The Primary Action of War

There is no justification for war, morally or pragmatically.

How can one morally justify desensitizing oneself to the point at which you can no longer comprehend the suffering associated with a gunshot wound to another human being?  How can one morally justify trashing towns, murdering innocents, and condoning the mass slaughter of a people and a culture?  Revenge?  How does participating in the cold-blooded killing of  a culture provide restitution for an attack like 9/11?  Can killing bring back the dead?  How can one practically justify a buildup of national debt to pay for armaments, transportation, and troops?  How can one practically justify engagement in years of war as opposed to a more expedient negotiation, embargo, or distribution of aid?  Bolstering the economy?  Wake up!  Think about what you are saying!  Then look me in the eye and tell me that war is worth it!

That is, however, not to say that I believe all modern day wars oughtn’t have been entered by certain countries.  The Allied Powers really had to enter World War II.  But that exigence only occurred because of the first act of war, and the death, destruction, and dismay that resulted merely rippled from the clunking German assault. 

That said, while war may be necessary—inevitable—it is never never justified.

Great minds in recent history have based their argument on the reversal of accepted facts—take MLK and JFK.  War is unlike our justice of proof.  The burden of proof does not rest upon the prosecution, those condemners of war, but rather on those who seek to legitimize it.  If there is any reasonable doubt of its rightness or necessity or expediency, it must not be fought, and it cannot possibly be considered justified.