That is why every military officer fights - so that there may be

"That is why every military officer fights - so that there may be peace." These words, spoken by Juan Manuel Santos, reflect a profound and paradoxical truth at the heart of human conflict: that war is often fought in the name of peace, and violence can sometimes be the means by which lasting peace is achieved. Santos, a man who has experienced both the burdens and triumphs of leadership in times of conflict, understands the heavy weight carried by those who are tasked with military action. To him, the ultimate purpose of fighting is not the destruction of life, but the preservation of it—the restoration of peace to lands torn by violence and war. This idea, while seemingly paradoxical, has been a guiding principle in many of the world’s most significant conflicts and peace processes.

In the ancient world, war was often seen as both a necessary evil and a means to establish peace. The Spartan warriors, famed for their martial discipline and unyielding courage, fought not only to protect their way of life but to secure a peaceful society free from the influence of foreign powers. King Leonidas, leader of the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae, knew that the sacrifice of his soldiers would be the price of peace for Greece. Their battle against the invading Persian forces was not for glory or conquest but to ensure that their people could live free from tyranny, with the hope that their sacrifice would lead to the peace of their homeland. The paradox is clear: they fought for peace, knowing that without their efforts, their people would be subjugated to the will of invaders.

Similarly, the Roman Empire, in its ceaseless campaigns, often justified its wars with the notion of bringing peace to conquered lands. Under the leadership of Emperor Augustus, the Roman legions expanded the empire’s borders, but this expansion was often framed as bringing Pax Romana—the Roman Peace—to regions plagued by chaos and war. The Romans, masters of both warfare and law, believed that peace could only be sustained through the iron hand of the military, ensuring that peace was not the absence of conflict, but the dominance of order over disorder. Much like Santos’s reflection, the Roman legions fought, not for personal conquest, but to secure peace for the empire, maintaining a fragile balance between violence and stability.

Consider the American Civil War, a defining moment in the history of the United States. Abraham Lincoln, the president during this tumultuous period, understood that the war between the North and South was fought not simply to preserve the union, but to end the institution of slavery and create a more just and peaceful society. Lincoln's desire for peace did not come from avoiding conflict but from engaging in it to ensure a future where freedom and equality would prevail. The cost of war was immense, but Lincoln believed that peace—the peace of liberty and union—could only be achieved by confronting the evil that threatened it. His words at Gettysburg, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” encapsulate the understanding that military action, though horrific, was a necessary sacrifice for a lasting peace.

The Vietnam War presents another example of this paradox, where the military intervention by the United States was justified under the belief that it would prevent the spread of communism and maintain global peace. While the conflict ultimately became one of the most divisive in American history, it serves as a reminder that the purpose of war—in the minds of those who fought it—was not destruction but the creation of peace, however misunderstood or flawed the approach may have been. Santos’s quote speaks to this tragic irony—often, war is fought in the name of something noble, even if that goal is later clouded by the suffering that war itself brings.

The lesson from Santos’s words is clear: peace is not easily obtained, nor is it always the immediate outcome of war. However, those who engage in battle often do so not out of a desire for conquest, but to restore or preserve order and stability. The paradox of war for peace reminds us that sacrifice is sometimes necessary to protect the greater good, but this should not blind us to the harsh realities of conflict. Wisdom and compassion must guide our actions, and we must always strive to find alternatives to war, knowing that the ultimate aim is a world where peace can flourish without the need for bloodshed.

In practical terms, this means that we must seek to avoid conflict whenever possible, but also understand that when faced with injustice or the threat of destruction, there may be no other choice but to engage in difficult and painful struggles to protect the values we hold dear. To fight for peace, we must be prepared to make sacrifices, but those sacrifices should be tempered by a commitment to justice, compassion, and human dignity. In our personal lives, we can also apply this principle—when faced with inner conflict or societal challenges, we must understand that peace comes not from the absence of struggle, but from the wisdom to navigate it with purpose and integrity.

Let us, therefore, honor those who have fought not for glory, but for the sake of peace. Whether in battle or in the everyday struggles of life, let us remember that true peace is not a passive state, but an active pursuit—one that requires courage, wisdom, and sometimes, the willingness to confront the darkness in order to bring light. War for peace is a difficult path, but it is through this struggle that we often discover the strength to build a more peaceful world.