Almost every war, argument, confrontation, or legal squabble is considered just from at least one perspective.
Can you imagine two people locked in confrontation when each feels the other side is right and they are in the wrong? Could you picture a court battle where the Plaintiff argues, yes, I did wrong the defendant, and the defendant insisted, no, you didn’t.
Most of us would apologize to the other and feel deeply embarrassed. If we could, we’d try to make it right. That is who we are most of the time, but not always.
Some see a cause as part of their personal identity. It is no longer a point to be rationally discussed. A request to debate the topic is viewed as a personal affront. and logic is left behind. It becomes an emotional issue. Emotional issues are often resolved with physical aggression. Just look at the emotional behavior of people in our upcoming election.
Groups are often loath to admit they’re wrong. They simply do not want to face up to scrutiny, or accept responsibility for past transgressions.
Almost every war is considered just from at least one perspective. To go to war in most cases means the aggressor justifies his actions long before war actually breaks out. They usually tell the world their issue- to see if they gain support. There is no sense moving ahead if you lose before you even begin. They usually feel wronged and want the wrong righted.
As with many topics, being right or wrong depends upon your viewpoint. If an aggressor invaded your country would you not feel justified to repel them? Or would you let them seize or destroy your assets and property?
To you, your actions to fight back would be just. However, if on the other hand, your country first slighted the one invading, say by assassinating their leader would you not presume the opposing side would feel justified in responding to the assassination to obtain justice?
Say, this is beginning to sound a lot like the beginning of World War I.
I asked a question in a previous article,because ultimately after a war comes a resolution and some terms of peace. Is it really such a leap of brainpower to bypass the war and work out the issues at the negotiating table? Simplistic you say? Yes it is. Isn’t it odd that often the most complicated arguments come down to simple thing: Dignity, respect, acknowledgment of the transgression, an apology and recognition.
But what if it can’t be worked out you ask? Do we even want to negotiate with an extreme regime we consider evil. What if that power refuses change, or worse engages in hostile action against its citizens and neighbors?
Let me ask, do you consider all the citizens of the country evil as well, or just the regime in charge? There are certainly a lot of people in Iran who oppose their government. They don’t seem evil to me. Their leaders do. What if they are another Nazi Germany circa 1940; lots of negotiations, lots of promises, all disregarded and broken,
Sometimes war is the result. It just is. To negotiate requires willing participants.
If each country has negotiators with the sincere intent of avoiding war, that, I believe is the best any of us can do.
However, there will undoubtedly be many wars to come. In conclusion, there are times when an opposition forces your hand and military strength must be brought to bear. Let us hope that in those circumstances it is employed wisely. In such a case I plead conflict to protect others is just.