Hello again! I had some plans—and even half an essay written—continuing my thoughts about observing and becoming aware of how we are each embedded in larger social systems (and ecosystems) that can make it hard to question or even really notice our assumptions about “the way things are,” including how we relate to both other humans and to the non-human world. And I would also still like to share a simple observation exercise or two. But the fact is, there’s something bigger on my mind that I feel the need to talk about.

And that’s war.

Now, I’m not interested in quibbling about whether something is “really” a war without a formal declaration. I have no patience for that, not when the U.S. government has spent many decades engaged in a series of wars that weren’t formally declared but instead called something else, like “police actions” or “military strikes,” or “targeted operations.” War is war, even when it hides behind other words to try to make itself sound benign or even noble.

I would generally hope that people who care about life on this planet recognize the damage that war does to both the human and non-human world. As artist Lorraine Schneider put it in her famous protest poster against the Vietnam War back in the 1960s, “War is not healthy for children and other living things.” It is not healthy for any living beings, and it harms us all.

For me, that’s the simple heart of my objection. Of course, there are many more specific objections to any particular war. Within the U.S. context, especially within the media but also among politicians, people will argue that a particular war is wrong because Congress didn't approve it. Because intelligence assessments or political rationales were faulty or outright untrue. Because civilians are being killed. Because American troops are being killed. Because it's expensive. Because it's raising gas prices or disrupting supply of some other resource or commodity.

But here’s what I keep coming back to: It's wrong because it's war.

Now, I think it's completely legitimate to point out many of the wrongs associated with war, and bring attention to all of them. All of the above reasons are true! And pointing out that, for example, Congress should reassert its authority regarding committing the country to war can provide one avenue to creating institutional resistance by reaching out to representatives. But I think it's helpful to frame that focus as being one reason among many, rather than "the" reason it's wrong.

My usual test for arguments like this—at least when they seem to be focused on only one reason why something is wrong—is to ask, “If that aspect weren’t true, would that make it right?” In this case, if Congress had voted for a war of aggression against another country, would that be ok? I don’t think so. So if that one thing you’re focused on as being the reason it’s wrong wouldn’t make it right if it were different, I think you’re focused on the wrong thing.

I feel similarly about the objection that it’s financially "expensive.” Again, it's not that there's no validity to the argument that this country spends infinite amounts of money on violence while claiming it doesn't have enough for things like education, health, or art. That’s a powerful indictment of our government’s priorities. But focusing on the monetary costs of war as a primary concern just leaves me thinking, "Ok, what if we got a discount? If we were waging a frugal war, would that make the rest of it ok?” Again, I don’t think so.

The idea that once a war is started we all have to get behind it in order to "support the troops" also doesn't fly with me. “The troops” didn't start this war. It wasn't their decision. It never is. So it doesn't somehow undermine them to protest that they should not be called upon to kill and die for anything short of genuine and dire societal need. Instead, continuing a war in their name ignores the harms inflicted on them by war as well. Both the risk of death and physical injury and the risk of moral injury are borne by those who are not consulted about their exposure to such risk. It doesn't support them to continue to inflict those harms on them, or to continue to use them as a tool to inflict harm on others.

As an aside, in case you were wondering, I am not personally a pacifist. I’m a veteran myself, and I’ve studied martial arts since I was a teenager (which was a long time ago!). I treat violence as the least-bad option in terrible circumstances, and I treat it with the respect I give to fire; it requires vigilance and restraint not to get burned. And the wider it spreads, the harder it is to contain.

So yes, I believe one has the moral right to fight back against aggression, both individually and collectively. But this does not convey the right to initiate aggression. State violence is not the same as interpersonal violence, but there are things to be learned from the way personal self-defense is approached as both a legal and an ethical issue. If one uses violence in self-defense, it must be justified by necessity, and it must be proportional. And in general, it has to be a last resort.

Violent aggression is none of those things. I sometimes see the current conflict—conflicts, really, but I’ll keep using the singular—described in the media as a “war of choice.” Sit with that phrasing for a moment. What work is the word “choice” doing in that phrase? It’s saying that this violence was not necessary, and was not a last resort. It was a proactive choice to use violence, otherwise known as aggression. So let’s call it that, especially as other justifications keep shifting and falling apart.

Because ultimately most justifications for war are too thin to carry the weight of war’s consequences. They cannot erase the horror and devastation of war, so instead they seek to provide reasons why you don't have to—or even actively shouldn’t—care about some group of others. Reasons why these people or those people (or this forest or that watershed) deserve to be destroyed. Justifications for why “we” deserve to win and “they” deserve to lose. But everyone involved in the fighting loses something, and even those who think they will win something (money, territory, votes) are still harmed, because the greater “We” is harmed.

So that’s really all I wanted to say. We are all connected in a global web of life, and war tears at that web in ways that do lasting harm. I think if we keep that in mind, we can find a more expansive framework for opposing war—and at the same time, a simpler one—than the legalistic or economic reasons I’ve been hearing from many politicians. One that takes as its basis care for the health and life of human and non-human beings alike.