The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." These words, spoken by David Friedman, carry with them a deep reflection on the nature of force and the manner in which it is often misused as a solution to conflict. At the heart of this statement lies the truth that true strength does not come from the use of power or violence, but from the ability to resolve issues with wisdom, patience, and understanding. The small child resorts to force because it has not yet learned the art of reason, while the large nation, with its vast power, often chooses to wield force because it can do so without immediate consequence, believing that might will lead to justice. Yet, as history teaches us, violence rarely leads to a true resolution—it often breeds more conflict and suffering.

Consider the ancient world, where empires often expanded and maintained their rule through the direct use of force. The Romans, for instance, conquered vast territories through military might. Rome’s legions were symbols of strength, feared and revered across the known world. Yet, for all their conquests, the Roman Empire faced constant rebellions, uprisings, and resistance from those they sought to rule. The direct use of force, rather than fostering loyalty and peace, only deepened hatred and division. Even when the Romans succeeded in conquering their enemies, the toll of violence left a lasting scar—those who were subjugated remained resentful, and the empire's eventual downfall was not caused by military defeat, but by the internal decay that resulted from the very violence it had used to build its power. Friedman’s words ring true: force is not the path to lasting peace, but the road to greater conflict and eventual destruction.

History provides countless examples of the failure of force as a solution. The First World War was ignited by the use of military force in a complex web of alliances, where one spark—an assassination—ignited a conflict between great powers. The violence of battlefields across Europe, the loss of millions of lives, and the destruction of cities did not bring peace; it only brought further suffering, humiliation, and a bitter treaty that sowed the seeds for the Second World War. What followed was not a period of peace but another global conflict, even more devastating than the first. The use of force, in both cases, was not a solution to the problems that nations faced—it was the cause of much greater suffering and hardship. Friedman’s insight reveals that the use of power, when it is wielded recklessly and without wisdom, only perpetuates the cycle of violence that it seeks to end.

In the more modern world, we see the same patterns. The Vietnam War, which escalated in the 1960s and 1970s, was a conflict in which the United States, a great power, sought to impose its will through military force. The belief was that by overwhelming the enemy with superior military technology and strategy, the North Vietnamese would be defeated, and peace would follow. Yet, despite the immense power that the United States brought to bear, the Vietnamese resistance only grew stronger. The war did not bring a lasting solution—it left deep scars on both nations, dividing Americans and leading to the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, with little to show for the destruction caused. The lesson here, as Friedman suggests, is that the direct use of force rarely leads to lasting peace; instead, it only fuels further animosity and destruction, proving that force is a poor solution to complex problems.

The lesson of Friedman’s words is clear: force is an inadequate tool for resolving disputes, especially those that arise from deeply rooted political, cultural, or ideological differences. It is a blunt instrument, one that lacks the precision of diplomacy, the care of dialogue, and the wisdom of negotiation. When nations choose the path of violence, they often find that the consequences are far more destructive than the issues they sought to resolve. Whether on the battlefield or in personal conflict, the direct application of power may provide an immediate sense of victory, but it does not resolve the underlying issues. Instead, it deepens divisions and creates an environment where peace becomes more elusive.

To truly solve the problems that we face, we must embrace the power of reason and understanding. Friedman’s challenge to us is to recognize that true strength lies in the ability to find solutions that do not require the destruction of others. Nations and individuals must move beyond the reflexive use of force and adopt strategies that prioritize collaboration, understanding, and respect for human dignity. Whether in international relations, community disputes, or personal disagreements, we must seek to resolve conflicts through dialogue rather than domination, through compromise rather than coercion.

In our own lives, let us take this lesson to heart. When we are faced with conflict—whether in our relationships, our workplaces, or our communities—let us resist the temptation to use force to assert our will. The path to true peace and understanding requires patience, empathy, and a willingness to listen. Just as great nations must rise above the use of force in their dealings with the world, so must we, as individuals, embrace the wisdom of peaceful resolution. By choosing the path of understanding over violence, we become the builders of a future where true peace can flourish, free from the shadow of force and conflict.