In part 1 it was stated that war is abhorrent. Most people undoubtedly would agree. However, an essential distinction must be made between/among the warring sides. Clearly, without the initiation of the violence, there would be no call for a violent self-defense. This is axiomatic and should be readily understandable to any mentally endowed person. That being the case, clearly blame, censure, and punishment should lie preponderantly with the initiator of the violence. If not for the violence of the initiator there would have been no requirement for a self-defense.
As a principle, resistance to oppression must be an inalienable right no matter what the type of resistance it may be. Blame for any violent resistance must never be laid on the oppressed but rather on the oppressor because oppression in itself is violent and when one suffers violence then violent resistance becomes justified as self-defense.
This is akin to “fighting fire with fire.” Uncontrolled fire can wreak great devastation, but few would object when a large fire is lit to snuff out what might be a more calamitous fire. Why, then, should people object when a violent resistance brings to an end a violent oppression? Peace can only reign when an oppression has been halted. Certainly, it would not be preferable for the violent oppression to continue in the face of pacifist resistance?
If one sees a balance in an unbalanced situation or seeks to present balanced opinions to avoid seeming biased, or spread blame around to all parties in a war without distinguishing who is waging a war of aggression from a war of self-defense, then one is contributing to the fog of war. Aggressors must be identified and must be brought before international war crimes tribunals for prosecution. The laws are on the books, and precedents exist, but unless the nations of the world have the moral conviction and the courage to pursue and carry out prosecutions, then a legal deterrent to war is in abeyance.
If impartial and empowered international tribunals were convened in all cases of war, if international authorities were to issue stern warnings at first signs of the launching of a possible aggression, or if all nations were endowed with sufficient deterrence capability, then launching a war would be an expedition into the absurd. The profit motivation would have evaporated. Consequently, if international law itself was an effective deterrence, then continuing the outrageous expense of military spending would be folly. Disarmament and retrofiting the military-industrial complex would be the logical course of action.
The present system does not lend itself to overcome this deficit of justice. Pseudo-democracy in the US offers a rotating cycle of presidents-cum-war criminals. The establishment and its elitist politicians are beyond the reach of justice.