The paper presented here is adopted from a keynote address presented by Dr. Koenigsberg at the United World College of the American West. When UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar realized that Saddam Hussein would not withdraw troops from Kuwait—and therefore that his nation would be subjected to a massive assault—he declared: "I cannot imagine that someone wants war for the pleasure of killing his own people." Although it is customary for national leaders to send soldiers into battle (where death occurs), this way of putting it makes us extremely uncomfortable. However, if we use slightly different language, our discomfort disappears. Let us say that it gave Hussein pleasure to discover—once the war had begun—that his people were honorable and virtuous—that they did not shirk their duty to die for Iraq.

Human beings create many things, for example, air conditioners. For those of us who do research on a hot summer day, we know that air conditioners are a wonderful invention. Warfare is also a human creation. This invention, however, does not produce positive or beneficial results, but only death, destruction and the maiming of human bodies.

Many of us have seen films portraying the chaos and horror of war. In the quiet of a movie theater—watching the depiction of battle—the thought runs through one’s mind: war is insane. Yet characterization of war as a form of insanity rarely appears in history books. Warfare is conceived as a normal dimension of civilization, however insane it may seem.

Saying that war is insane, however, doesn’t take us very far. The objective of this paper is to articulate the mindset that leads people to kill and die in the name of nations, ideologies and religions. What is the source of the human attraction to warfare? Why have human beings created such a destructive and self-destructive social institution? Why do people often believe that war is a necessary and good thing?

The Goodness of Warfare

I have found it valuable to interrogate warfare within the framework of the concept of sacrifice. War is an ideology based on the idea that it is worthwhile to sacrifice human lives in the name of one’s nation and its sacred ideals.

Frank Sinatra sang, “Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage.” Although this may no longer be true for love and marriage, it is for warfare and nation-states. The bad (violence and destruction) is intimately bound to the good (one’s beloved nation and its sacred ideals).

Hitler declared, “We may be inhumane, but if we rescue Germany we have performed the greatest deed in the world.” Although Hitler is conceived as an exceptional case, this statement contains the essence of the thinking that generates war (and many other forms of collective violence). Most political leaders do not say this as clearly as Hitler, but if we substitute the name of any nation in place of “Germany,” Hitler’s statement makes sense: “We may engage in inhumane forms of behavior, but if we rescue our nation, we will have performed the greatest deed in the world.”

Warfare is undertaken under the assumption that one is acting to rescue a sacred, beloved object. Insofar as defending or rescuing the sacred object is conceived as the most important project in the world, any and all forms of behavior—however “inhumane”—are considered justified and justifiable.

“Peace movements” seek a world without war. These movements’ aspirations would not be difficult to achieve if everyone believed that war was a bad thing. However, many conceive of war as “necessary.”

If one aspires to achieve peace, the first and most fundamental question is: What logic contained within the ideology of warfare transforms an activity that produces bad things—death, the maiming of human bodies and destruction of the artifacts of civilization—into an activity that is conceived as necessary and good?

Saddam Hussein

The second American war against Iraq began in early 2003 without substantial negotiations. Before the first American war against Iraq, however—the Gulf War launched in 1991—extensive and strenuous diplomatic efforts were exerted before the United States attacked Iraq.

It was clear to many observers that a country of 23 million people with weak air defenses could not possibly withstand the assault of the greatest military power in the world. If Saddam Hussein did not withdraw his troops from Kuwait, the United States would attack—and Iraq would be devastated. Yet Hussein refused to back down.

When UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar realized that Saddam Hussein would not withdraw his troops from Kuwait—and therefore that his nation would be subjected to a massive assault—he declared: “I cannot imagine that someone wants war for the pleasure of killing his own people.”

We are not accustomed to hearing people use this kind of language in relationship to war. Although it is customary for leaders and nations to send soldiers into battle (where death occurs), I’ve never heard a leader say he was going into war because he enjoyed the fact that his own people would be killed. Saying it this way makes us feel uncomfortable.

However, if we use slightly different language, our discomfort disappears. Let’s put it this way: Leaders and nations wage war—and in the process often find it necessary to sacrifice the lives of their own people.

Saddam Hussein refused to withdraw from Kuwait and the United States initiated a massive attack. As everyone had anticipated, the Gulf War generated monumental death, destruction and suffering within Iraq. However, it does not appear that Hussein conceived of the Gulf War as a bad thing.

Looking back in his speech of January 17, 2000—on the “Ninth Anniversary of the Gulf War”—Hussein praised the Iraqi people for what they had endured. On a “day like today,” he said, evil-ridden humanity had “delegated you to act for it.” Your valiant army, he said, “responded to the call.” Hussein declared with pride that the battlefields had been anointed with the “fragrant blood of men and women believers.”

The value attached to what a man loves, Hussein explained to his people, is measured by the “sacrifices he renders to them.” The noble Iraqi people had fought and sacrificed “all that is dear and precious.” They had shed their blood seeking the love of God in “hope to win His satisfaction.”

It is clear that Saddam Hussein did experience pleasure when reflecting upon the death of his people in the Gulf War. We still hesitate to say that he waged war for the pleasure of killing his people. So let us say that Hussein was happy to discover—once the war had begun—that his people did not shirk their duty to sacrifice their lives—to die—for Iraq. His people had demonstrated that they were honorable and noble by virtue of the fact that they had died for their country.