War, what is it good for?

War is not something that we can ignore. I know that it is a controversial topic that most people shy away from for good reasons. However, people have every proper and absolute obligation, in my humble opinion, to question war. Do wars help us to eliminate evil? Does the public good stay protected when we engage in violence to defend it? What are the short- and long-term effects of murder as our weapon of last resort? How is it okay to kill people who kill to deter others from killing?

When I was a young boy in war-torn Nicaragua, I often wondered how it could be okay with God for my friends, family, and me to be part of the war. The Somoza-Sandinista war took over 100,000 lives, and the vast majority were innocent, “collateral damage” civilians. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, a war is justifiable if it meets the following criteria: cause, right intention, last resort, proportionality, and discrimination. Aquinas also explained the conditions under which war could be justified. First, there must be a Sovereign authority under which war is waged, and a private individual cannot wage war.

Practical attempts to regulate conduct, primarily the protection of non-combatants, were inextricably entwined with a desire to limit the waging of war to the ones in power, magnates, and prelates in possession of authority.??This intermingling of resorting to violence, “ius ad bellum” and controlling the rules of engagement in justifiable violence, “ius in bello” concerns, produced a sophisticated and complex body of ethical thought about war.??These ethical reflections did little to answer my ordinary questions of fairness and the ultimate failures that wars produce.

Aquinas argued that those in authority are responsible for the general good of the city, kingdom, or province under them, and they are allowed by law to use the sword to defend that good from internal disturbance from evildoers. This line of reasoning has been used by authoritarians who insist that prohibiting free speech and assembly by opponents is justified. In their minds, dictators and their allies are excellent, benevolent leaders being misunderstood and attacked by jealous, power-hungry opponents. By painting themselves as anti-coup governments, they can repress and eliminate all opposition to their power. I learned that even though Aquinas believed in good government, humanity has excellent reasons to question the authority of their governments.

In the same way, Aquinas argues that it is the authority’s responsibility to use the sword to defend the common good from external foes. It has been my observation that many autocratic governments divide and conquer their populations by assigning alienage or foreign status to opponents. We have witnessed the dehumanization of opponents as reasons to wage war and take their land, freedom, or lives again and again because they are considered external, alien, or different. Consequently, according to Aquinas, unrecognized groups have no right to claim just war when killing genuine governments. However, illegitimate governments have no moral authority to exist or wage war.

Hence, it is Aquina’s stand that those not in positions of power cannot declare war while also teaching that laws are only valid when they are just and governments are only justified when they exist for the common good. “Laws can be unjust . . . by being contrary to the divine good, as are tyrannical laws that induce men to idolatry or to do anything else that is contrary to divine law.” Therefore, understanding that manufactured laws and governments are rendered invalid and void when they harm the common good is crucial. Only good governments can engage in just war because evil groups calling themselves governments are inherently illegitimate. By adhering to the just war theory, nations should ensure their military actions are justified and promote peace and stability.

However, war is a complex and devastating phenomenon that causes profound physical and psychosocial pain for both combatants and civilians while also imposing enduring social burdens on the communities they re-enter. The pain of war extends far beyond the battlefield, persisting long after the cessation of hostilities. Recent data on armed conflicts indicate that during 1989-1997, there were 103 such conflicts in 69 locations around the world, 33 of which were active in 1997. Over the 1990’s decade, roughly one-third of all United Nations Member States were directly involved in at least one armed conflict. I cannot help thinking that in every one of those armed conflicts, children are being taught the horrors of war, and this will affect them and their families for a very long time.

The number of conflicts increased after the end of the Cold War, peaking in 1992. Most were contained by the end of 1997. There were 27 conflicts in 1998 and 36 in 1999. There are currently over 32 ongoing conflicts in the world in 2023, ranging from drug wars, terrorist insurgencies, ethnic conflicts, and civil wars. Wars, it seems, have failed to resolve humanity's conflicts and instead re-emerge repeatedly. The cruel reality is that we live in a world that is constantly at war, and everyone suffers directly or indirectly as a result, and we do not even know if, ultimately, good or evil has won. My parents dared to flee Nicaragua and save our family, and I cannot blame anyone else who is trying to do the same for their families regardless of what side of the war they fall under.

Before the first shot is fired, the decision to go to war is often made by political leaders. However, it is the civilians who bear the initial brunt of this decision. The powerful magnates and prelates find proxies to fight their wars by recruiting with economic and emotional incentives for fighting age soldiers. The mere threat of war can cast a shadow of anxiety, fear, and uncertainty over entire populations, significantly impacting mental health. The long-term effects of fearing an upcoming war are sufficient to drive many people clinically insane.

In Nicaragua, we saw many people paralyzed by terror and unable to escape harm as a result. Additionally, the extensive preparation for war diverts valuable resources away from vital societal needs, creating economic hardship. Hoarding resources is a natural tendency, and watching wealthy neighbors stockpile in preparation while you go hungry creates societal resentment for those who suffer poverty and illness. Some have more resources than they need but will not share. Others have little less than dissipating hope. Even before physical violence erupts, community ties are strained or severed as everyone goes into survival mode. The pain of neglect is planted in the sufferer’s heart forever.

The pain experienced during armed conflicts is tragically well-documented. It encompasses physical injuries, profound psychological trauma, and the irreplaceable loss of life. Soldiers and civilians alike endure chronic pain, which can leave enduring scars on their quality of life. The psychological toll of war often manifests as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. As a civilian child pushed into a revolution, watching the worst crimes against other humans hurt me more than I knew. Years later, I find that those who took part or witnessed it lost their innocence and the bliss that came with it so long ago. You cannot unsee that which dwells inside your soul.

Crucially, the pain of war does not conclude when the guns fall silent. Both veterans and civilians can experience moral injury, which is psychological and spiritual pain resulting from actions that violate one’s moral code. This injury lingers, haunting those who have been part of conflicts, leaving them with profound questions of guilt and remorse. Furthermore, the impact extends to the societal level, encompassing social burdens such as unemployment, homelessness, and poverty. The devastation wrought by war can span generations as communities strive to rebuild and heal their fractured social fabric.

The suffering inflicted by war usually gives birth to a vicious cycle of revenge and violence. The pain and anguish experienced by victims may foster feelings of anger, resentment, and a desire for retribution. This perpetuates a cycle of violence as victims seek retaliation against those they perceive as having harmed them. Generations of Nicaraguans are still divided from their families for taking the other side during the war that took place decades ago. Revenge can overpower natural law’s command to pursue good and turn us into that which we despise: evil.

Additionally, the psychological consequences of war, such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety, can hinder individuals’ ability to move forward from the trauma. Many struggle silently because of the stigma of being classified as mentally unstable. These conditions can contribute to ongoing conflict and violence, perpetuating the cycle of pain. Moreover, the socioeconomic burdens generated by war, including economic hardship, displacement, and social disruption, can have long-lasting effects on individuals and communities, further entrenching the cycle of suffering. Young people in the best years of their lives are forced to kill each other instead of learning valuable life skills, starting their families, and contributing to their communities.

It is true that, in theory, the law addresses the pain caused by war through various means, including compensation for victims, access to healthcare, and international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL establishes rules governing armed conflicts to safeguard civilians and minimize the suffering of non-combatants. It encompasses provisions regarding the treatment of wounded combatants, the protection of civilians, and the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. However, these mechanisms are rendered useless when the victims are unable to seek help due to their very same conditions of mental and spiritual harm. Some scholars argue that recognizing and addressing moral injury can significantly aid in mitigating the pain caused by war.

Moral injury is, again, the harm caused to our sense of self by doing things we know are morally wrong. Coping with moral injury can be an arduous journey, but several strategies can assist individuals in managing their symptoms and progressing toward healing. These strategies include acceptance and commitment, self-therapy, mindfulness, self-compassion, seeking support, and professional assistance. Most sufferers of war have no reasonable access to these types of healthcare and go on experiencing emotional torment. The Veterans Administration, VA, has been criticized over the years for its inability to treat veterans adequately. In other countries, there is no VA at all.

In conclusion, the profound and enduring pain of war casts a dark shadow over humanity, affecting individuals and communities long before, during, and after the fighting ceases. I was fortunate to survive and learn to make the most of my life experiences. I wish the same for all others facing war. It is imperative to recognize and comprehend the impact of war on its victims to work toward preventing future conflicts and promoting lasting peace. Many people are alarmed by the growing number of refugees in our world and wish to reclassify them as economic migrants. This would place them outside the protections of refugee and asylum laws.

As an educated society, we must come to terms with the fact that all individuals fleeing wars should qualify for protection under the law. Through a deep understanding of the multifaceted pain of war, we can strive for peaceful resolutions to conflicts and facilitate healing for those burdened by the weight of war's enduring scars. Compromise takes place when both parties to the negotiation feel that they have given up something valuable. Until then, committing sin to correct sin is inherently wrong.

Citations:

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ethics-and-international-affairs/article/war-is-over-but-the-moral-pain-continues/58E778BA22454FC24DABE28413CB337F

[2] https://www.apa.org/international/united-nations/un-matters/rathi-war.pdf

[3] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00975

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472271/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_injury

[6] https://warpp.info/en/m1/articles/effects-of-war

[1] Magnate?noun?- A person of rank, power, or influence in a particular field. Prelate?noun?- A senior clergyman and dignitary. [1] https://thesaurus.plus/related/magnate/prelate

[2]?Ius ad bellum refers to the international law regulating the resort to force. At the same time, ius in bello is a synonym for international humanitarian law and refers to the international law regulating behavior in war.?