THE HARMS WROUGHT BY NATIONAL CONFLICTS AND WARFARE

As we know, there have been opponents of violence and warfare throughout history.  Protests objecting to the waging of war were raised as far back as the Peloponnesian War of 431 to 404 BC.  These included a "sex strike" by a number of Athenian women, as depicted by Aristophanes in his comedy, Lysistrata.  A number of religious sects, including the Quakers (Friends), Amish, and Mennonites, have openly preached pacifism to its adherents.

Love of, and desire for, peace among men have often been transmitted from one great mind to another.  For example, Leo Tolstoy is said to have been influenced by the writings of Henry David Thoreau regsarding civil disobedience on behalf of the promotion of peace.  Further, we are told that Tolstoy's writings in turn influenced Ghandi's conversion to pacifism.

                                                   * * * * *

The concept of strict control constituting a basis for peace can be hearkened back many centuries to ancient Egypt.  There, between 5000 and 2000 BC, one of the longest recorded periods of peace among humans occurred.  It has been attributed to the strict and unchanging social system that existed during these years in that part of the world.

Imperialism has sometimes imposed peace upon an array of otherwise belligerent groups, who might likely have continued fighting among themselves, had there not been the dominating presence and control of the imperial power.  Examples can be cited in the pax romana of ancient times, and the pax Britannica of England's imperialist era.  A later example lies in the results attained by the strict control exercised over the "satellite" states within the Soviet Union--a tranquility that soon became violently unbound in many places following its dissolution. 

Many of the most prominent anti-war movements have arisen in connection with wars conducted, or entered into, by the United States.  The eighteenth century saw anti-war activities on the eve of the Civil War, when George McClellan was nominated and ran as a "Peace Democrat" against the incumbent Abraham Lincoln.

The beginnings of World War I witnessed an avalanche of criticism and protest by many Americans, opposed to what were termed Presient Wilson's pro-British policies.
His "preparedness" and "rearmament" programs prompted anti-war demonstrations, attempts to rally America's labor sector against the war, and agitation for a referendum concerning our entry into the conflict.  As would reappear in regard to later wars, questions were posed about the motivations behind our participation in what were considered altercations taking place across the sea, or on the other side of the world.  Our government's response in 1914 was announcement to the citizenry that "draft resisters" might be imprisoned, and could even be executed.

Socialist groups have long opposed war, on the basis of allegations that it comprised a form of government coercion of the working class--sending them out to fight and kill one another, for the benefit of their economic and political masters.

                                                  * * * * *

The mass slaughter that constituted World War I produced, for a time, much revulsion with war.  But the war drums soon began to sound once more, as the path to World War II began to define itself.  Mussolini, Hitler, and the Soviet Union banned pacifist literature, as well as anti-war speeches and demonstrations.  On the other hand, even reasonable minds like Bertrand Russell expressed the idea that ridding the world of the likes of Adolf Hitler was a unique exception to the principles of pacifism.  And for a time, anti-war sentiments becsame unpopular, and were even deemed foolish, in light of what was happening in parts of Europe during the nineteen thirties and early forties.

Following the Second World War came the "Cold War."  It led to a series of smaller but nonetheless deadly confrontations and conflicts in which the lives of many of our next generation would be sacrificed.  It also caused anti-war concepts to once more become a major factor in popular thought, as well as politics, during the second half of the twentieth century.

During the nineteen sixties, college students demonstrated on behalf of ideals such as peace, disarmament, and a halt to nuclear testing.  This atmosphere grew into a culmination of anti-war feeling which reached its peak during the Vietnam conflict.  Thousands rallied in Washington to protest America's involvement in warfare within a country many Americans had hardly heard of.  Many of the younger generation viewed our participation in that war as a barter of young American lives in return for "war profiteering" on the part of corporate interests and the older generation.  The Vietnam War has thus come to be regarded in America as a "two front war":  one in Vietnam itself--and another on the streets and campuses within our country.

                                                    * * * * *

Now, the world's latest war controversies of this nature have concerned what is primarily American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Iraqui nation was attacked and defeated once, by "U.N. forces," in January, 1991, when it attempted to annex, or reattach, Kuwait, which had once constituted its southern tip, but had gained independence a number of years ago.  At least 30,000 Iraquis died during the conflict; and Kuwait was liberated once more.

Iraq was once again attacked by "U.N. forces" in 2003, following much prompting by the second President Bush, emanating from a fear that Iraq might have developed weapons of mass destruction.  One commentator has submitted that logic would thereby dictate Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, North Korea, and the United States be similarly attacked by U.N. forces, because they also happen to possess such weapons.

Notwithstanding, this invasion was termed an "optional war" by many, and recognized by most as having been based upon insufficient evidence of the presence in Iraq of such weapons, nor of Iraq's connection to the September 11th tragedy in New York City.  It was, in fact, feared that this invasion would promote continued acts of terrorism within the United States, and/or elsewhere in the world.

Shortly before its commencement, the largest worldwide protest demonstration of all time took place, involving millions of participants in numerous places.  But, as is wont with most such spectacles, the result was inconsequential, and the planned invasion went on.

Roundly criticized as having been faultily conceived, improperly executed, and lacking a plan for conclusion, it generated an abundance of casualties to our military, as well as vast quantities of death, destruction, and disorder upon the hapless millions who live there.

In an effort to improve matters, a "surge," consisting of at least 28,000 additional troops, was endorsed and implemented by President George W. Bush during the first half of 2007.  It was credited with having reduced violence; but general conditions in the country continue to be a shamnbles to this day.

By the middle of 2008, the fighting continued.  Iraqi and other insurgents continued their stubborn resistance, much of which being suicidal in nature.  A majority of Americans had by now expressed opinions that the "Coalition's" casualty rate (over 4,000) was unacceptable, and that the war was not worth commencing in the first place.

But by 2010, our troop numbers were increased further, and our efforts extended to Afghanistan and Pakistan--where the "root" of the enemy was said to continue to flourish, and to send forth its hatred for and attacks upon Coalition forces and peace in general.  As Afghanistan has proceeded to become our current primary theater of war, the future seems to constitute a continuation of death and destruction, in the name of "nation-building," until final terminatoion of our activities there (as has been promised to America by our present Administration) comes to pass.

                                                      * * * * *