A Treatise on War

The War in Afghanistan, the Civil War in Syria, the Ongoing Protests in Bosnia, Mexico's Drug Cartels, Colombia's FARC Armed Marxist Forces, the Civil War in Sudan, the Ongoing conflict in Korea, the Insurgencies in Nigeria and the Central African Republic and the Ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.This is a small list of ongoing armed conflicts that exist today, but are we conditioned to experience war and conflict in history repeatedly? Can the world experience and maintain peace and resolution and if so, how exactly is this possible?

WWII

The book of Ecclesiastes reminds us, there is nothing new under the sun. History tells us again and again of conflicts that have been fought for many reasons, were product of different causes and also took place under different circumstances. One thing is certain, that conflict and war is recurrent. But what are the conditions that repeat themselves and allow for conflict and war to manifest themselves? 

We can summarize the cause of war by saying that it is nothing more than a manifestation of wills at opposition. In other words, parties that have different interests and capabilities that oppose each other. Yes, it starts to sound a lot like politics with one difference--hostility. War is unsuccessful politics. But war is also more than a failure to negotiate peacefully and accurately. War is also a product of the dynamism of change. The conditions of war exist wherever there is a change in conditions, whether it is social, ethnically, political, or even psychological--this increases significantly the terms for war. Mainly, because the pre-existing social order has been threaten and chaos and violence is the natural response. Injustice is also a major condition for the pre-existing causes of war. Wherever there is an unclear set of social expectations, inequality, threatening and coercive forces, status indifference and or socio-cultural indifference was is possible. In other words, wherever there is an expression of one party exploiting another, the conditions of war are present. War resembles politics once again in the hunger and attainability for power. However, more prevalent than all of these conditions is the one that must exist for war to be possible. That is, a sufficient cause for war. Opposite wills, change and the will of power are only necessary conditions for war, but the will to war is a sufficient condition. Despite failure to negotiate, unstable social structures, unjust conditions and the constant hunger for power, the will to engage in conflict must be necessary for war to exist. If this one condition is lacking, war could not be possible. 

War in Afghanistan

Catholic Tradition and teaching vindicates the reasons for having this right as a just cause. If we considered the great Christian Theologians, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter, they both relied on the justification of violence for peaceful means. St. Augustine claims that engaging in a just cause for war, is not a transgression against God. While he does not explained the criteria for a just cause, St. Aquinas expands on his view. In trying to prevent the undesirable, war is justified. Aquinas explains the criteria for a just war in three points: Proper Authority, Just Cause and Right Intention. Mainly saying that a war must be declared by a state which represents the common good of the people which it governs, a war must occur for a good purpose that is in response to establish a good that has been denied as opposed to personal gain, and finally the intention of war must be to establish peace, (even amid war). The Catechism of the Catholic Church expands on Aquinas and grants several points as well: the damage by the aggressor must be severe, all other means of resolution must have been ineffective, there must be serious prospects of success and the use of the means of violence must not exceed those that it aims to eliminate. The Catholic Social Teaching of the Church gives a different light to the issue, instead of evaluating war by granting and expanding on the right to will war, it justifies it as the will to practice self-defense: ''States have the obligation to do everything possible 'to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their territory but throughout the world.' It is important to remember that 'it is one thing to wage war of self-defense, it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another. ''

Our tradition, in fact, justifies war under certain conditions. While St. Augustine was the first to notice the problem of ending violence by the need of violence and still being able to call it just, St. Thomas Aquinas expanded on the criteria and finally the Catechism puts it all together while remaining still somewhat vague. The Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching put the emphasis on defense instead. But while all of these positions justify the existence of a just war, but they do not address the avoidance of war: that is, to eradicate war altogether--to eliminate the will to war. 

To imagine or conceive this idea is no utopia or unprecedented set of circumstances set forth. The question then arises, has there been any significant social change that was attained without hostile intervention? History favors war and conflict when it comes to this question. However non-violence means of resolution do exist and speak louder not for the consequences and results they brought upon, (which are very influential) but because of the means in which they were attained. People who are committed to change without the necessity of violence have been  indeed successful. Gandhi and Mr. Luther King embraced the non-violent movement in their causes and now these practice have extended to influence many other socio-political causes such as the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Jeans Revolution in Belarus and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia as recent examples. To be committed to peace implies to avoid under all circumstances the will to war.

It is not enough to set the parameters in which war can be just, it is not enough to aspire for peaceful conditions if we are embracing evil means, it is not enough that given all conditions set forth that we are incapable of achieving peace without violence, it is not enough to say that one can commit to justice but not to peace simultaneously. Pope Paul VI is known for saying, ''If you want peace, work for justice'' and is not that justice precedes peace--but instead it is the venue in which peace is attained. Pope John Paul II reminds us too that, ''Opting for peace does not mean a passive acquiescence to evil or compromise of principle. It demands an active struggle against hatred, oppression and disunity, but not by using methods of violence. Building peace requires creative and courageous action.''