In Praise of War, or Death?

The dire and critical conditions in the Middle East and the world have reached a point where news and images of war are published daily across all media and exposed to the public. War has become so pervasive that some feel it is entirely natural and ineradicable from human life. Some, in the realm of thought, have turned to justifying it and write in its praise. In this context, the ideas of certain philosophers are also cited to make their praise appear robust and substantial. A reminder is necessary in this regard.

Before the twentieth century, some philosophers who were not individualists and are not politically liberal made statements in praise of war. The numerous critiques by opponents have marginalized those statements, but the views of Hegel (1770-1831) remain well-known. Of course, Hegel's words are not entirely false, and genuine insights can be found in them. But a good point must be properly understood. Otherwise, it may well turn into the worst opinion. Here, let us assume that all of that philosopher's statements about war are completely true. But what conclusion follows from this? Does it mean that contemporary wars are also good and praiseworthy? No, this is by no means the case. If someone thinks such a conclusion necessarily follows, they are gravely mistaken; for they have not correctly understood what he meant by war. A very important point has been overlooked here. Those wars and today's wars have a serious difference. War has undergone a great metamorphosis and acquired other characteristics.

Why did those philosophers praise war? The simplified summary of the view of thinkers like Hegel is that, firstly, war must be examined as a part in relation to a whole. Secondly, war actualizes certain individual, social, and political virtues and talents. Hegel explained the instances of these virtues in detail, as well as their relation to war. Therefore, this philosopher's praise of war is due to the flourishing of good and latent individual and collective abilities, and also the positive effect war has on the growth and flourishing of civil society and the state. But in today's wars, nothing flourishes and everything is destroyed, especially virtues and goodness. Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) says that war suspends all moral rules and turns ethics and morality into an impossibility. In his view, the opposite of the ethical condition is the condition of war; precisely because war fundamentally negates the possibility of being moral. Why are today's wars like this?

War before the twentieth century took the form of two armies with their commanders marching against each other. Hand-to-hand combat was a significant part of it. The most terrifying military device was the cannon, and all guns were muzzle-loaders. All these conditions dictated that battle occurred only between military personnel and usually in areas far from cities and civilian life. A war between two countries would take place in a small area between a few thousand soldiers, and most of the country's people were safe from its danger. In such wars, most ordinary people continued their normal lives and did not suffer serious harm. In those wars, commanders were present on the battlefield, and their lives were at risk like everyone else's. In such a situation, individual courage and bravery were entirely meaningful. But today, if a war occurs, those who are safest are the war commanders, and those who have no connection to the war are most at risk. In today's wars, war leaders remain in complete safety because they are not present on the battlefield at all. Civilians are the primary and main victims of war. Today's war is not hand-to-hand; for its main weapons are massive bombs and giant missiles that level everything to the ground. Courage and bravery are meaningless against bombs and missiles. Today, war is nothing but a horrifying mass death. Such a thing leaves no room for the flourishing of individuals' talents and the growth of society. This war is the destruction of all talents. The reality is that today's wars are nothing but terrorism on a very large and extensive scale, carried out officially and by states. Here, as in many other cases, only the name has changed.

If Hegel reflected on the merit of war, he understood well what he was saying and had seen what war is. He had touched war up close and experienced its calamities; for his entire life was ruined in war. But a student who lounges comfortably to read a book and drink tea, if he writes in praise of war, speaks nonsense. Of course, he does not need to see it up close, but if only he had studied a little about weaponry and the history of war and read a few books. And of course, he does not read, which is why he utters such praise. But I will tell him a glimpse of seventy years ago. The hell that modern wars create cannot be depicted.

In World War II, there was serious disagreement about the aerial attack on Germany. Professor Frederick Lindemann (1886-1957), known as Lord Cherwell, defended the aerial attack on Germany. He was Churchill's advisor and an important member of the war cabinet. His view was that the aerial attack would severely weaken the morale of the German people and change the outcome of the war. He was a physicist and had a computational reason. His calculation was as follows: in 15 months, we will produce 10,000 bomber aircraft. Each bomber drops 40 tons of bombs before crashing. Each ton of bomb destroys the homes of 100 to 200 Germans. Now, if half of the bombs hit the target, that makes 200,000 tons of bombs. The sum total is the homes of 20 to 40 million Germans that will be destroyed in the bombing, and Germany will be brought to its knees.

It later became clear that these calculations were not at all realistic and that the esteemed physicist lord had not taken many factors into account. The bombing was carried out. The quantitative result was one-tenth of what Cherwell had predicted. But qualitatively, the situation was different.

In July 1943, the bombing of Hamburg began. Britain, with the help of America, launched a massive aerial attack. Bombs rained down on the city, and the resulting fires turned into a great firestorm. The heat reached 800 degrees. Those who were close burned alive and were reduced to ashes. Many also went into shelters to stay safe, unaware that the firestorm requires vast amounts of oxygen and completely consumes all the air in the surrounding areas. For this reason, the people in the shelters suffocated and died. Some, before suffocating, fled and poured into the streets. But the intense heat had melted the asphalt, and anyone who stepped on it became trapped in it and was gradually roasted. Some tried to save themselves by using their hands to pull their feet out of the asphalt, but their hands also got stuck. These people, on all fours, screamed in pain. The intense heat melted the soft parts of the sides of the abdomen, and the individuals' entrails spilled out from there. The skulls of some individuals also burst from the intense heat, and their brains protruded and spilled onto the ground. Things resembling burnt toy dolls lay on the ground. They were children. What made them seem like dolls was that they all had the same posture: hands frozen in front of the face; until the last moments, they protected their faces from burning with their small hands. In the end, only dust, rubble, and ashes remained. One eyewitness said at the end of his description: "No sound could be heard from anyone. No scream was heard. It was as if the world had come to an end."

Is there anyone who praises such a thing?! If there is, woe to him! Shame on him!

.

---

.

In Praise of War, or Death?

Author: Dr. Ali Ghazalifar

.

---

.