I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're

Hear the words of George W. Bush, spoken in the shadow of great turmoil: “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” At first, these words sound like a riddle, as if fire could mean water, or night could mean day. Yet in them lies an ancient paradox: that rulers and nations have often waged war not only for conquest, but with the claim that their true goal was peace. The words ring with both irony and weight, for they reveal how deeply intertwined are destruction and harmony in the affairs of humankind.

The origin of this saying lies in the years following the attacks of September 11, 2001, when the United States turned its gaze toward distant battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. To a frightened nation, Bush sought to give reassurance: that the violence to come was not the end, but a passage toward safety, stability, and the protection of liberty. Like leaders before him, he invoked the ancient argument that war, if fought decisively, might uproot danger and prepare the ground for lasting peace. His words thus reveal the eternal tension in statecraft: the sword raised in hope that it may one day be sheathed forever.

History bears many echoes of this paradox. When the Romans conquered lands and subdued nations, they called it the Pax Romana—the Roman Peace. Yet this “peace” was forged in blood, in legions marching, in cities burned. To the victors, war was the path to peace, for only by crushing opposition could tranquility reign. And centuries later, Winston Churchill declared in the midst of the Second World War that Britain must fight with all its strength not because it loved battle, but because it sought the peace of freedom over the tyranny of Nazi rule. Thus, Bush’s words stand in a lineage of leaders who promised that war, though bitter, might be the seedbed of peace.

Yet let us not hear these words only as justification, but as warning. For too often, the cry of peace through war becomes a veil for ambition, pride, or fear. A war begun in the name of peace may instead breed cycles of violence that stretch across generations. The Crusades, fought to reclaim holy lands, promised peace to the faithful, but left centuries of blood and division. Likewise, the wars of modern times, fought under banners of liberation, often left behind chaos rather than harmony. Thus, the wise must ask: is the peace sought by war true peace, or only silence forced by strength?

The meaning for us is profound: we must discern between the peace of the conqueror and the peace of the reconciler. The first is won by might, but it is fragile, always waiting for rebellion to rise. The second is forged by justice, by dialogue, and by healing, and it endures beyond the reach of the sword. When Bush spoke, his words revealed the first kind—the peace that war may impose. Yet the lesson of history urges us to strive for the second kind, the peace that grows not from fire, but from understanding.

The teaching, then, is this: question always the union of war and peace. Do not accept at once the claim that violence is the only path to safety. Seek instead the ways of reconciliation, diplomacy, and justice, for they build peace without sowing hatred in the soil. Yet also know that in a broken world, there may come moments when defense is necessary, when resistance to evil is itself a service to peace. The challenge of wisdom is to know the difference.

Therefore, O seekers of truth, remember Bush’s paradoxical words. Hear in them both the hope of leaders and the danger of illusion. Let them stir in you the vigilance to weigh the cost of war, and the courage to labor for peace in your own circle of life—through kindness, through reconciliation, through patient dialogue. For while nations may cloak their wars in the language of peace, it is up to each of us to live in such a way that true peace, not the peace of conquest but the peace of justice, is made real upon the Earth.

–––