THE generations that came after World War II are generally lucky as most have not experienced the brutality and suffering in a war.
There have been wars fought after World War II, but these have been concentrated in specific nations, regions or territories. In the Philippines, bullets and mortar fire have been exchanged between Muslim rebels and government forces, as well as the Philippine military and police against communist insurgents. These have, for decades, caused death and destruction.
I have never been in a battlefield where opposing forces exchange volleys of fire. Not that I long to be in one. In the ‘70s at the height of the fighting between the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the forces of the Philippine government, I had an uncle (half-brother of my mother, Milagros) who enlisted in the military. He must have been in his 20s and, after undergoing training, was sent to the battlefront. He did not last long, as he was discharged, having turned into a psychological wreck. A few years later, he died as a result of the illness.
Soldiers are trained to be strong physically and mentally, yet some of them end up being wasted. What more for civilians who are caught in the crossfire?
While conventions of war have been put in place after WWII, these have not been observed by terrorists that are outside the realm of conventional warfare. A case in point is the Islamic State (Isis).
The horrific killings and the savagery of Isis fighters hark back to the darkest experiences of humankind when there were the conquerors and vanquished, with the latter becoming slaves if they escaped slaughter. Think of Christians fed to the lions in ancient times; of Jews killed in concentration camps; and of Cambodians killed in mass by the Khmer Rouge.
Isis terrorists are the worst breed of war criminals in the 21st century. They behead their enemies. They execute in mass those who do not follow their faith. They force women to be their concubines. They use civilians as shield against foes. Worse, they flaunt their barbarity in social networking sites and mainstream media.
At first, it was Nobel Peace laureate US President Barack Obama who took a strong stance against Isis. Not that he wants war but rather because he could not allow innocent blood to overflow in the areas dominated by Isis. The response among allies of the United States was at first faint. But as the murderous rampage of Isis stabbed into the heartland of Europe, it was no longer an option to be neutral.
Even New Zealand, a land so distant from the Islamic State, has decided to send troops and personnel to help professionalize the armed forces in Iraq. It does not really have to, but can the civilized world simply close its eyes to the immoral and vicious force of Isis?
“War is stupid,” so says the anti-war song of Culture Club, and truly it is. But it is more stupid if we allow those who initiate war to go amok. The intelligent, the moral and the brave must stand up for the principles of human rights. If blood must be shed, it should be: for a just cause in a just war.