Essay on Achieving Peace Through Militarism

Betrayal, one of the most horrible things you could do to anyone your family, a friend anyone. To me it’s one of my all time most hated things a person could do and it’s almost unforgivable. In this book A Separate Peace by John Knowles two boys Phineas and Gene who are best friends at a boarding school in New Hampshire experience some of the worst kinds of Betrayal you could think of. Gene commits a very bad betrayal when he jousts the tree limb they are both standing on ending up with Finny falling and badly breaking his leg. This was no accident because Gene can’t stand the guilt.

Robert Jervis in ‘Security dilemma’ states that “states can neither neglect the possibility that others will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves remain peaceful”. He argued that although other motives such as ‘greed, glory and honour’ come into play, much of international politics is

Dealing with enemies has been a problem since the beginning of time. “I never killed anybody,” Gene had commented later in his life, “And I never developed an intense level of hatred for the enemy. Because my war ended before I ever put on a uniform, I was on active duty all my time at Devon; I killed my enemy there.” In A Separate Peace, by John Knowles, the value of dealing with enemies is shown by Gene, who was dealing with few human enemies, but his emotions created far greater rivals than any human could ever posses.

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists

John Knowles uses a simile to show how many times Phineas is observed by the school. The author compares Phineas to the weather because the weather is always being watched to know how to dress, what activities to do, etc. This is significant because Finny is always being watched and questioned about his actions not only from the teachers but his friends. With using a simile to compare him to weather helps readers realize what kind of person Finny is and why he is gaining all the attention from people around him.

In the novel, A Separate Peace by John Knowles, the protagonist, Gene Forrester “battled” within himself to find “a separate peace” and in this process directed his emotions at Phineas, his roommate. Forrester and Phineas formed the illusion of a great companionship, but there was a “silent rivalry” between them in Forrester’s mind. Self deceptions in Forrester led him to believe that Phineas was “out to get him” (Forrester). Subconsciously Forrester jounced the limb of the tree and forced Phineas to fall and break his leg. Phineas found out the truth of his “accident” with the help of Leper Lepellier and Brinker Hadley, who were friends that attended Devon High School. Gene Forrester’s conflict between his

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

Charles Beard once described the US’s security policy as one built by perpetual war to ensure perpetual peace. The United States is regularly involved in confrontations between nations. Even though quelling disagreements is the primary purpose of getting mixed up in disputes between countries, at times the US strategically benefits through its peace initiatives. Moreover, such interventions promote global stability and make sure that the world is a peaceful place. The US should be involved in conflicts between countries because it provides weaker nations with a line of defense, prevents civilian casualties, promotes beneficial ideologies, expands the US’s influence, and protects the US from potential confrontations in the future.

"I reckon it's time for breakfast.” Bard said, changing the subject "What do you guys want?" The cook asked "I'll have eggs, hold the dynamite" Finny said raising his hand "Me too" Mayrin said as she and Finny sat down to wait.  The peaceful silence in the room was suddenly shattered by Sebastian's crying.   "You must be hungry too.” Mayrin said, smiling. "Mayrin, what do baby's eat?" Finny asked, causing Mayrin's cheeks to flush red. “Oh! Well, I've got some roses to take care of in the garden so I’ll be back later I guess" Finny stammered, backing out of the room, his face bright red. Finny pulled the door open, nearly ripping it off its hinges, and ran out. "Now it’s just you and me.” Mayrin said, untying her apron and unbuttoning her

Typically, in popular depictions of arms races, the political calculations that start and regulate the pace of the game remain obscure. As Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., has noted, “The strange result is that the activity of the other side, and not one’s own resources, plans, and motives, becomes the determinant of one’s behavior.” And what constitutes the “finish line” of the game is the province of assertion, rather than analysis. Many onlookers, and some participants, have claimed that the likelihood of war increases as the accumulation of arms proceeds apace.

Secondly, the motivation for war in pursuit of honor was alleviated through the formalization of international diplomacy and the evolution of beliefs about human rights. Lastly, we reviewed how the pursuit of self-interests, specifically security and resources, continues to serve a motivator for conflict, but primarily between those states operating outside of the current international order. So what are the implications of this argument for the future? The way in which we choose to manage the self-interests of states is of utmost importance. There is either the potential to reduce self-interests as a motivator for war, or the potential to erode the previous reduction of fear as a motivator. The current international order has prevented great-power war for over 70 years. There have been conflicts motivated by self-interests, but they pale in comparison to the death and destruction of the world wars. As threats to security arise and resources are restrained, states have the option to work within the system to meet them or pursue them by other

War is controversial, unfortunate, and certainly misunderstood; it is a transforming agent, a catalyst for change. Nonetheless, many people focus on war's negative consequences, while positive effects are downplayed. War is a necessary evil in the sense that it stabilizes population, encourages technological advances, and has a very high economic value. Without war, the overpopulation of the human race is inevitable. It is this reason that war is a useful tool by not only Mother Nature, but also humans themselves to institute population control.

Power, morality and ethics, and law are the three categories of activities that mankind has used to achieve this goal. Power is the use of force to accomplish the desired outcome, and when used strategically, it generally is the most proficient way to maintain peace and security. When morals and ethics fail, and international laws are broken, it is the use of power that it used to intervene and stop the violence. The ability to fend off attackers and defend yourself, or to fight for something that is believed to be just with the use of force are clear strengths of power. The United States’ intervention into World War II is a great example of power being used to bring peace. Their aid to the Allied forces helped end the war and also brought one of the most horrific genocides in history to a halt. However, if power is not used in a strategic, controlled manner, it can be very counterproductive. Peacekeeping operations may sometimes be misinterpreted as acts of war and bring more violence to a situation. Also, war and violence do not bid well with many civilians, as they often see death tolls and don’t consider what is to be gained. For example, the United States entered Vietnam with the good intentions of preventing a spread of communist leadership. However, there had been more bloodshed than could have been foreseen, and many Americans opposed the involvement in the war. The US eventually backed out of Vietnam