The Whys and Wherefores of Wars

War leaves no victors. This weighty truth is often ignored by nations.

Time and again, leaders abandon diplomacy and negotiation, choosing brute military force because they believe it safeguards their interests—whether national or personal. In an essay titled “The Peace of the World,” published in The New York Times on February 21, 1915, H. G. Wells made a powerful appeal:

“Probably there have never been so many people convinced of the dreadfulness of war, nor so large a proportion anxious to end war… so that this huge hideousness of hardship, suffering, destruction, and killing that continues in Europe may never again be repeated.”

Wells wrote this when World War I had just begun. But sadly, that war had gone on for four more years, until 1919. Even though he hoped, in a positive way, that it “would end all war,” World War II (1939-1945) had followed.

These two wars brought immense destruction to life and property, costing millions of lives and trillions of dollars. The widespread misery they caused is still not fully quantifiable, and many nations have yet to fully recover.

Yet humanity seems determined not to learn. We cling to the belief that military might is the ultimate guarantee of strength and security. But is it?

Some say that wars never actually end—they merely subside and then reignite, mainly because hostilities are never effectively addressed. Hatred toward one another grows out of fear and distrust, pride and prejudice. And several leaders use constant vilification of others to win the support of their own people. Political narratives are framed as ‘our good’ against ‘their evil’. It’s “us” against “them.”

Let us ask ourselves: why are wars generally fought? Most arise from disputes over territory, resources, and security—the control of oil, water, or borders, and the pursuit of power. Ideological differences and ethnic tensions further inflame these conflicts.

But must these differences lead us to war? That is the challenge before us—to engage in dialogue and resolve our disagreements constructively, without resorting to needless destruction.

Let us also consider the philosophy of war, where three perspectives dominate: Realism, Pacifism, and Just War Theory.

Realists like Thomas Hobbes argued that war is inevitable, rooted in human nature. Pacifists such as Leo Tolstoy and Bertrand Russell rejected war as irrational and destructive, insisting that it can be avoided.

Between these two schools of thought stand the Just War theorists, like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, who believe that war may be justified only under strict moral conditions—if it meets criteria such as just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, and proportional conduct.

Yet the question persists: can any war truly be just?

No. Perhaps not. Because “only the dead have seen the end of war,” said the philosopher, George Santayana.

Perhaps the real answer lies not in theory, but in action. Each of us possesses a conscience—a moral compass that we can use to guide our actions.

This right of conscience is a fundamental human right, protecting an individual’s freedom to act upon deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.

It is safeguarded under international law, including Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and it guarantees the freedom to think, believe, and act according to one’s conscience without state coercion.

We can and we must engage with our leaders, insist on dialogue over destruction, wisdom over impulse, and humanity over hatred. If war begins in the minds of people, then peace must be forged there too—and it must begin with us, now, before history repeats its cost once again.

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Daily Tribune)