However, Karl von Clausewitz considers war as a “the continuation of politics by other means” (p. 18). The definitions are valid as they provide room for different causes of conflict such as unstable systems, imbalance of power, threats and many more. The manuscript within is a discussion on the war of aggression, a war of refusal and war of retribution (Doyle 12).
The war of aggression comes with the excessive destruction and high mortality rates recorded as a result of the conflict. War has been considered to be a universal and ancestral phenomenon of human nature. However, some scholars oppose the ideology looking at the war as an influence of particular socio-cultural or ecological circumstances. People consider war as a general phenomenon though there exist different kinds of war defined by legal systems and the nature of the conflict. The examples of war commonly experienced across nations include aggression, refusal, and retribution. War of aggression or conquest is based on military conflict based on no justification of self-defense for territorial gain and subjugation (Doyle 9).
War of Conquest is a conflict observed in the contemporary world and highly opposed to the prior international legal standards and customary international laws. The Kant, a Republican was found in the twentieth century to employ the use of war of aggression. He believed that the standing armies considered as the extension of the Crown were to give way to the self-armed citizens as it was a manifestation of the popular will. Such a system provides an assurance of war birthed by citizens as opposed to the ruling system. In Kant’s program, it was clearly defined that the citizen’s consent was of significance in deciding on whether to go to war or not. Kant reports “Perpetual peace and the reason for this is as follows: If the consent of the citizenry is required in order to determine whether or not there will be war it is natural that they consider all its calamities before committing themselves to so risky a game” (p. 10). This is quite dangerous as non-member population under Kant’s program regularly called for war (Doyle, 10).
War of refusal are not easy to define their features, and neither are they easy to reconstruct from historical literature. Refusal wars are argued to be commonly based on the attitude of the soldiers as well as the nations under attack. Refusal wars are also birthed through rejection of given laws and political policies within and without a given country. For example, Maurice Blanchot is considered to have instigated a war of refusal when he denied submitting to the French law during the Algerian war id independence. Maurice refused to submit to the two-sided political act “the drafting of a (human) rights declaration, and a calculated outburst against the court’s authority during his subsequent prosecution” (p. 12). The war of refusal is clearly built upon disagreements between nations when the other considers a given system to be unfavorable to them as was the case with Van Marle and Blanchot (Doyle 12).
Wars of refusal have existed when individuals reject their leader’s ideas as well as when a gap is built when two governments enter a contract. Like war of aggression, a war of refusal can also be caused by the imbalance of power, the style of leadership and struggle over resources. In nations where there exists a stable system of power, wars of any nature are unlikely to be experienced as opposed to countries where power is unstable. Instability in control enhances war of refusal as the citizens are often in constant disagreement with the decisions and policies developed by the government over time and space. Such gaps have been observed to affect the development levels of nations, destruct property and lead to loss of lives (Doyle 21).
War of retribution is commonly remembered for the attacks waged by the Muslim nations of the West. The war has today been established in to be part of the ordinary computer games in the workshop. Retribution wars tend to occur when a nation wages a counter attack on the other for an aggressive and inhumane action. Retribution wars are commonly recorded between the Al Qaeda and the United States over abolishing policies on nuclear explosives. Retribution wars over many years has been ignored yet they are waged on innocent nations for vengeance. Retribution wars occur as a result of defense, rebellion and protection of a community from an enemy. Different factors also enhance war of retribution. It is also hard to tell its existence in the society as well as define its characteristics. The challenge of the identity of this kind of war is based on the fact that its existence is based on different reasons, and many people are not familiar with its cause (Doyle 22).
War of any nature, as looked into by Doyle (1997), exist in societies based on the form of leadership adopted by the community. It is then necessary for organizations and leaders to keep watch over the structure of the society to help reduce and eradicate war. According to Doyle, war of aggression, refusal and retribution have been enhanced by the existing style of leadership in a given system. He considers liberal countries to have a significant amount of peaceful relation among its population. The peace in progressive governments is based on the fact that they find each other as a friend, respecting and accommodating each other’s opinion. Hence, they are observed to negotiate on issues than escalating disputes. However, the peaceful existence does not mean there are no wars in democratic nations (Doyle 23).
Liberal systems escalate war over their desire to preserve and expand the generous boundaries of peace. Power based on such system has led to the development of foreign policies dangerous to both liberal and non-liberal states. Through the influence of foreign policies, progressive systems tend to extend their operations to countries that do not buy the type of leadership leading to conflict and war. Though liberalism is a sound system that builds peace within liberal nations, it is of significance that the countries consider the ideas of non-liberals while developing foreign policies. The respect and accommodation of contribution from such governments are essential in the maintaining peace in the extended regions. Moreover, such agreements are also likely to impact on the leadership styles of the non-liberal communities escalating borrowing of liberal democracy across such countries (Doyle 23).
War of aggression, refusal and retribution are likely to recur at advanced levels in the United States based on the existence of ethical dilemma on international and rules of law on nuclear weapons. The US has its policies forbidding nuclear weapons yet, they consider them as security gadgets. The making of all nuclear monarchial has made all nations across the globe vulnerable to war. The despotic nature of nuclear explosives makes the weapons possible for use due to fallibility and corruptibility of the lone person. As the US government work towards deterring nuclear weapons, it has to be ready to face the challenges that may result in the case of failure of deterrence. An ethical dilemma is then built by the government as they have their laws against nuclear explosives yet they still recommend the explosives in times of war (Doyle 24).
The developed laws in nations have been observed by Doyle to facilitate war. International laws on the war have been found to contradict the moral laws leading to both ethical and political dilemmas. Wars have been carried out by the military as well as citizens in the form of self-defense as endorsed by the international law. Additionally, moral and executive hazards during the rescue was are approved by the international laws as long as they are preventive against an evil act. However, international law has failed to consider morally just interventions regarding human rights. For instance, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was an illegal intervention supported by international laws. The development of rules for military interventions while ignoring the moral rhetoric structure, has enhanced wars of different types among the human population. It is then of significance that human rights be considered by the international laws on military based prevention techniques to avoid re-emergence of refusal and retribution wars (Doyle 24).
Wars of aggression, refusal and retribution have been observed to exist between the United States and the Muslim community. The attack on the western societies on the Muslim is based on the internationally developed policy refuting the existence of nuclear explosives in possession of the Islam. However, this cannot be achieved as discussed earlier as Al Qaeda hold the US to be in support of the explosives as the used the atomic bomb on the Japanese. The policy has resulted in several humiliating aggressive wars being held against the Islam. For example, in 1991 a Persian Gulf War was waged by The US, European and Israeli. Additionally, in 2011 the western communities took an aggressive military action against the Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Al Qaeda considered the war to be “unprecedented and unprovoked against the Muslim community” (Doyle 25).
The Muslims then held a retribution war against the actions of the European nations. The Al Qaeda together with other Muslim troops have always been at war with the West against their humiliating policies over the Islamic countries. Despite, many western nations being involved in the war against the existence of the nuclear explosives, retribution wars of the Muslim are commonly waged against one Western country, the United States. Muslim terrorist groups have been reported to attack different United States investments in various parts of the world placing the lives of innocent people in danger. For example, the 1997 bombing of the US embassy in Kenya by Osama Bin Laden was based on the humiliation of the Muslim community by the West. It is then necessary for the Western nations to restructure their policies on nuclear explosives in the Muslim countries to avoid the extension of wars to innocent nations (Doyle 30).
Aggressive wars against the Muslim community on nuclear terrorism have led to the birth of retribution wars. Wars of revenge held by the Muslim communities have been observed to be in line with the Quran. Furthermore, Muslim terrorist groups use the explosive weapons with the belief that the Prophet Mohammed also did the same with the utilization of a catapult. Abu Geith is observed to agree with the attacks of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the US. He reports “It is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted Muslims because of the US’ chemical and biological weapons” (p. 30). The statement is an explicit assurance that the war of retribution between the Muslim terrorist troops and the European nations will be in existence as long as the moral dilemma existing on the nuclear policies is not resolved (Doyle, 34).
Conclusion
In conclusion, war has been in existence for time and memorial in the fight for peace as well as against existing policies on nuclear explosives. Aggression, refusal and retribution wars manifest in different parts of the world and the US. The wars have been observed to be caused by various factors. Liberal societies have been perceived to have little or no conflict instances that result in war. However, international policies with non-liberal countries have been seen to birth into conflicts as liberal nations extend their territories. Therefore, policy development and international laws have been found as the primary causes of conflict since leadership structures of countries vary. It is then of importance for governments to appreciate diversity and work their policies and laws in morally right directions.
Works Cited
Doyle, Michael W. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: Norton, 1997. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment