On War

This is more of a monologue than an actual play. I guess I would get up on a stage and rant I MEAN SPEAK about what it says.

On War

War is a necessary evil. With such words I have angered millions, if they cared enough to read. With saying so I have made you my enemy. I believe in war. So now you think to fight my opinion. You seek to bring out your own beliefs, opinions, facts that might not be. But what if you do? What happens when you feel victory, true or not, just at your grasp? Have you taken your points, crammed them upon me, and cast me down? That is what you wish, to make me yours. To bend me to your thoughts and conform, making you in the right. Congratulations, you have made war.

I believe in the act of killing our fellow man. I have never fought another, I have never killed. You shall tell me that I am but a child, a hypocrite. But I shall tell you this: I know of what I talk. No creature preys upon man in a great enough extent to follow the course of nature but man itself. Strictly scientifically, every species needs its limiting factors. Something needs to decide what will keep it in balance. Man does this do man. We are what hunt us, we are what feasts upon us. The rabbit is killed by the wolf, the wolf killed by the lion, lion killed by man, and man killed by his neighbor. Disease does not run rampant enough to keep our numbers down, so we must take it upon ourselves to end ourselves.

I will not bring religion into this, because it has no place. I would be speaking to members of all faiths, so it is best to leave it out. You leave your god at home and I won't denounce you as ignorant. I am an apathetic, a realist, and a terrible person. For I believe in war. The reason for the war does not matter to me, as long as it is war. I still have a sense of honor and sport so I denounce genocide. Since we must kill ourselves, we must kill ourselves equally.

War is unique to mankind. Yes, some primates have shown to fight in territory disputes, but that is not war. There is no organization, no structure, and no killing in such a degree as to make the very ground bleed. Man has brought it to a horrid art form, and we alone remain its masters. War is our child, to raise like the spider: we give it our all, and in the end, we let it devour us.

On the personal level, war is tragedy. It tears apart families, slaughters children, and all other sorts of acts that most believe as morally wrong. As sad as I find it, however, all must die. We are not immortal beings, we did not form to live forever. We live, we fight, we die. Our numbers grow rampant from pacifists and soft heart people not thinking of the future. “Oh, but end the wars for the children!” What future will we give them? One full of starvation and strife. Disease and war are our limiting factors. When one wanes, the other must step up. Given the choice, I would rather die from war than disease. Cancer is a terribly slow way to die. Alzheimer's destroys the memory, making one lose the will to live. I have witnessed death from disease. I would rather a quick death, on a large scale, than a few on an agonizing trip of torture.

Ask yourself, do you want to die a painful death of organ failure, crippling pain, lose of limb? You will answer, “No, I do not wish to die!” That is because humans are greedy by nature, myself included. We wish to horde the most valuable commodity to ourselves: life itself. It is priceless, for it cannot be saved. It expires, and it crumbles to dust. The light dims, and the hope fades. I am not a defeatist, a pessimist, nor a sadist. I am an apathetic realist. I do not care, mostly, as long we obey the laws of Nature. We live, we fight, we die. We have our choice in how we follow this cycle, but we must stick to it. Trying to break free only damages the future of our species. Humans will die; how they do so is dependent on how they die before. Shall we stall our own deaths, and ensure the future collapses in a massive pit of starvation from crowding? Shall we decide to follow our nature, and fight to keep us trim?

I do not say that complete and utter war for eternity is a blessing. Nay, it would also break the cycle. I simply claim that we must take it upon ourselves to keep our numbers in check. You claim I am ranting, and you continue forming your counter-arguments, your facts, and your points. You continue this sort of war. Not the kind of killing, but the kind of winning. War of the mind keeps us advancing, keeps us selfish, and ensures we strive. It causes you to fight on, wanting to make sure you outlive that other b*****d. So why not ensure he dies first instead? Waiting and working are two different tasks, my friends.

I shall end this rant on the following notes, summarizing for my large crowd of ignorants. For how could one claim to be knowing if they do not realize what we need. Humanity needs war, for war is what keeps our future ensured. If we seek to end war, we will not die fast enough. Disease, a much more painful death, will run rampant and slaughter our children in a much more horrid fashion than any gunshot or bomb could. You do not live for decades in agonizing pain, every moment filled with suffering and blood, from a gunshot wound. You do from disease. So when you leave me here, leave with this: I believe in war, because I believe in our future.

Author's Note

Just give me some feedback, such as do I express my points clearly, and do I give enough detail so you can understand what I mean, etc. Content-wise, sure, I'd listen to your response if it is intelligent.

Reviews

[Allan Eddings]

An interesting train of thought here: war fought purely for the sake of war. Conflict absent ideals but fought only as an evolutionary necessity, Darwinism with first strike capabilities? Forgive the witticism, I do enjoy trying to be droll. But even you acknowledge limits upon war, "honour" or sportsmanship. Your thinking is heavily influenced by Clausewitz - your title is inspired perhaps? - warfare is a political exercise, and consequentially an art or techne. I find between those two notions a tension; one demands unlimited warfare for the purpose of evolution and the other believes in limits imposed by political aspirations.

I also admit I find the notion of "killing ourselves equally", not to point too finer a point on it, terribly naive. And again contradictory, if war serves either an evolutionary or political purpose - two theories this piece accepts - and leaving aside their own clashes, it must be fought without remittance, fought to win; both politics and evolution play to win (to use the common parlance).

I have had over my life - which is an incredibly short one - had the privilege of having met several soldiers and victims of war: from a tryst with a Legionnaire, to a lengthy conversation with a former child soldier now poet. And all would disagree with you I am afraid, as do I. Before I get called a bleeding heart liberal, do not misconstrue I do believe in a bellum iustum but the notion that warfare should be waged simply to wage war is repugnant.

Finally to attend to the notion that war serves a limiting capacity that is essential in an animal species. This is true but I am firmly convinced of the tenets of humanism. Not of the kind saying: 'No animal could have done what I have done,' But rather: 'We have refused what the beast within us willed to do, and we seek to reclaim man wherever we find that which crushes him.'

A.E.

[Von Alis]

I find this very interesting personally, you express your views very clearly and I like that. This is a very different way to look at war and very interesting given the very narrow minded views of today. I find there are two kinds of people in such debates, one believes only in their God and believes that war is a sin against Him, and you are correct in stating that religion has no place in such argument. And then there are the War Hawks. You are certainly not one of them, they prefer to run blindly and ignorantly into battles, while you are more calculated, and that is certainly extraordinary, no offense, given your ideas.
You bring up great points and don't go prattling off like a politician, brilliantly written and well said. While I don't completely agree with you on some parts, simply because I fill my head with silly romanticisms and philosophers, I see your logic clearly and respect that.
And just to add to this little rant of mine, I suggest you read, All Quiet on the Western Front, it is a very well written little book that brings a lot of things like this into light. Pardon the rant but I felt it was best to express these things, thank you.