War has never been mankind's preferred means of settling disputes. But history’s complications have imposed, and still impose, the "inevitability" and its "necessity" of war; indeed, human history cannot understand without its eras of combat and its rounds of conflict.
War teaches us that what we do may not be what we want to. The movement of history has forced man into battle as he vies to shape a future he dreams of, defend the reality he lives, or subdue an enemy lying in wait.
The choice between war and its alternatives has continued to torment humanity, its politicians, and for philosophers. Among the earliest surviving treaties are documents from the thirteenth century BC. The journey from war to negotiation, and from negotiation to peace, has been arduous and full of military and political setbacks, and, more importantly, of theoretical difficulties.
Among those who returned to weigh in on the debate was the German philosopher Hegel, who devoted part of his political theory to the problem of war at its root.
The reason for Hegel's interest, according to his late commentator Imam Abdel Fattah Imam, lies in "the events of the age in which he lived and the rapid and immense political changes it witnessed. It is well known that political thought grows and flourishes in a state of political and social ferment, acute political crises, and decisive historical events, because all of this compels man to take a political position in spite of himself."
There are those today who oppose wars on the grounds that they ignore the possibilities of peace and marginalize the values of dialogue. When we speak of the need to strike the renegades by force and strip away their evils with the cudgel of war, some dreamers answer with fragile, regressive theories, remarkable for their laziness.
The war against Houthi terrorism, the recent and living example, is necessary. Through it, and by it, we can rein in the rebellion and suppress terrorism.
Humanity has seen this elite struggle before, pitting the realism of war against the idealism of peace. To clarify the theory, I refer readers to the chapter "War and the Court of History" in Imam's The Political Philosophy of Hegel.
He explains that war has occupied philosophers since antiquity, and they have divided into two camps: those who see war as inevitable, called realists, and sometimes conservatives; and those who believe in the inevitability of peace, called idealists, and sometimes abolitionists. Hegel saw war as "the father of and king of all": things appear and disappear through strife, and war's role in human development cannot be denied, since much of what history has achieved came from war and conflict rather than from harmony and cooperation among human beings. Hegel wrote on this early in his life, in his political essays of 1801.
However, Hegel's view demands s a balanced reading, and we find one in John Plamenatz, who argues that Hegel did not regard continuous, unending war as the noblest activity, though he held that wars can at times serve a people's moral health and that the social and military virtues they produce cannot be denied.
The purpose of this account is to temper the political and media clamor among elites calling for a seat at the table and the start of negotiations, while the renegade Houthi movement shells civilians, buildings, and airports. War is part of the victory of good over the forces of pure evil. The conflict in the region today is between those who want to build and those who want to destroy. Victory is fueled by strength, and war is "the force of forces."
The upshot: idealist theories will remain prisoners of books, seminars, poetry, and song. History imposes battles that man would prefer to avoid, but he will surely plunge into their depths when his very existence depends on leaving his cave, sharpening the spears, and yielding his sword.
