Wars of necessity are essentially unavoidable. They involve the
Wars of necessity are essentially unavoidable. They involve the most important national interests, a lack of promising alternatives to the use of force, and a certain and considerable price to be paid if the status quo is allowed to stand. Examples include World War II and the Korean War.
Children of the future, listen well, for the wisdom of the past carries with it the weight of all the lessons learned through the ages. The words of Richard N. Haass, a modern sage, speak of a truth both bitter and clear: "Wars of necessity are essentially unavoidable. They involve the most important national interests, a lack of promising alternatives to the use of force, and a certain and considerable price to be paid if the status quo is allowed to stand." These words are not merely a reflection of politics; they are a lesson of human nature, of the very forces that drive us to conflict, even when the costs seem too high to bear.
What does it mean, O children, to speak of a war of necessity? It is not a battle born of greed, nor of vanity, nor of ambition. No, these wars arise when the heart of a nation is threatened, when the stakes are so high that to remain passive would be to court destruction. Such wars are not chosen freely, but are thrust upon the world when there are no alternatives left but to take up arms. These are the wars where nations cannot afford to hesitate, where peace is but an illusion, and where the price of inaction is too great to contemplate. Think on World War II, that great cataclysm that consumed the world. It was a war of necessity, one fought to protect the very freedom of peoples and to halt the advance of tyranny. The stakes were the future of civilization itself, and no alternative, no matter how tragic, could prevent the clash that was to come.
Consider also the Korean War, a conflict that arose from the ashes of a divided world. The forces of communism threatened to engulf the entire Korean peninsula, and the price of allowing such a shift in the balance of power was seen as too great to bear. The United States, bound by a promise to defend its allies, stood firm, knowing that to allow the status quo to stand would set a dangerous precedent, one that could ripple across the globe. In the same way, the wise general or ruler must often choose to step onto the field of battle not out of desire for conquest, but out of the sheer necessity to safeguard that which is sacred and irreplaceable.
Yet even as we acknowledge the inevitability of such wars, we must also recognize their heavy cost. The price of a war of necessity is not only counted in lives lost and treasure spent, but in the toll they take on the very spirit of those who fight them. It is a toll not only on the soldiers but on the societies they return to. Such wars leave scars that may never fully heal, for they demand sacrifices of the soul as well as the body. The wise ruler must weigh this cost carefully, knowing that once the sword is drawn, it can never be sheathed without consequence. History is replete with the stories of nations that have paid this price, and though they may have won the war, they are forever changed by the battles they fought.
Yet even in the deepest tragedy, there lies a lesson. For, as the great Greek philosopher Aristotle once taught, virtue is born of struggle. The wars of necessity, though painful, often shape the character of those who endure them. Nations that have fought in such wars, like the United States after World War II or the nations of Europe after the devastation of their own great conflicts, have rebuilt themselves into stronger, more resilient societies. Necessity forces one to rise, to dig deeper, and to discover strengths that might have remained hidden in times of peace. This is the paradox of such wars: that in their wake, though the scars are many, there is often a renewed sense of purpose and determination.
Let us now turn to the lessons we must take from these words. The first is this: wars of necessity are never chosen lightly. They are not the result of reckless ambition or desire for glory, but of the most solemn, urgent need to preserve that which cannot be replaced. In your own lives, O children, you may face battles—perhaps not on the fields of war, but in your own hearts, in your homes, and in your communities. When you do, ask yourselves: What is the cost of inaction? What is the price of standing by while injustice flourishes, while your own soul withers? In these moments, you must act, for sometimes inaction is the truest form of defeat.
The second lesson is one of preparation. Wars of necessity are not fought without sacrifice, and the victor is often the one who prepares with the greatest care. Whether in the realm of politics, in your work, or in your personal struggles, know that preparation is the shield against disaster. To wait until the storm is upon you is to risk being consumed by it. The time to prepare is before the winds of war begin to howl. Knowledge, foresight, and resolve are the tools that will carry you through.
Finally, remember this, O children: the wars of necessity do not come without great cost, but they also forge something new. After the storm, the world is not the same as it was before. Victory in such wars is not just the end of conflict, but the beginning of a new chapter. You must be prepared, not only to fight when the need arises, but to rebuild in its aftermath. Your character, your community, your future—all of these will be shaped by the battles you face.
Therefore, as you walk the path ahead of you, remember that necessity may one day demand that you act when no other choice remains. But know also that in those moments, the courage to stand firm, to prepare wisely, and to rebuild afterward will determine whether you rise or fall. The true warrior is not one who seeks conflict, but one who meets it with a steadfast heart and a clear vision of the future. Prepare yourself, for the storms will come—and when they do, you must be ready to face them.
RHDang Rri Hieu
This perspective seems rooted in realism, but it risks ignoring the ethical complexity of labeling war as ‘necessary.’ If a nation defines its ‘most important interests’ too broadly, almost any conflict could be justified under this framework. I’d like to ask: where do we draw the line between legitimate defense and self-serving aggression disguised as necessity?
TMTrang Mai
Haass’s logic reflects the cold pragmatism of international relations. Sometimes, force really is the only option left when core interests are threatened. But this also makes me wonder about the human side — when leaders decide that war is ‘unavoidable,’ do they fully grasp the long-term costs? History shows that even necessary wars leave moral scars that last for generations.
HNhien nguyen
I find this argument compelling but unsettling. It frames war as something that can be justified by circumstance, not just ideology. But doesn’t calling a war ‘necessary’ risk making violence sound acceptable? Maybe Haass is right from a realist’s point of view, but as a reader, I can’t help but ask whether any war can ever be truly inevitable — or if that’s just how nations rationalize tragedy.
YNVu Yen Nhi
This quote raises a difficult moral and strategic question — who gets to decide which wars are truly ‘necessary’? Haass defines necessity as a lack of alternatives, but history often shows that what seems unavoidable in the moment is sometimes the result of political failure or lack of imagination. I wonder how many wars labeled as ‘necessary’ could have been prevented with stronger diplomacy or patience.