War is the ultimate failure

Death, destruction, disease, horror... that's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. But you've made it neat and painless - so neat and painless, you've had no reason to stop it, and you've had it for five hundred years. - James T. Kirk in "A Taste of Armageddon"

People have the ability to communicate and cooperate with one another to solve problems facing humankind as a whole. In light of this, the leaders of a nation must consider war as the ultimate failure, regardless of eventual outcome:

1) failure to preserve the lives of a nation's citizens (which includes military personnel)

2) failure to preserve the lives of the opponent's citizens (all lives are important)

3) failure to preserve the world's limited resources (used for destructive instead of constructive ends, not to mention destruction of resources and infrastructure due to fighting)

4) failure to use time for better purposes (time is wasted on destroying, when the world's problems go unsolved)

5) failure to communicate with or understand the opponent, as well as sowing seeds of mistrust and hatred, thus increasing the likelihood of future failure at communication

As Kirk once said to the mirror universe Spock in "Mirror, Mirror", the problem with war is the "illogic of waste". War must always be remembered as failure, a dark and lasting blemish in history.

-------------------------------------------

It is downright bizarre how some view war. For example, the Conservative government increased the combat role of Canadian troops in Afghanistan shortly after it came to power. This significantly increased the likelihood of Canadians killing Afghans and increased the likelihood of Canadians being killed. This was supposed to bolster Canada's standing in NATO somehow (for some obviously misguided reason).

War is glorified when it should be abhorred. In real life, war should not be a game with a scorecard with spectators cheering at from the sidelines far from the action, yet this is exactly what happens.

It takes a certain level of bravery to be a soldier in a warzone, but it should never have to happen. Some politicians (and some "spectator" citizens), colloquially known as "chickenhawks", are far too willing to take advantage of the reflected "glory" of winning a war without taking any risk to themselves, the way the Moon's brightness is just the reflection of sunlight.

And I really mean without taking any risk. Most wars that Canada and the U.S. have participated in have been/are fought on faraway continents, far beyond the reach of any significant counterattack. Fighting a war, at least to those at home, is largely neat and painless.

This is why people must remember the people on the other side and the reasons why war is a failure.

It takes bravery to be a soldier in a warzone, but it also takes bravery for a government to be willing to work with another government, overcome differences, and be willing to be challenged. It's easy (in fact, cowardly) to send someone else to kill others due to challenges that one is not willing to work to overcome.

A military should simply be a deterrent, never to be used unless all else has failed.

Peace and long life.