Craving for peace in a world of turmoil

COUNTRIES don’t go to war. The leaders of countries go. They marshal their reasons, stir up the public, dehumanize the enemy and send out their forces. The number of people responsible for the decision to go to war can usually fit comfortably inside a single large-sized room. Leaders only occasionally represent the best of humanity so they exhibit the same failings and weaknesses as the rest of us. They get angry when they shouldn’t, let their egos motivate them more than they should and are concerned with doing what’s popular rather than what’s right. They suffer from three poisons: greed, anger and stupidity. The true cause of war lies in the unchecked rampaging of these three poisons through the hearts of individual people. Though the situations confronting world leaders that lead them to decide to wage war often seem complex, the only way in which they’re different from conflict that erupts between two people standing in a room is that they occur on a larger scale. But if in civilized societies we expect people to work out their differences amicably (whether themselves or with the help of the courts), why don’t those same expectations apply to differences between civilized countries? IS War necessary to solve the disputes? In a world in which tyranny continues to exist, war may, in fact, sometimes be justified. In the same way it’s necessary to fight to defend oneself when attacked, so too it’s sometimes necessary to go to war to put down injustice or even the possibility of injustice when its likelihood is great enough. Rarely, however, is this given as a primary reason. Even democracies seem to be going to war only for self-interest. Fair enough. But when any leader chooses war, he or she should do so with a heavy heart. As the Buddha once said when asked if killing was ever to be permitted: “It is enough to kill the will to kill.” In other words, we should strive to kill the idea that killing others should be anything other than the very last action we ever p