Rethinking War Analysis: The Urgent Need for a Peace Perspective

More generally, a lot of war analysis that is seen to be relatively closer to a peace perspective relates to explaining how US difficulties are increasing and how escalation and expansion in various ways can increase problems for the USA. While such analysis may at times help the cause of peace at least temporarily, it still raises the question of whether a highly unjustified war should be opposed only when it increases problems for the main aggressor. Should a highly unjustified aggression, as in Venezuela, not be opposed just because it is perceived as a ‘success’ as it has not yet created serious problems for the aggressive side?

What is most worrying is that a group of very powerful persons first prepares the plans for completely unavoidable wars, and then a much bigger number of supposed experts and analysts are called in to justify such wars over the years, regardless of the extreme distress these may be causing all the time.

Several well-informed persons in the region have argued that the interests of the people of Ukraine could have been best served by maintaining neutrality and pursuing friendly relations with both Russia and Europe. Unfortunately plans for instigating a proxy warProxy WarA conflict instigated by major powers that do not directly engage each other, but instead support opposing sides in a smaller, often regional, conflict. were made and the result is that nearly a million people have died or were seriously injured or disabled. All along, several expert analysts have contributed to keep the war going.

Earlier, around the turn of the century, a narrow but very powerful group of decision-makers in the USA framed the agenda of the War on TerrorWar on TerrorA global military campaign launched by the United States and its allies after the September 11, 2001, attacks, primarily aimed at combating international terrorism. which led to the loss of 4.5 million lives from the direct and indirect impacts of war, according to Brown University estimates, with hundreds of analysts at work to somehow justify the madness of one war and intervention after another.

There appears to be shocking neglect of the huge sufferings caused by wars and increasing lack of sensitivity to the distress on the other side. In 1960 there was a very high level meeting in Nebraska, USA of top defense officials. One of them John H. Rubel had pangs of guilt later and revealed the details of this meeting in a memoir published just before his death. At this meeting plans of an extensive nuclear weapon attack on Soviet Union were presented (in case the need for this is felt in future) in which the death toll was estimated at 600 million, over half of these from radioactive fallout in neighboring countries like China. Only one official objected, but he was supported by no one else, and the general attitude was of appreciation for this plan.

It is quite possible that somewhat similar plans were later presented in countries most opposed to the USA, with equal lack of concern for the unacceptably high suffering.

All this raises very serious concerns regarding how several experts and senior officials have become part of the war machine that relentlessly pushes forward a highly destructive agenda. First, several officials helped by experts prepare very destructive plans which are not justified at all; later, a larger number of experts and analysts contribute to keeping them going over the years, mainly on the basis of false arguments.

Clearly a time has come for several statesmen and senior scholars to come forward in more organized and more sustained ways to instead provide analysis based on a strong and well-argued justice-based peace perspective. These efforts should get widespread public support so that alternative well-argued viewpoints of eminent persons are available to all those people and organizations who want to stop the war-mongering. There should be a willingness to go beyond narrow limits of debates to examine alternative systems in which this madness of life destroying possibilities can end to ensure a safe future for ourselves, our children and for the generations yet to be born.