War and Conflict
This week we talked war and the premise that people don’t want to go to war. We talked about the Flashpoint theory, which is the idea that there must be some sort of flashpoint or event which shifts public opinion and allows the regime to declare war. Examples include the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and unemployment in Egypt. Both of these events changed public opinion and became a flashpoint.
We also talked about the Bush Doctrine, which basically states that war and conflict are always going to occur and the US as a global hegemon should do its duty in preemption. This way, we would be fighting an enemy abroad rather than bringing it to our doorstep. We talked about North Korea and the possibility of Anonymous’ hacking of their leader’s twitter account being a flashpoint in a war directed at America, and whether President Obama should follow the Bush Doctrine and preemptively strike at North Korea. Justifications for attacking North Korea include the abuse of the North Korean people. Malnutrition is extremely common there, so much so that the North Korean people are significantly shorter than the rest of the world. The people are strictly controlled by a military state. For these reasons, some advocate the US intervening in North Korea and deposing the leader.
I disagree with the idea of preemptive action in creating a war. I don’t believe that anyone wins in a war, and that there should be a way for conflict to be resolved that doesn’t result in death. A war shouldn’t be started unless it absolutely cannot be avoided. Part of the idea of having a global hegemon is that it creates peace, and I don’t think starting a war is a way to create peace. Even a flashpoint which changes public opinion could still be resolved without war in many cases. I understand that war is inevitable in some cases, but I truly think it can be avoided much more often than it is.