In John McCain’s first general campaign ad, he makes the assertion:
[QUOTE=John McCain]
I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are.
[/QUOTE]
Now, this is not intended to be a debate about John McCain per se, but more the sentiment he’s expressing and the conflict I feel it presents.
It is obvious to see why war should be hated. It is the cause of great suffering and death, and I am aware of no exceptions. And yet, it is also obvious that there is a romantic and glorious aspect of war that we often dismiss (and John McCain does so here as well). We speak of valor, of battles won, of heroes made. And there can be no doubt that many in history have gone to war in search of this glory and recognition.
And the military is not simply a war machine–I’d never claim otherwise–but that is it’s primary function, is it not? Of course the military researches, worships, maintains infrastructure, engages in rescue operations, and is a source of community and support for many. But when the chips are down–you joined the military at least knowing that you may be called to make war.
So when a military man says “I hate war” is that a logically consistent position? Again, I really don’t mean to pick on John McCain specifically here, he’s just the most visible person making this sort of statement lately. In his case it is undoubtedly an oversimplification of a complex relationship with combat made for the purposes of a concise political advertisement. But more generally, can one really hate warfare and still be enthusiastic about military service? Is war merely an unpleasant aspect of the military career in the same way that filing paperwork is an unpleasant part of being a doctor? Or, do we simply lie to ourselves about the degree to which we enjoy warfare?