War is a political discussion carried out through the use of violence. War is said to be the last option so when war takes place that is what we have to believe. All other options were exhausted. The oddity of all this is that every war will end with a conversation. It will end when enough damage has been done that one side can see no logic in continuing.
Taking the above logic to its end is how we came to employ nuclear weapons, still we have war. So the argument for better weapons is quite moot, war will always be with us no matter what weapon is used. The other part of the logic for war is that conversation failed. To that I have to say that conversation can fail no more than a chair can ask a person to sit. Conversation is form of communication that you can use or not. For some they believe that conversation is useless and they begin to shoot.
That is the simplest route to define why wars, weapon build up, and violent conflicts happen. If this is going to change it can only change when everyone believes in a different logic. EVERYONE.
A number of years ago there was a push for change in language structure called Giraffe language. This language is deeply rooted in the profession of mediation. The theory is that if people begin to talk with less aggressive words the society will become less aggressive. To go further into that theory, the thought patterns of a person will seek less aggressive choices which in turn creates a less aggressive society. It is a theory and I am sure that this works for some people. I have not heard much about Giraffe language for about four years now.
For me, I applaud the effort because I am a person that has a mindset geared towards “try everything and anything”. Even then you do not shoot unless fired upon, Chapter 6.5 version of the United Nations Charter. It does not exist in the actual UN Charter so if you go reading your copy it is not there. The 6.5 version comes into interpretation of the Charter, how we perceive language.
Within the wording of Chapters6 and 7 are the two steps for use of force by a United Nations Force. Chapter 6 relates to the use of all means to talk with both sides. Chapter 7 relates to all other means including the use force. The making of Chapter 6.5 came in to effect through the rules of engagement take, do not fire unless fired upon.
It was common knowledge that a UN force was not allowed to fire unless they were fired on specifically. What this translated into was that if you were a UN forces member protecting an area or a person and that area or person was shoot; you (the UN forces member) were not actually fired upon, therefor you could not return fire. This ideology changed during the Bosnian War. The logic shifted to include the area and the people in which the UN forces protect.
That is a very important piece of history as much as it is a very important lesson in language interpretation. One of the main reasons war even takes place is due to a lack of skill in language interpretation and communication. The other reason is insanity and logic is almost lost in that chaos of distortion.
Here we sit with Syria going to hell and the world body that is supposed to be in charge of keeping things peaceful, have been fighting wars against themselves since day one. Right now we are barely applying Chapter 6. The Permanent Five members have been at odds with what to do. With two different approaches being offered neither side wants to give in to the other because of, get ready IMAGE. That is right each side is protecting their own image. This stalemate that has been going on for a year now is a public relations war. Each side is doing their best to make the other side look as bad as possible while making themselves look the better. All the while people are being killed by the hundreds.
This is a communication war, as most are. Neither side will give in until enough are dead and the situation gets to such a point where options are down to the last. All because of poor communication with a tinge of insanity, maybe it is the other way around?