There is a famous anti-war poem by the renowned English writer Wilfred Owen. In it, he writes:
“If you could see how his lungs drown in blood,
how he gasps for breath,
his scorched, living body struggling in vain to keep death at bay—
then you would not say that giving one’s life for war is a noble act!”
In truth, the history of the world is written on the blood-stained pages of war. Since the dawn of civilization, humankind has advanced while accompanied by war.
Sometimes war was a struggle for survival of one’s own kind, at other times it was a violent attempt to seize the land, wealth, or power of others.
And sometimes, war was the only path left for self-defense. When we study the history of human evolution, it becomes clear that war is like a dark shadow of our civilization — its existence hidden in the womb of darkness.
Archaeological excavations have uncovered evidence of a violent conflict at Nataruk in Africa, about 10,000 years ago, where many were brutally killed or injured. This is thought to be the oldest known example of “war” in human history.
Such facts prove that war is not the product of modern intellectual creation, but perhaps a fierce manifestation of primitive instinct. As civilization has advanced, the methods and strategies of war have become more complex, and its consequences more devastating.
Historians estimate that at least 15,000 wars have occurred in recorded history. The bloodshed from those wars continues to leave a deep, internal pain within human consciousness.
In the 20th century alone, around 100 million people lost their lives in two world wars. The Second World War — the greatest conflict in human history — dealt a terrible blow to humanity, morality, and intellect.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as cruel examples of how thoroughly humanity can be annihilated in war.
But this raises a question — were all these wars inevitable? Were all wars fought for self-defense? Or were many wars driven by the ego, greed, or misguided policies of leaders?
An analysis of history’s various wars shows that many could have been avoided.
Then, is war always condemnable? Not necessarily. History has also seen wars fought for justice, for the liberation of the oppressed.
Our own Liberation War was such a struggle for the self-determination of a nation, where war became inevitable because all paths to peace had been closed.
Therefore, to denounce all wars in a single breath is as wrong as glorifying them blindly — and herein lies the philosophical question of war. Is war merely an external conflict, or an inner struggle rooted in human consciousness?
Philosophers like Saint Augustine or Aquinas tried to define war within the boundaries of justice. According to them, “War is only acceptable when it aims at self-defense or the establishment of greater justice, and when it protects the innocent.”
On the other hand, Hobbes or Machiavelli argued that “Power is ultimate, and war is a natural extension of politics.”
Human society is inherently prone to conflict, and states resort to war to safeguard their existence. Yet, standing in opposition to this view were Gandhi, Tolstoy, and Martin Luther King, who proclaimed that “Non-violence is the greatest strength.”
They demonstrated that it is not violence, but unwavering moral conviction and non-violent struggle that can bring lasting change in society.
Thus, war should never blindly be made a symbol of glory, nor can it always be dismissed outright as condemnable. War must be understood in terms of its context, cause, and purpose.
Above all, any war stands opposed to human life. Where solutions are possible through dialogue, empathy, and justice, war is nothing but a failure.
