Being pacifist, I have a right to personal non-defense. But do I have a right to tell someone else “I will not fight to defend you”?
In the structured military operations there are always non-killing roles to fulfill – paramedics, cooks, drivers etc.
In an irregular campaign, however, you may end up in the querilla situation, where you are expected to fight not for the glorious state, but for your county, village, family.
Some societies never experienced a war on their own turf. Some – including the one I was raised in – have it almost every generation. So, the question remains central and open, while answers keep being local and veeery individual…
I consider myself in a strong opposition towards state and corporate driven violence, while I am ready to answer it with appropriate means (if available) in defence of my community.
Every war – including latest examples – is being justified by long array of historical griefs. In my tradition (Polish local history) there are also such chains of claims and reclaims; expansions, conquests etc. – it is enough to read “average” Polish views about Lithuania or Ukraine (and vice versa). But my strong opinion is that presently (and since the end of the WWII) the “metaplayers” grew up to be dominant in creation of war. Transnational corporations and global power governments, whose strong arms are now the “intelligence community” and military contractors – they are _using_ all those feuds as they need them, to initiate – sometimes bloody – confrontations.
The modus operandi is really simple and it could be seen recently in Fergusson, Mo. The best (while very moderated) summary was given here: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-cops-made-things-worse-in-ferguson-2014-8
In Fergusson – I dare to hope – it was unintentional. But in countless examples around the globe – including latest developments in Ukraine – such is the basic warmongers’ modus operandi. Find some areas of tension, fuel it with resources and provocations, keep on the fire until it explodes. Profit.
It is not just about selling weapons and services – yes, to both sides, of course – but also, oldschool style, to establish favourable (or to destroy infavourable) power groups in the areas of interest. See latest developments in Ukraine.
During the Cold War the corporate component was less visible – at least in Europe. Now, it is growing stronger every new war or “policing operation”.
So, while we need to remember the beginnings, as much as we can get to them – see marvellous “This land is mine” animation, I am more and more convinced that the position of aggressive pacifism (as I initially outlined it in https://freelab2014.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/war-on-war/) is the only useful one. SOMEBODY is turning mere historical animosities into full-scale bloodbaths – repetitively and at the global scale. And those people should be identified and stopped. Only THEN we can get back to our deliberations, who grabbed whose land couple hundreds years ago.