Dylan Miller
Poly Sci
Paper #2
Why We Fight “War. War never changes. Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything from God, to justice, to simple psychotic rage” (Fallout). War has existed throughout history, and the only thing about it that has changed is the way it has evolved. From rocks, to spears, to arrows, to swords, to guns, to nuclear bombs, war seems to bring out ingenuity in ways to kill other people. As weapons evolved, so has the complexity of how we as a species wage war on each other. Looking down the timeline of our species, we can see wars have been fought over things from territory, resources, revenge, anger, security, religion, and even for other people. My thesis is that wars are fought for multiple and complex reasons. Looking back on ancient times, war was waged in a much more gruesome fashion, and was usually used in conflicts involving honor or greed. Wars were still strategic back in those times, however emotion has been taken out of the equation in the way the United States and other countries conduct war today. Now there are several different kinds of war waged in our day and age. Wars stem from all over from actual combat warfare, economic warfare, cyber warfare, guerilla wars, total wars, cold wars, to revolutions and rebellions. So what wars are fought and which ones are justified? It is very hard to label what is justifiable to start a war, because what is justifiable is in the eye of the beholder. The rule of thumb tends to be “when force is the best or only policy available at the time”. However, there are more factors than just stepping in with force. Aligning with one another, resources, preemptive security measures, and other factors make warfare a complicated ordeal. A prime example of this is the situation in Darfur as seen in Sands and Sorrow. We all know what is happening in Darfur, and yet there is no reaction to stop the genocide. The problem is that although it would be an easy win for our military, it strategically makes no sense. Our government will not put our troops in harm’s way to save these lives, because they believe there is no real gain to it. They would rather deploy troops to other areas in the Middle East, with hopes of more gain and control. Also it was making more sense (to the government at least) to stay out of the situation, because of our man hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The Sudanese government had intelligence we desperately wanted, and was claimed available nowhere else on Osama Bin Laden. They decided it would be in our best interest to stay out of the situation, as long as Sudan was supplying us with information on whereabouts and details of Osama Bin Laden. The overall idea was to make a decision that we would either intervene and stop the genocide and send more aid to Darfur, risking the lives of our troops, or would we pursue the man we believed was responsible for thousands of American deaths from the 9/11 attacks. Now many Americans would probably agree that they would rather get revenge and justice for the attacks of 9/11, rather than worry about the lives of people in a country they will probably never see. The government could use this as justification for going after Osama Bin Laden, and later Saddam Hussein, and allow them to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan where they would be able to gain more control and resources such as oil. Our government has ways of swaying your emotions to allow them to get what they want. It is hands down one of the best things our government does. The United States uses propaganda through a majority of the media to make you believe what they are doing is just and cause, and to rile up your emotions to promote their ideas. Some of these characteristics are seen in the movie Buying the War. The government and the major corporations are in a very tight knit here, and this gives both of them too much power. An