War

The common definition of war as “armed fighting” is empty, euphemistic, and evades the crucial elements of homicide and politics. War is not just an armed struggle but a deliberate attempt to use death and destruction to obtain a political goal. 

 

Still, war is a broad term that can also describe a fierce competition. The definition of war, through this persistent metaphorical use, has been made redundant.

 

Take the trade war between China and the US, for example. The US and China are not literally at war – they are not attempting to obtain their economic goals via systematic homicide – but there is a sense of fierce competition that is labeled a war. Though the definition of war doesn’t account for it, the modifying term trade is essential in differentiating between a homicidal war with economic objectives and a metaphorical trade war.

 

At the same time, most people recognize the difference between a metaphorical war and a literal, homicidal war. While there’s nothing wrong with having a war on the football field or at the ballot box, homicidal wars are clearly of far greater concern, and the euphemistic definition of war as an armed struggle must be more clearly comprehended.

 

Homicidal Wars

 

The participants in a homicidal war are called belligerents—these are the opposing sides or groups directly engaged in the fighting, who kill one another and then march over their opponent’s dead bodies to control territory. Whatever the goal of a war, homicide is the means. War is not a limited operation involving tasers and non-lethal force, but rather a “struggle” where innocent lives are normally lost and killing defines the fight.

 

Scope also defines a war. Two people trying to kill each other over a dispute involving a parking space, for example, are not at war. War is systematic and involves a large contingent attempting to murder another large contingent.

 

These groups are often countries, “states or nations,” like World War II, which involved 40 nations. Wars can also involve groups like the FARC rebels in Colombia or ISIS, two non-state actors aspiring to obtain political objectives. 

 

Wars are systematic and prolonged, beyond just a few moments and murders. Two groups may fight briefly without a war taking place, such as when pirates raid a ship. There is a battle for control of a ship, but no war between two ships. There may even be a war between pirates and the countries that own the ship, but the prolonged nature of war typically requires several battles and clashes. 

 

Critically, belligerents have a political goal. Pirates, for example, have a personal goal of self-enrichment but, Robin Hood aside, don’t pursue political objectives. A political objective, therefore, transforms a series of clashes into a war. 

 

Some wars aim to obtain political control over a territory, in which case, the belligerent must kill the opposition to occupy the positions that are literally on top of the opposition’s corpses. This was the case in World War II, where Germany and Japan sought to claim territory by killing those who occupied it – China, France, Poland, and many others. 

 

Other wars aim to achieve political goals via homicide without any territorial goals. Such a war occurred with the US war against Iraq when the US sought to use homicide to install a new government in Iraq, but did not aim to add new territory to the US. 

 

International laws such as the Geneva Conventions attempt to regulate the conduct of war, but are frequently violated, resulting in the widespread rape and murder of civilians. Civilians are killed and raped in almost every war, from the world wars to contemporary wars in Ukraine and Palestine. Indeed, war is no limited operation but an event where the participants must confront the fact that they may die at any minute. Under such pressure, atrocities by soldiers are to be expected even as they ought to be condemned. 

 

War, therefore, is best understood as the mutual use of systematic homicide to determine political outcomes. The prolonged nature of war and its brutality lend themselves well to metaphorical use, and indeed, war has taken on a significant metaphorical meaning. 

 

Metaphorical Wars

 

In this metaphorical sense, war can also refer to a non-violent “struggle or competition,” but this use only serves to soften the appalling nature of war. For example, Pepsi and Coca-Cola are at war in this sense, and this is a serious competition. Again, though, this war would need to be modified to be most precisely labeled as a trade or commercial war and not an actual, homicidal war. 

 

Nevertheless, just as peace extends from the international to the internal, war can describe “opposition by one thing to another” as well as “fighting or combat, including in the moral sense.” A young man may be at war with himself as he struggles to quit smoking cigarettes, for example. Similarly, there is a moral war to end poverty and eradicate preventable diseases like polio and measles. 

 

War can also be defined as the opposite of peace or a “breach or rupture of peace among two or more powers.” However, war in this sense refers to a more specific definition of international or interpersonal peace, as war is a narrower word relative to peace. War is not the breach of the peace that occurs when a toddler starts crying at the library, for example, nor the result of any disquieting thought that ruptures inner peace. 

 

At its broadest, war refers to any situation in which there is strong competition between opposing sides or a great fight against something harmful.” Indeed, the fight against something perceived as harmful helps to hold the definition of war together into a coherent word as wars, whether moral, economic, or homicidal, are always against entities perceived as harmful.

 

Take Russia, which has declared its belief that Ukraine is an entity harmful to the existence of Russia. The US similarly believed that China’s economic policies were harmful to its interests, therefore, the trade war began. Poverty and polio, too, are considered harmful, while the young smoker believes that cigarettes are harmful to him. 

 

Politics and War

 

War is often glorified, but usually in itself an admission of defeat and failure. War is expensive both in terms of human lives, equipment, money, and opportunity cost, making war the political strategy of last resort. Cooperation, compromise, negotiation, and any number of ideas had already failed, for a war to start. In rare circumstances, like the Coke-Pepsi War, war is the natural result of success and advantageous for all involved, but usually, war is a noxious, reprehensible, and brutal admission of failure.

 

Consider the conflict between China and Taiwan as one example. Four score years of a frozen conflict brought figurative battles over membership in the United Nations and acrimonious relations amid peace. Still, now, the countries are poised for war as China aims to “reunify” with Taiwan, but Taiwan remains dead set on maintaining its independence. If all other options fail – cooperation, compromise, etc. – then the ultimate admission of failure – war – will finally break out. 

 

Rather than resorting to homicide as a political strategy, though, China and Taiwan would be wise to compromise and reconsider the attainability of their goals. After all, homicide has proven ineffective as a political strategy – just look at the Third Reich. 

 

Properly understood, war is an affront to basic human values. Across the world, homicide is considered a crime and a morally unjustifiable act, self-defense excluded. Yet when political objectives become exceedingly difficult to obtain through non-violence, people feel justified in pursuing homicide as a political strategy. 

 

Ultimately, while some may argue that there are causes worth dying for, the question remains: can we ever truly achieve lasting peace and justice through homicide? Perhaps, the answer lies not in glorifying war, but in understanding it for what it is: a destructive, reprehensible strategy that perpetuates suffering and injustice.