Do Wars Reshape the Hierarchy of Values?
There is no
doubt that war carries immense tragedies, painful disasters, and enduring
suffering that remain in hearts and memories for many years. Yet, from another
perspective, war can have certain benefits: it may reveal widespread deceit in
society, expose the true nature of our own strengths and weaknesses, and
clarify the reliability of our allies—showing how solid these relationships are
and how far these alliances may endure. War also reshuffles the hierarchy of
our values, distinguishing between a strategic enemy and a temporary
competitor.
Historically,
war has often acted as a driver of human progress and has sometimes produced
civilizational benefits. While some may perceive war as the pinnacle of
irrationality, a complete abandonment of mercy and humanity, or the unleashing
of primal instincts in combat, in certain circumstances, war can also be a
rational and even humane choice.
Regarding the
current conflict, which began with American and Israeli strikes on Iran on
February 28, 2026, the ongoing confrontation raises a set of complex issues
that challenge many established values and assumptions. It invites a
reconsideration of fundamental concepts, including:
Just War
The concept of
a just war has emerged prominently in this conflict. What defines a war as
just? Answering this requires invoking a system of values, both those
associated with justice and those linked to the ethics of warfare—especially
concerning killing, destruction, and the targeting of essential infrastructure.
In modern
terminology, the theory of "just war" traces back to Saint Thomas
Aquinas in the 13th century, though its principles existed long before. The
theory evaluates war based on the reasons for going to war and the conduct of
the state during the conflict, including the means employed.
According to
this theory, a war is just if it meets five key conditions:
1.
Legitimate
Authority: The decision to go to war must be made by a
legitimate authority and officially announced in advance, allowing efforts to
avoid the conflict and enabling civilians to take precautions, thus preventing
innocent casualties. Legitimacy also carries moral and ethical weight, implying
societal consent and support for the war as the only viable response to
aggression.
2.
Just
Cause: The reason for war must be morally justified, such
as repelling aggression or protecting innocents. Wars waged for political
expansion, economic gain, racial motives, or mere displays of power contradict
the principles of a just war.
3.
Wisdom
and Probability of Success: The decision to declare war must
be wise, and there should be a reasonable chance of success. Wars that are
almost certain to fail turn into protracted conflicts and drains of resources,
so rational strategic judgment is essential before engaging.
4.
Ethical
Means: A just war employs ethical means. The ends do not
justify the use of excessive violence. States must minimize harm and avoid
disproportionate actions—a principle rarely adhered to, except in the example
of the Prophet Muhammad’s military campaigns.
5.
Last
Resort: War should be the final option after exhausting
negotiation and other pressures, not the first resort in resolving
international disputes.
Applying these
criteria to the current conflict shows that we are not witnessing a just war.
The invocation of ethical and moral rationales often masks a form of deception.
This reality highlights the need to prioritize national strength and
self-defense capabilities, as weakness creates a strategic vacuum that invites
aggression, domination, and exploitation.
Who is
the Enemy?
One of the
major questions raised by war is identifying the true and strategic enemy. The
enemy is not necessarily a competitor; a strategic enemy is one whose identity,
interests, and alliances fundamentally oppose ours.
A strategic
enemy is a state or entity whose threat extends to our national security and
core interests due to conflicts with its objectives, identity, and goals. Its
key characteristics include:
1.
Existential
Threat: It poses a threat to our identity, sovereignty, or
vital interests, often assessed based on experience and deep concern about its
growing power—particularly if it possesses overwhelming military capabilities,
including nuclear weapons.
2.
Fundamental
Conflict of Interests: The conflict approaches a zero-sum
scenario, where one party’s gain is the other’s total loss, making the struggle
existential rather than merely regional or territorial.
3.
Multi-Dimensional
Competition: Engagement with a strategic enemy
occurs across multiple arenas, creating chronic friction and recurring crises.
4.
Ideological
Differences: A strategic enemy often has
irreconcilable ideological, identity-based, and historical differences that
preclude meaningful compromise, even if rhetorical attempts are made to obscure
these contradictions.
5.
Persistent
Suspicion: Strategic enemies generate ongoing concerns, as
their aggressive intentions are always anticipated and monitored.
Ignoring the
concept of a strategic enemy reflects an intellectual, political, and
existential crisis. It can have catastrophic consequences for defense planning
and may even lead to mistakenly treating a strategic enemy as a strategic ally.
Read Also:
-
Environmental Impacts of Wars and Weapons
-------------------------------------------------------------
