers claim that a conflict can and should meet the criteria of philosophical, religious, or political justice, but under certain pre-specified conditions.

The United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, “‘The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response,” issued in 1983 spells outthe Just War Theory. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2309, signed by Pope John Paul II, published in 1994, lists four “strict conditions for legitimate defence by military force”:

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain
2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
3. There must be serious prospects of success
4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The third condition requires the military of “our” side to constantly improve the efficiency of killing apparatus and mechanisms so that the serious prospect of success remains ever present. Now if this is not in conflict with the utopian vision of everlasting peace then, what is? Pax Romana was basically an attempt to maintain law and order by beating everyone to submission under the sword and law of Rome.

Is Pax Americana or Pax Talibana any different?

Now if you have suffered loss yourself or if you talk to the families and loved ones of killed or injured soldiers and civilians rather than politicians you will become convinced that investing on the increasing of killing efficiency is not the way to make peace. 30.9% of Vietnam veterans in one study had developed PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) during their lifetimes. Today 79% Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans suffer from PTSD.

Isn’t it time we considered if using war to achieve peace ever worked?

Alternative Visions of Achieving Peace

Photo source: Wikimedia Commons

One of the oldest writings on this subject of ways of achieving peace is the Bhagavad Gita, from India. Here, the utopian vision of a static peace is considered a mirage and unattainable as a permanently stable state of affairs. War or conflict is seen as inherent in the human condition. Peace is seen here as a state of mind totally independent of external conditions. In this elevated state of being a person experiences inner peace and there is respect for all others without any desire for harm or malice to anyone. An individual is seen as having achieved clarity of vision when one has seen the tapestry of life without value judgements or own colouration. This clarity and inner peace is possible even amidst the fog of war.

Contemporary Western Thinkers of Peace

Many contemporary Western peace thinkers like Wolfgang Dietrich and Wolfgang Sützl question the popular single and all-embracing vision of peace. They advocate a plural definition of peace beyond the “absence of war” or “presence of justice” theory. In Africa, in the area around Lake Tanganyika, western Lake Victoria, and lakes Kivu, Edward and Albert the word for peace, kindoki refers to a harmonious balance between human beings, the rest of the natural world, and the entire cosmos.

Interestingly, in this vision, similar to the Bhagavad Gita, peace is not an imposition of order from outside by victors. In both visions, humans can achieve peace while being true to their nature. This peace is not something humans might achieve some day in the future (e.g., when all the terrorists or people of the ‘wrong’ faith and mindset have been killed), but we can create and expand peace in small ways in our everyday lives, and peace evolves constantly.

When peace becomes the way rather than the goal, we have better chances of getting peace.