W ars do not benefit the people where they are waged, and do not benefit nations that send their militaries abroad to wage wars. Nor do wars help to uphold the rule of law — quite the reverse. Good outcomes caused by wars are dramatically outweighed by the bad and could have been accomplished without war.
There is a fundamental error in supposing that a new war is likely to bring benefits to a nation where it is waged, given the dismal record of every war that has occurred heretofore. Scholars at both the anti-war Carnegie Endowment for Peace and the pro-war RAND Corporation have found that wars aimed at nation-building have an extremely low to nonexistent success rate in creating stable democracies. And yet the temptation rises zombie-like to believe that Iraq or Libya or Syria or Iran will finally be the place where war creates its opposite.
Wars fought by wealthy nations against poor ones tend to be one-sided slaughters; quite the opposite of beneficial, humanitarian, or philanthropic exercises. In a common mythical view, wars are fought on “a battlefield” — a notion that suggests a sportsmanlike contest between two armies apart from civilian life. On the contrary, wars are fought in people’s towns and homes. These wars are one of the most immoral actions imaginable, which helps explain why governments that wage them lie about them to their own people.
Wars and militarism and other disastrous policies can generate crises that could benefit from outside assistance, be it in the form of nonviolent peaceworkers and human shields or in the form of police. But twisting the argument that Rwanda needed police into the argument that Rwanda should have been bombed, or that some other nation should be bombed, is a gross distortion.
War Does Not Bring Stability
War can be imagined as a tool for enforcing the rule of law, including laws against war, only by ignoring the hypocrisy and the historical record of failure. War actually violates the most basic principles of law and encourages their further violation.
War and war preparations drain and weaken an economy. The myth that war enriches a nation that wages it, as opposed to enriching a small number of influential profiteers, is not supported by evidence. In addition:
- Greater consumption and destruction does not always equal a superior standard of living.
- The benefits of peace and international cooperation would be felt even by those learning to consume less.
- The benefits of local production and sustainable living are immeasurable.
- Reduced consumption is required by the earth’s environment regardless of who does the consuming.
- One of the largest ways in which wealthy nations consume the most destructive resources, such as oil, is through the very waging of the wars.
- Green energy and infrastructure would surpass their advocates’ wildest fantasies if the funds now invested in war were transferred there.
Research and development would be more efficient and accountable and more directed into useful areas if separated from the military. Similarly, humanitarian aid missions could be run better without the military.
War Creators’ Motives Are Not Noble
Wars are marketed as humanitarian, because many people, including many government and military employees, have good intentions. But those at the top deciding to wage war almost certainly do not. In case after case, less than generous motives have been documented.
War is inevitable.