Ever since we first invaded Afghanistan & Iraq, I’ve seen these “War is not the answer” bumper stickers. I like the sentiment, even if I may not always agree with it. As I’ve said before, I’m not and probably could never be a non-violent person. But there are extremes to every situation. I’m not one to rule it out completely, but at least those who do have a place from which to argue. Pacifism can be defended, after all.
Recently, however, I’ve started seeing “War is the answer” bumper stickers. Either they are just like the first (with the “not” removed) or they are the first with the “not” scratched off or replaced, and this is the creepiest to me, with an American flag.
I could agree that sometimes war is, indeed, the answer. As a (an? whichever you like) historian, I could argue that certain wars in the past have been the answer. But these bumper stickers seem to be arguing what, to me, is an indefensible position: that war is always the answer.
Often I see these on SUVs and that could simply be because a substantial number of cars on the road are SUVs but I always want to engage the driver in debate: really? War is the answer to your decision to drive this vehicle? War is the answer to your desire to join the Army to go to college? War on one country is the answer to an attack from a person who lives in a different country? War is the answer to the classic whose-dicks-are-bigger question?
I guess what I really want to know is, if war is the answer, what was the question? Because it’s not Freedom, it’s not Liberty, and it’s not Security.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Elaine // Jan 17, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“War is the answer” to making sure they have a continuously flowing supply of gasoline to run those SUVs?
That’s what popped into my mind when I read this.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of those “war is the answer” bumper stickers around, but I have been seeing more and more of them protesting the war and/or the entire Bush administration around here…which is really kind of impressive considering that this is a notoriously conservative (and conservatively Christian) part of California.
2 Rich // Jan 17, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I would argue that war is NEVER the answer. I think that you would be hard pressed to give me any example of when it could not have been avoided.
Take WW2 for example. If we hadn’t treated the Germans like sub-human shit following the retarded and pointless WW1, leaving them to starve and suffer in humiliation, rather than giving them a hand up and their dignity restored, those otherwise rather bright people would not have paid old Adolf and his “Kampf” two pfennig worth of attention, and history would have forgotten his sorry ass long ago as his rants would have fallen on deaf ears. Granted, we screwed up, and had to go and fix it after it got all out of hand. But if we had done things differently in the first place…
3 Rich // Jan 17, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Hmm, I realize I’m sounding a tad retarded here too, getting all idealistic about the human condition and all. Men will always find reasons to hate and covet, and as long as the “boys will be boys” we will have to suffer war. As long as it’s profitable (and it is very profitable for some), we will have to suffer it.
I love the line from one of the sitcoms, where a woman poses the question “What would the world be like without men?”
Another responds: “A lot of fat, happy women, and no crime!”
4 JoeR // Jan 18, 2008 at 5:32 am
I happen to be in the Army, but I am a strong believer in the idea that war is to be used as a last resort only after all diplomatic, economic, political means have failed. There happens to be a good Wikipedia article on “Just War” which has a pretty good break down of the “Criteria of Just War” for starting, conducting, and post handling of war.
As a Military Policemen, we’re taught seven levels of “The use of Force”. We’re heavily stressed upon that only the “Minimal amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension” is to be used. When ever possible, when confronting a suspect, use the minimum force and equipment needed to subdue him. The first on the list is Verbal Commands followed by unarmed self-defense, irritant spray, police baton, military working dog, presentation of deadly force, and finally deadly force. We’re not even supposed to draw our pistol unless we absolutely need to use it.
There are also rules as to when deadly force can be used. Mostly it involves the a threat upon the life of the MP, the victim, or the mass populous. (ie: stealing nuclear weaponry).
Thats for military police work. For actual war fighting, we’re also taught The Rules/Laws of War (also mentioned in the Wiki article), Ethics, and to use the minimum amount of force necessary to avoid the loss of civilian life and property.
I believe that war isn’t good, but if need be, its justifiable to protect greater loss of life and freedom. For the most part, I’m a pacifist in the military, but I do believe in the use of war as a possible answer… just not the preferred answer.
Personally, I really wish civilians and politicians got the same rules of war and ethics training that we get in the military. Granted it doesn’t keep some people in the military from being war-mongers, but it’d probably help a few people realize that you really shouldn’t just jump straight to the fighting, and also help some understand that the military isn’t about killing everyone they can. It might also help some people learn a bit on how to deal with other things in life.
Maybe someone should make a bumper sticker that reads:
In big text:
“JUS AD BELLUM”
with small print under it:
“Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic, economic, and political means have been exhausted, or there is the immediate threat to a significant loss of life.”
That might make for a large sticker.
5 Brian // Jan 18, 2008 at 9:20 am
I generally feel that war is a failure. Not that war cannot achieve stated goals (”Let’s get that land over there and make it ours” or “Let’s keep these people from raping and pillaging”), but that it represents OUR failure that it came to that. War may sometimes be necessary (particularly in cases of self defense), but that doesn’t lessen its tragedy. I could fall on either side of the “bumper sticker debate” depending on how it were framed. In specific circumstances, war may or may not be the answer, and I don’t think it was the “answer” in Iraq. In the largest terms, war is NOT the answer. (As a Christian, I would of course say that Christ is the answer.) In terms where there are indeed people with the will, the desire, and perhaps even the means to harm and or destroy us, War is already their answer, and not being prepared to respond in kind (within just parameters) is irresponsible.
My utter distaste for war is, it should be noted, thrown out the window when a good Irish martial song is playing. I think our current military predicament could be easily explained if we find hidden MP3 players loaded with the Clancy Brothers at subliminal volumes strewn throughout DC.
Finally, I agree with the title of this post. 42 is definitely the answer. As with the bumper stickers, the point is…what is the question?
6 John // Jan 18, 2008 at 11:02 am
I wish that more conversations about war were like this, considering that it’s not always a binary, yes/no option, and that there is always a deeper context in which the question is embedded. I know that bumper stickers have limited room for nuanced argument, but it’s sad that so much of our political dialog, especially when human lives are at stake, don’t move much beyond yelling bumper sticker slogans at each other.
Great post title, by the way.
7 xJane // Jan 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm
JoeR: dittos about violence ethics.
This is kinda random but I thought of it while reading JoeR’s response: I was watching American Gladiators the other night & Titan (one of the Gladiators) was encouraging one of the contestants through his pain (popped his knee & got taken out of the competition). He was holding his hand & saying, in a manner I felt was tender but might have been kinda like yelling, “You’re a warrior, you fought well, you’re a warrior!” Later in the same episode, Titan lost to a different contestant & at the “sum up” interview with Hulk Hogan said, and this has really stuck with me,
Or something along those lines. While this means something to me on a personal level, in terms of fights on the mats in judo, I think it can also be taken nationally. Our opponents in WWII, though their history might well have driven them to act as they did, were strong opponents. If we cannot respect our enemies, how can we expect to fight them fairly?
8 Brian // Jan 19, 2008 at 11:12 am
xJane, I completely agree with your closing statement there. The key to any kind of just war, in theory or practice, is recognition that the “enemy” is human, the same as we are. Science and religion both stress our commonality. Genetically, something like 99.9% of our DNA is shared by all races, nationalities, etc. Similarly, most religions stress that we all share a common origin, are all children or participants or reflections of the same Divine essence.
Of course, war often demonizes or dehumanizes the enemy. They are dogs or demons or swine or heathens or infidels. They are different than us. To be sure, sometimes one force or another (or both) will behave in a manner not worthy of our human dignity, but they still deserve to be treated as human…even if we have to fight and kill them to protect our lives, our children, or our freedom.
One other comment. I don’t like the idea of “history…driving them to act as they did.” It is true up to a point, but it can sometimes be used to absolve a person, nation, whatever of a moral evil. Yes, circumstances, history, people, any number of things can influence an individual’s actions, or a nation’s, which is, after all, just a collection of individuals. But we still choose. I choose to cast a vote, to throw a rock, to have a drink, to pull a trigger. There may be a hundred different reasons why I felt I had no choice…but I chose nonetheless.
9 xJane // Jan 21, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Thank you, Brian
I wasn’t sure I was being very articulate at getting that across…
& yes, we still choose. But circumstances put us in a position where our choices are often limited. People are still, of course, responsible for their actions on both a personal & a national level, but when judging them, we would do well to understand the circumstances.
10 Brian // Jan 22, 2008 at 7:19 pm
In the spirit of John’s recent post on SF and religion, I’d like to quote Babylon 5 “There is always choice. We say there is no choice only to comfort ourselves with a decision we’ve already made.”
That said, I agree with trying to understand the circumstances behind a choice before making a judgment about that choice. Personally, I like to refrain from judgments in general, as I can never really understand the forces or situations that lead someone to make a choice, even if I feel the choice itself was wrong. Many things can mitigate the culpability for a decision that later generations may find detestable.
11 John // Jan 22, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Brian, there’s one more thing worth noting about circumstances that I think Rich hinted at–sometimes culpability is shared. The Germans may have launched the war, but some responsibility for that is on the British, French and Americans for subjecting their country to such a burden (the Wikipedia article for the Treaty of Versailles says that “The standard view is that the reparations, particularly forcing Germany to accept the entire blame, were the cause of Germany’s economic woes and the concomitant rise of Nazism to power.”) This is not just about judging others–it’s about judging ourselves as well.
12 Brian // Jan 22, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Technically, it’s about judging our great, great grandparents.
More importantly, and, I hope your real gist, it’s about learning from the mistakes of the past and trying not to repeat them. As I said in my first reply, we tend to demonize the enemy, and, by contrast, idolize ourselves, even from a historical perspective. But peoples is peoples, if I learned anything from the Muppets Take Manhattan. German mistakes hold lessons for modern day Americans, British mistakes for modern Chinese. It’s less about judging and more about learning, I hope. We’ll probably repeat the mistakes, sure, but maybe we’ll get it a little better next time around. “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
13 xJane // Jan 23, 2008 at 12:30 pm
hear hear (I just think this bears repeating ad nauseum:
14 Elaine // Jan 23, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Great, great grandparents, Brian? You must be really young. Both of my grandfathers fought in World War I…on opposite sides. Although I understand that being in the German army was a bit of a trial for my father’s father, who didn’t really do well with authority if the family stories are correct.
Oh…what? I’m supposed to be writing something about the topic at hand?
Oh, okay…
I think I would add that not only does history rhyme, it reverberates as well, and those reverberations…from as far back as history goes…still touch us and influence us every single day. That’s why history fascinates me so much…if you really pay attention, its all relevant.
15 Brian // Jan 23, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Maybe great grandparents, but in any case mine were probably busy with other issues. My grandfather was in the army in between WWII and the Korean War. But yeah, I’m pretty young, by most reckoning.
Leave a Comment