Post 6: Antiwar

Antiwar Voices

    

    I am thrilled to have the opportunity to speak about what isn’t spoken about enough: antiwar perspectives. There is constant discussion about war, and sometimes antiwar in reference to individual wars, however not so much antiwar ideas more broadly. I believe it is those antiwar voices that must be amplified more often in the mainstream media. We’ve discussed on this blog how important it is to consume unbiased media, as most media can easily sway an individual far to the left or right. But what about media that sways people together? 

I know it’s easier said than done. Of course the world does have complexities and tensions that I understand the gravity of, I can’t help but feel like “Why the heck can’t we just have world peace”. I also understand that many nations that are the biggest threat to world peace are communist/dictatorship nations, so, of course those leaders’ intentions are focused more on power than making friends. But imagine a world where all the energy focused on retaining power and limiting others power were redirected towards creating world peace. If all the money spent on military weapons and training could go towards world hunger we’d be probably a quarter of the way to utopia! But what’s holding us back?

According to Owlcation, competition over territory and resources, historical rivalries and grievances, self defense, nationalism, economic gain, and religious tensions are a few of the larger causes of war. Platforms that highlight anti war voices and movements (or lack thereof) such as AntiWar.com and The American Conservative. Antiwar.com features an article by The Intercept titled, “How The Pentagon Uses a Secretive Program To Wage Proxy Wars”. This article brings to light practically everything that has been revealed regarding operation 127e, a roughly $310 million dollar military operation referred to as ‘127 echo’ by military officials. 127e utilizes authority to gain access to some of the most restricted zones of the world so that the US may control counterterrorism efforts “by with and through” foreign forces worldwide. 

While I think most would agree that counterterrorism efforts certainly is one of the ways a nation can mitigate one of the motivators for war listed above, issues arise when disagreements regarding privacy and transparency come into question. The Intercept highlights critics’ opinions which argue that “due to a lack of oversight, 127e programs risk involving the United States in human rights abuses and entangling the U.S. in foreign conflicts unbeknownst to Congress and the American people, former commanders say the 127e authority is crucial to combating terrorism.” Of course these are critical concerns to address.

It is nuanced situations like this one that brutally awake me to why world peace is so much less attainable than I hope for it to be. Despite this being the case, a leader's ability to commit to forgiving past transgressions as well as tolerating political and economic differences can certainly be a step in the right direction. 

If you think about it on a smaller scale, nationwide peace. Consider debates of gun laws, climate change, and abortion. The US can certainly be more peaceful if we were able to not even fully understand or sympathize with, but just tolerate those with different opinions. Only then can people and parties find common ground, create a common goal, and work towards a solution that is rooted in freedom as well as protection over society more broadly.