War is the highest form of abuse a government can inflict on the
governed since violence is only justifiable as an act of self-defence and even
then only as a preventative measure rather than a pre-emptive action.
But why?
War is an attempt of one leader, or anyone else in a position of
political influence or authority or power, to impose their will through
coercion, pure and simple. But in order to enlist people’s enthusiasm – a
necessity in fighting a war – the leader cannot simply say “this is what I
want” and must resort to the simplistic mean of presenting the situation as an
‘either – or’ one: “we either destroy them or they’ll annihilate us”. Once a person
crosses that line – the recognition of an ability to manipulate public opinion
– the temptation to use its inherent simplicity in internal matters of state is
overwhelming. This, in turn, creates the tendency to deal with socio-political
issues not by confronting them but through PR campaigns which, needless to say,
results in issues festering unobstructed into boiling points. In short, the
downslope into instability is unavoidable. The introduction of propaganda as a
mean cannot, in reality, be attributed to war, but because of the levels of
sacrifice requested it requires an unprecedented and unparalleled levels of
involvement that other situations of will-imposition do not in the person whose
will is being imposed and hence its impact –the internal change it instigates –
is bound to have more overall internal influence.
War is the ultimate breakup of communication, a feature that is
perceived by humans to be of their most distinctive features. Regardless of how
successful war-propaganda is, this blow to human’s self-image can never be
fully hidden or fully controlled. It is, in other words, un-mitigable affront
to our sense of self as a species, the result of which is not only devastating
but unpredictable, further adding currents of instability and volatility to the
social context.
While it is within the human purview to create its own future, we
were not given the gift of its prediction. We can influence the future but not
foresee it. Pre-emption is such an attempt. That is, it creates the future but
doesn’t predict it, and given the destructive nature of war – first and
foremost the immediate devastation to human life and body as well as the social
repercussions – it should never be a choice, which pre-emption always is.
No comments:
Post a Comment