Jump to content
Guidelines
  • entries
    9
  • comments
    28
  • views
    2,212

Why Being "Anti-War" is Silly

Varrack

Entry posted by Varrack

1,210 views

 Share

Many people these days choose to label themselves as "anti-war", as seems to be the isolationist trend of the 21st century. They point out that war takes lives, is expensive, and is all around undesirable.

 

The thing is...everyone knows this. Pointing out the obvious about war doesn't add legitimacy to one's cause. No one denies that a peaceful world would be a preferable one. This is a very simple-minded approach that doesn't take into consideration the delicate complexity of foreign relations and conflicts. Declaring oneself as "anti-war" in response to intellectual debate on foreign policy like one has some sort of higher moral ground is incredibly asinine.

 

The question at hand should be about whether getting involved in a foreign conflict or invading another country is justifiable, whether embargoes should be places on trade with hostile countries, etc. But some like to oversimplify the discussion on foreign policy by sorting people into the "pro-war" and "anti-war". This kind of assertion is something I've seen a lot on the Internet, and is something I'd consider a form of anti-intellectualism.

 

Further, using buzzwords such as "anti-war" doesn't accurately describe one's stance on wars when one takes all of history into context. Are you supportive of the military invasion that overwhelmed Nazi Germany and halted the Holocaust? If so, then you're not anti-war...you recognize that standing by while genocide commences isn't preferable to going to war to stop it.

 

To add, there are other reasons why an interventionist foreign policy isn't quite as irrational as it may seem. Ending conflict, securing human rights, and destabilizing regions of interest are arguably good rationale for getting involved abroad. I go into further detail in a formal debate I had about the topic.

  • Brohoof 1
 Share

6 Comments

Recommended Comments

Shanks

Most people that call themselves anti war are not complete pacifists and would support a war if they felt it was necessary to protect national security. With that said, nearly every war ever fought has been based on greed and aggression rather than legitimate cause. General Smedley Butler put it best when he described war as a racket. Interventionist foreign policy is getting increasing criticism for good reason, it always leads to unintended consequences many of which tend to lead to more wars and conflict in the future. Simply put no one nation can possibly predict or understand every single outcome of every single country or perfectly predict when to intervene or not. Because of this intervention unless it is necessary for national security which in most cases is not is pointless and only causes more problems in the long run. In the case of World War II it was necessary because Hitler was a maniacal murdering psychopath that wouldn't have stopped until he conquered the entire planet and wiped out everyone that didn't fit his definition of the perfect Aryan "master race".

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Varrack
Interventionist foreign policy is getting increasing criticism for good reason, it always leads to unintended consequences many of which tend to lead to more wars and conflict in the future.

 

Fair point. Intervening needs to be handled very carefully, otherwise everything will go wrong. The 2003 invasion of Iraq for example had good reasoning behind it like ousting Hussein and uprooting the harboring of terrorism in Baghdad. The region was temporarily stabilized until all the troops were suddenly pulled out and ISIS took over the region shortly afterwards. My initial point, though, was that the anti-war movement of today doesn't seem to take in the initial reasoning for invading places like Iraq.

Link to comment
Malinter

Being anti war is easy...

 

You just create an army of soulless drones and robots to do the killing for you. Long as none of *your* people die, the general public really stop giving a shit.

 

Kinda scary.

Link to comment
Brony Number 42

There is a large segment of the population who have no clue about how the real world works. Their logic goes thus: The world would be better if there were no war. Therefore, if I don't go to war (defensively or whatever) then we are half way there. Meanwhile, the bad guys go to war and these "anti war" people don't understand why the world doesn't conform to their childish views.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...