The True Face of War: A Call for Silence and Reflection

War has no feminine face.

It should remain in our minds as it truly is—hideous and destructive—never embellished with heroism´-or-glory after its end. Its very essence is a human tragedy, and the noise that follows, be it victory celebrations´-or-mutual accusations, only amplifies its ugliness and negative impact.
The concept of "silencing voices" after a war is fundamental. It calls for a period of silence and reflection instead of clamor. This silence is not a void-;- rather, it s an opportunity for everyone who had a voice before the war to re-evaluate themselves and their potential role in precipitating such destruction. Even if the parties aren t equally responsible, each played a part-;- no one is entirely innocent. Everyone contributed, in one way´-or-another, to this evil.
Human silence is a natural response to devastation, the corpses, and eyes moist with tears. It is a sign of respect for war s victims and an acknowledgment of the tragedy s magnitude. Ultimately, everyone must ask themselves and others: "Why did this happen?" This profound questioning, born from the depths of silence, is the true beginning of recovery and the prevention of future disasters. It s not merely about finding fault but about understanding the root causes that led to the catastrophe. War cannot be sugarcoated-;- the most appropriate human response to it is silence, contemplation, and deep questioning, not noise and accusations. This silence is a chance for individual and collective accountability, the only way to learn from the past and avoid repeating the tragedy.

The Honor of Politics and the Rejection of Victorious Pride
The clearest measure of a political entity s honor is its ability to prevent the outbreak of wars. This places a fundamental and crucial responsibility on politics, as its primary mission is not to achieve victories´-or-expansion, but to maintain peace. When politics fails in this, and war becomes unavoidable, it loses a great deal of its honor.
We must reject pride in wartime victories and emphasize that true pride lies in ending the bloody catastrophe. This represents a radical shift from the traditional concept of pride. Pride isn t found in the number of enemies killed, but in lives saved. This means glory belongs not to the generals who command armies, but to the leaders who work to cease fire and rebuild peace, prioritizing diplomatic and humanitarian efforts over military ones.
The danger of glamorizing war with the "bright garb" of pride, victory, and righteousness makes it more sinister than war itself. This is because such glamorization isn t confined to the battlefield-;- it permeates every aspect of life. An entire society becomes obsessed with war-;- the joy of life hinges on its outcome-;- religion and morality are exploited to justify violence-;- spirituality transforms into a tool of mobilization-;- and the economy and livelihood are subordinated to the war machine. In this way, war devours society s entire existence, altering its concepts and values to suit the "imminent moment of war." All of life becomes a preparation for conflict, not life itself.
Therefore, it is essential that politics bears primary responsibility for preventing war. We must believe that true pride lies not in waging war, but in ending it. We must believe that beautifying war makes it a total catastrophe that dominates all aspects of social and human life.

Accountability and the Role of Military Force
This is a complex idea that combines political realism and moral responsibility. We do not deny the need for military force but place it within a broader context of accountability. We acknowledge that every nation needs military power—"a bomb, a missile, and a fighting force", which represents a realistic understanding of a world where the factor of power cannot be ignored. We also value the role of combatants who perform their duty in times of war, affirming that they deserve appreciation ("their hands should be kissed"). This is an acknowledgment of their courage and sacrifice.
The pivotal point is that this appreciation should not precede the accountability of political leaders. We place the greatest responsibility on the politicians who make the decisions that lead to war, the ideas and demands that fuel conflict and make it inevitable, and the social and political institutions that may fail to find peaceful solutions. This means that a political leader cannot hide behind the bravery of soldiers-;- rather, they must be held accountable for the decisions that led to war in the first place. They must be "responsible for this possible day."
A political community must be prepared for the possible day of war, but at the same time, every effort must be made to prevent it. This contradiction is not a weakness, but a strength. Preparing for war (militarily and economically) should be solely a means to prevent it, not an end in itself. This requires -dir-ecting all economic, political, and cultural capabilities, both domestically and internationally, toward a single goal: "preventing catastrophe." This means that building military power should not be a justification for war, but rather part of a broader strategy to deter it.
In brief, this view can be summarized in the following points:
1. Recognizing the necessity of military force.
2. Appreciating the sacrifices of combatants.
3. Placing the responsibility for war on politicians and institutions before anyone else.
4. Calling for the use of all resources (economic, cultural, and political) to prevent war, even while preparing for it.

The Cycle of Violence and Human Distortion
The fanfare that follows war, adorning it with pride and victory, not only robs society of the opportunity to question itself but also leads to other disastrous consequences. For example, society might become proud of its lack of civilian infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals) because it exhausted its resources purchasing weapons. This upends priorities and makes destruction a source of pride. Immediately after one war ends, society prepares for the next. This is an endless cycle of violence and destruction, and we call for breaking this "hellish" cycle.
The ugly face of war is not only pure evil to be avoided, but it can also be a catalyst for human and social distortion. Without the fanfare and celebrations, humans are forced to reflect on themselves as they "reflect on the shortcomings of their nature." War reveals our flaws as humans, such as hatred and destructive desires. When one sees the scale of destruction, one cannot remain arrogant´-or-conceited. In the face of death and destruction, marginal differences disappear, and our common humanity emerges. Only then can friendship become meaningful in politics—a friendship built not on fleeting interests, but on a shared foundation of suffering and a desire to avoid catastrophe.

Who Benefits from Falsification?
Those who profit from war and perpetuate the infernal cycle are those who see society s humility and self-criticism as a threat to their existence and power. They prefer noise and false pride because it protects them from accountability and keeps them in control.
Removing the glamorous image of war is not just a moral act-;- it is a vital necessity to enable society to reclaim its humanity and break the cycle of violence that enslaves it.

The Role of Art and Literature in Revealing the True Face of War
Art and literature play a fundamental role in modifying society s view of war, moving beyond official narratives that often focus on glorifying victory while overlooking the enormous human cost. They are a means of revealing the tragic and cruel face of war, away from the fake and heroic images that some historical narratives may promote. Instead of focusing on military tactics and victories, art and literature delve into the depths of -dir-ect human experiences that reveal suffering and pain.
For example, Svetlana Alexievich s novel "War Has No Woman s Face" is a prominent example, highlighting the suffering of women during war and the immense sacrifices they made.1 The novel underscores that war is not just a record of statistics and numbers, but a bitter experience that includes lost lives, shattered dreams, and upended lives.
Moreover, art and literature provide a platform for the voices of victims and marginalized groups who are often silenced´-or-ignored in official narratives.2 Through the presentation of personal stories and creative works such as novels, poems, paintings, and films, audiences can engage with the experiences of individuals who have -dir-ectly encountered the horrors of war—whether they are soldiers, civilians, children,´-or-refugees. This emotional connection deepens understanding and dispels apathy, making the impact of war more tangible and prompting societies to question the futility and rejection of these disasters.
Rather than glorifying´-or-promoting war, art and literature play a deeper and more influential role in motivating audiences to critically examine the causes, effects, and dangerous consequences of wars, and to hold leaders accountable for the decisions that lead to these disasters. When a work of art presents scenes of human devastation and the suffering of those affected with objectivity and honesty, it confronts the viewer´-or-reader with existential and fundamental questions, such as: Why did this tragedy occur? And who bears the burden of responsibility? These questions, despite their apparent simplicity, form the first building block of the process of accountability and questioning and contribute to laying the foundations for preventing the recurrence of tragedies in the future. This is what you eloquently pointed out in your article on the importance of silence and reflection in the aftermath of wars.
Art and literature also play a pivotal role in preserving human and collective memory.3 They act as a living and inspiring archive that records events with threads of feeling and emotion, presenting a parallel´-or-alternative narrative that does not rely solely on the narratives of the victors´-or-the powerful. In times of conflict and war, facts may be falsified and manipulated, and may even be completely erased from official records.4 But through stories and novels, poems and songs, and even paintings and plays, literary art can document the real experiences and suffering of humans-;- to remain a faithful witness to the facts, and to carry a humanitarian message that enlightens future generations about the necessity of rejecting wars and the unjustified, tragic tragedies they cause.
Art and literature often become the driving force to ignite profound change in societies.5 A single poem with honest lyrics, a song that touches the soul,´-or-a play that captures reality with intense beauty—all have the power to raise awareness among people, motivate them to demand their rights and stand courageously for peace and the abolition of all forms of injustice and oppression. Art, here, is not merely an innocent aesthetic´-or-a recreational activity-;- it is a soft yet effective weapon that builds bridges between people and confronts the tools of oppression and tyranny.
Therefore, it can be said, without exaggeration, that art and literature may not have the power to stop bombing´-or-shoot down aircraft on battlefields-;- however, they can open minds and change hearts and minds profoundly and sustainably. This is the true foundation of peace that the world seeks with shared responsibility.

Hamid_Koorachi

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 3