What, Then, Is the Answer?

Driving home from work, I saw yet another bumper sticker proclaim, "War is not the answer". Which, of course, got me to thinking.

The statement seems to be meant as an all encompassing statement of fact, according to those who sport the slogan. Does armed conflict solve nothing whatsoever? If I were to attack such a straw man, there would be no justification for the American War of Independence, the campaign against the Barbary Pirates, World War I, World War II, Korean War and Gulf War I. (I leave out Gulf War II even though a compelling case can be made).

If armed conflict is outrightly to be avoided, America would still be a British colony, the seas would be full of pirates, the Kaiser would have dominated Europe, Hitler would have had his way with the Jews, South Korea wouldn't be and Kuwait would still be a province of Iraq. Hitler and the Holocaust alone demonstrate the reality that war may be a necessary means of ending evil--a means that should not be taken lightly.

Excluding an outrightly pacifistic stance, armed conflict might then be justified in some situations. But what are the standards by which armed conflict can be justified? The dialog that leads to such a determination is not trival nor can it be distilled down to five words on a sticky sheet of colorful vinyl. In the end, "War is not the answer", alone, adds little to add to the dialog.

Rather, it would seem to me that such a slogan is looking for a context to apply to. Most likely, the owner of such a sticker means for the statement to apply to the current context. Therefore, the sticker simply means, "I would rather that we resolve the current situation without resorting to arms." Better would be to frame such a position statement with the context: "War is not the answer in Iraq" or "War is not the answer in Afghanistan". But that's not as catchy, is it?