Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc.
This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)
It's easy to mock when it's caricaturized. And, so is the ”War is peace" position when taken to the extremes by perma-hawks, who've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved with an explosion.
As often, the solution lies in the middle. We do need strength as deterrent, but over-focus on this leads to an infinitely escalating need for more strength.
But let's be clear: war is illegitimate. That we have not found a better way to resolve conflict does not legitimize it. Killing people with whom you disagree at-scale is insane on its face.
War as policy and self-defense are two different things.
And, of course, the self-defense bit wouldn't be necessary if not for war.
Most of the push-back I've gotten on my comment that war is illegitimate is essentially some form of, "yes, but war happens". This is circular.
My point was not to deny the current reality of war or the need to reckon with it. It's that if "war is peace" is accepted as the unchallengeable law, then we will naturally have more war.
That's exactly why a country-that-shall-not-be-named does its best to frame itself as the victim, 24/7, even though it's a provable reality that they started the conflict.
Everybody knows that nobody looks favorable at aggressors but they still want land / resources / whatever so they wage an information war to make themselves look better.
I believe many nation leaders, especially those who ruled in very tumultuous times, would absolutely love it if war was not an option but alas, we have to comply with reality. We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered.
You’ll have to form your own conclusions, but the history of the Māori tribes is often presented as an example of this. Their history is often presented as an example of pacifists vs aggressors.
No doubt. And, I've personally become more hawkish in these times. You'll see me arguing elsewhere that the West needs to be more aggressive in supporting Ukraine. I understand that we can't just lay down arms now. It's more about whether we want this to be the status quo for conflict resolution. It's just not an aspirational worldview.
So, my superficial point was that the full reasoning rests on itself. It's circular and self-serving, so it's not surprising who most often repeats it. And, if that's the footing you accept, then it will always be your footing.
The slightly deeper point was that these little memetic sayings (and the posture they support) become a self-perpetuating construction that exaggerate the effectiveness of raw might, while short-circuiting the legitimacy of other options. We see around the World effective resistance to great power.
So, it's the promotion of a kind of persistent war-footing wherein perceived military strength becomes the only lens through which all conflict is sorted. Hence, it de-emphasizes the complexity of the world and the search for solutions that can persist because they rest on more sustainable solutions beyond subjugation.
TLDR; if we emphasize peace through war above all else then we will continue to have more war than peace.
The argument I'm making is a little more nuanced than the world, and certainly HN, likes these days.
I'm not suggesting that we just declare it illegitimate and lay down our arms. I'm suggesting that the mantra, "if you want peace then prepare for war" rests on the premise that war is a legitimate way to resolve conflict. And, once you've made that decision, it becomes effectively the only way, and guarantees more war.
OTOH, if you consider that it is not, then it leaves space for prioritizing other approaches.
This does not deny the current reality of war. Think of it as aspirational.
War is real.