War and Terrorism: Why is war still an option today
Disputes in this day and age are advised to be resolved through dialogue and peaceful means. Politicians and global leaders often point out the different options disputing parties have to settle the differences that have cropped up between them. There are international bodies such as the United Nations (UN) and regional organisations such as Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). These organizations can either mediate peace and resolution talks between the countries in dispute or they can step in as a global community to enforce restrictions to coerce countries to comply without the need of bloodshed. Also, at times, some countries with neutral interest in either of the countries in conflict, step into the picture to mediate a peaceful outcome to the problem.
It is definitely applaudable that there are nations in the world today that, instead of resulting to violence and war, use the venues available to them to resolve conflict without bloodshed. For example, the recent contest between Singapore and Malaysia for the Pedra Blanca island residing on the borders of the countries was resolved without violence. The matter was referred to the International Court of Justice and both countries accepted the ruling of the court. Another example would be the United Nations, with the request and backing of majority of its member states sanctioning Iran for its nuclear activities. The racially Islamic political party in power in Iran has been in loggerheads with many western leaders. These leaders foresee a threat if Iran gains capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction and build up its nuclear arsenal. Therefore, these leaders, instead of launching a violent military assault on Iran, they have come together to put trade, travel and other forms of restriction on Iran so as to coerce the government into giving up its attempt to defy the west. Although this may seem as very oppressive, guns and war are left out of the picture and the toll on human life is negligible.
But even when there are avenues to reach the final goal without violence, some countries still resort to violent means. Back in 2001 when the World Trade Centre was attacked in the United States, after a confused few weeks, the US government made a pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan to ‘bring them to justice’. Hundreds of lives were lost on both sides and until today, the US has not been able to successfully charge and convict the main conspirators of the attack. Soon after Afghanistan, the US focused its attack on Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein, the then ruler of Iraq, had stock piles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) hidden in bunkers in Iraq. On both occasions the US did not have the blessings of the UN but it still went ahead with the war in the name of spreading the ideology of democracy and keeping the world safe from ‘axis of evil’ states. Not only did the US fail to find any WMD, it also failed to successfully end the war as it had planned, letting it drag on with increasing casualties and depleting resources.
At the venture, one has to wonder why any country would choose to rage war than to continue non-violence. Throughout history, wars have been fought for many reasons. War has been rage for territory and dominance, a chance to prove one’s courage and even to revenge past grievances. Using force to achieve results sometimes makes it possible to achieve the desired outcome quickly and without compromise. When Germany lost the Second World War to the Allied Powers in 1945, its surrender was total and many restrictions were imposed on it to hinder its development. Also, dominance, many a times, can only be portrayed with excessive use of strength and force. Recently, Russia reminded its neighbours that it is still a world power to be reckoned with when it easily over powered Georgia’s borders during Georgia’s dispute with South Ossetia. Violence definitely has a tangible effect on any society and this might be the reason why countries or organisations may result to it.
