What’s Wrong with Us?
In a World Obsessed with Peace, Why Do Wars Still Rage? Imagine a World Where War Budgets Fund Human Welfare
The Paradox of Modern Civilization
In a world that prides itself on progress, civilization and the rule of law, the persistence of violent conflict and war presents a tragic paradox. Despite trillions spent on diplomacy, peacekeeping and international cooperation war remains a recurring reality. In the 21st century humanity stands at a crossroads of unprecedented progress and alarming regression. We wield technologies that allow us to connect globally in seconds, map our own genome and explore outer space. Yet the paradox is stark while we build peace-promoting institutions and spend enormous resources on diplomacy and conflict resolution, war remains a constant as a devastating reality.
Over the past forty years since 1980, over 8 million lives have been lost in armed conflicts worldwide. Tens of millions have been left permanently disabled and bear permanent scars like physical, psychological and social. Millions of children have been orphaned, grow up fatherless, entire communities are uprooted and countless women have been widowed. Economically According to the Global Peace Index and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the financial cost of these wars has exceeded $14 trillion funds that could have transformed global health, education and infrastructure. These are not just numbers; they are human lives, communities torn apart and generations traumatized.
Yet we live in an era that writes thousands of books, articles and conference papers on peace each year. Billions are spent annually on conflict resolution think tanks, the United Nations and peacekeeping missions. So why does war persist? This contradiction is not only disheartening but points toward a deeper dysfunction in the rational architecture of modern decision-making at both the national and global levels. How do we explain this failure? Why do wars erupt despite decades of peacebuilding rhetoric? The answer lies in complex structural, psychological and political failures at national and international levels.
The Peace People and the War Leaders: A Silent Discrepancy
Ask any ordinary person in any corner of the world, “Would you choose war or peace?” and almost every voice will softly but firmly answer: peace. Mothers want their children to sleep without fear. Young people dream of futures filled with purpose not ashes. Elders yearn to see the world leave behind the burden of bloodshed. Most human beings desire safety for their families, stability for their livelihoods and dignity in their communities. Across cultures, languages and religions peace remains a universally cherished ideal. People do not celebrate destruction; they desire for cooperation, growth and prosperity. Humanity, in its quiet moments is overwhelmingly inclined toward harmony not hostility. Peace is not just a desire it is our natural longing.
But then a strange and tragic question emerges: if the majority of the world’s people want peace, why do their leaders so often choose war? Why do nations led by peace-seeking citizen’s end up in conflict, confrontation and chaos? Are people choosing leaders to protect peace or to prepare for war?
This is the paradox of our time. The same hands that vote in hope often empower voices that stir fear. The same societies that mourn war victims are led into new wars by those entrusted to prevent them. Somewhere between the people’s will and the corridors of power something becomes distorted trust is misused, wisdom is absent and fear is weaponized.
Yet here lies the disturbing contradiction: these same peaceful majorities elect, support or tolerate leaders who frequently lead their nations into confrontation, hostility and sometimes full-scale war. The question arises do people choose leaders to wage wars or to secure peace? If leaders emerge from the will of the people, why do their decisions so often diverge from that will? The answer may lie in the distortion of trust, the manipulation of fear and the erosion of collective wisdom. A peace-seeking populace can be drawn into conflict by narratives of threat and betrayal crafted not discovered. This raises a sobering reality: that democracy without operational wisdom can still result in war unless societies hold their leaders accountable to the promises of peace they were elected to fulfil.
Perhaps it is not the people who fail but the systems that disconnect their hopes from their leaders’ decisions. Perhaps it is not peace that is weak but the pathways to protect it that remain undeveloped. The people speak in peace but it is time for leadership to listen in peace and to lead accordingly.
Understanding Situational Sensing: Why Early Detection Matters
Conflicts between nations do not erupt suddenly; they evolve through a series of tensions, provocations and unresolved grievances that are often ignored or underestimated. In most cases, the absence of in-depth situational sensing during the early stages prevents timely diplomatic or preventive action turning manageable disputes into full-scale wars. Situational sensing in the context of interstate relations involves the systematic observation and interpretation of early warning signs such as political rhetoric, military posturing, economic sanctions, border skirmishes or diplomatic breakdowns. These developments, though subtle at first often signal a deteriorating relationship that if left unaddressed may escalate into open conflict.
Unfortunately, many states and international bodies respond reactively only recognizing the seriousness of a situation once violence becomes imminent. This reactive approach limits the space for peaceful resolution and increases the human, economic and geopolitical costs of war. Effective conflict prevention between states requires a proactive mind-set one that prioritizes early detection, mutual understanding and strategic dialogue before tensions reach a tipping point.
Conflicts between nations rarely erupt in isolation; they are the cumulative result of historical grievances, unresolved tensions and political miscalculations. One of the most profound yet often overlooked failures in the post-World War II era was the absence of comprehensive situational sensing during the decolonization process. As colonial empires collapsed newly independent states emerged but their borders were often drawn with alarming haste and shaped more by the departing powers’ strategic interests than by the cultural, ethnic or historical realities on the ground.
This reckless boundary-making sowed the seeds of long-term instability. Arbitrary borders created structural fault lines that institutionalized division, bred mistrust and ignited rivalries that still smoulders today. No meaningful attempt was made to anticipate how these artificial lines might fracture regional coherence or inflame national identities. Had situational sensing been applied as informed effort to assess historical dynamics and local sensitivities more equitable and enduring political transitions could have been achieved.
The consequences of this negligence echo across continents. In Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, millions still live with the legacy of borders they see as externally imposed and fundamentally unjust. These perceived injustices have nurtured identity-based nationalism, hardened inter-state animosities and sparked repeated cycles of confrontation sometimes violent and always destabilizing.
Effective situational sensing goes far beyond reacting to contemporary tensions. It demands a deep engagement with history, an acute awareness of regional dynamics and a capacity to recognize the subtle signals of impending conflict, militarization of contested borders, inflammatory rhetoric, stalled diplomacy and growing competition over scarce resources.
Yet, time and again, the global response has been reactive. Political hesitancy, bureaucratic inertia and a narrow focus on immediate concerns have left warning signs unheeded. The result is missed opportunities for de-escalation and when violence does erupt, the cost both human and geopolitical is exponentially higher than what early diplomatic engagement would have required.
To truly prevent wars between nations, situational sensing must be embedded as a strategic imperative. It must guide foreign policy with foresight, drawing from historical insight, cultural understanding, and a genuine commitment to long-term peacebuilding. This approach does not merely anticipate conflict; it actively works to dismantle the roots of discord before they erupt into crisis. History has shown the price of neglect. The path to a more stable international order lies in learning from these mistakes by recognizing that peace begins not in the battlefield but in the ability to sense, understand and address conflict before it takes form.
The Trap of Reactionary Responses
When violence occurs, governments often face immense public pressure to “act decisively.” This frequently translates into reactionary military strikes, economic sanctions or diplomatic severance responses designed to show strength but lacking strategic foresight. These responses are emotionally driven, politically expedient and strategically short-sighted. They exacerbate grievances fuel cycles of retaliation and undermine trust necessary for long-term peace.
As any situation of conflict begins to unfold, the initial response becomes critically important it sets the tone for what follows. In such moments, the reaction must be grounded in wisdom not driven by emotion or inflated ego. Emotional reactions, while human often cloud judgment and escalate tensions turning manageable disputes into destructive confrontations. Similarly, responses rooted in pride or the desire to “save face” can lead to rigidity making dialogue and compromise nearly impossible.
A wisdom-based response by contrast prioritizes understanding over blame, strategy over impulse and long-term peace over short-term vindication. It involves pausing to assess the deeper causes of conflict recognizing the interests and fears of all parties and responding in a way that de-escalates rather than provokes. Such an approach requires moral courage, intellectual clarity and a disciplined commitment to resolution not retaliation.
In an interconnected world where the ripple effects of conflict can be far-reaching, the value of a calm, principled and thoughtful response cannot be overstated. It is not a sign of weakness but of leadership. It is through wisdom not emotion or ego that paths to peace are forged, trust is restored and enduring solutions are made possible.
Why Do Wars Persist? Interests Ideas and Desires
At the core of every enduring conflict lies a cognitive triad: interests, ideas and desires. These are not peripheral drivers of war they are its foundation. They define how nations perceive themselves, how they view others and what they believe they are entitled to pursue or defend. Crucially, these elements are interpreted differently by each party to a conflict. What one nation frames as a just cause, another sees as an existential threat. Each side constructs narratives that justify its stance, building public opinion and political will around their own definitions of right, need and entitlement.
Wars, therefore are not spontaneous combustions. They are the culmination of competing internal logics each side convinced of the validity of its interests (such as control, resources or security), the righteousness of its ideas (nationalism, ideology or religious identity) and the legitimacy of its desires (revenge, recognition or legacy). When these forces are left unchecked, unmoderated by diplomacy, reason or ethical restraint they move beyond dispute and toward destruction.
Interests: When states or elite groups prioritize geopolitical dominance, economic expansion or strategic control without considering the rights or needs of others friction is inevitable. These interests may be cloaked in the rhetoric of national development or security but often they are zero-sum in nature, one party’s gain is perceived as another’s loss.
Ideas: Ideologies that harden into absolute truths leave little room for compromise. Whether nationalistic, religious or political such ideas often define “the other” as dangerous, inferior or evil. This rigid binary worldview justifies violence, silences dissent and closes the door on peaceful resolution.
Desires: Often the most volatile of the three, desires can stem from individual psychology or collective memory. The quest for revenge, honour, legacy or redemption can override rational thinking. Leaders and populations alike may be drawn into conflict not because it is necessary but because it feels emotionally or symbolically justified.
When these elements operate in isolation they polarize societies and prime them for war. But one of the most powerful and often overlooked solutions lies in the proactive creation of shared interests, common desires and inclusive ideas a framework that fosters convergence rather than division.
Creating Common Ground Before Conflict Emerges
The best way to prevent wars is not merely to react to conflict once it arises but to shape the cognitive terrain on which potential conflicts might grow. If the drivers of war are interests, ideas and desires then the drivers of peace must be their shared forms. This means actively working to:
Align interests through cooperative economic projects, regional development plans, shared resource management and mutual security arrangements. When parties benefit from peace more than they would from war and interests shift from competition to collaboration.
Cultivate inclusive ideas that recognize pluralism, interdependence and shared history. Educational exchanges, cultural diplomacy and media narratives that humanize “the other” can soften ideological rigidity and make room for coexistence.
Shape collective desires toward shared prosperity, dignity and global recognition not through dominance but through contribution. When national pride is tied to peacebuilding, innovation, and cultural excellence the desire for destructive legacy is displaced by a desire for constructive influence.
This approach transforms the conflict landscape from a battleground of opposing forces to a dialogue of overlapping aspirations. Rather than waiting for tensions to escalate into armed confrontations, states and societies must invest in identifying and institutionalizing common ground early before misunderstandings calcify into crises.
In essence, the persistence of war is not just a failure of diplomacy it is a failure of imagination. It is the inability or unwillingness to see beyond narrow interests, rigid ideologies and emotionally charged ambitions. But history shows that where common frameworks have been created, conflict has been averted or resolved. Peace, therefore is not passive; it is an active architecture of shared meaning.
Only by transforming the cognitive forces that fuel war into bridges of cooperation can humanity escape the cycles of destruction. It begins with recognizing the triad interests, ideas and desires not as inevitable causes of conflict but as powerful tools for peace if aligned with wisdom, mutual respect and foresight.
The Missing Ingredient: Operational Wisdom
In the pursuit of sustainable peace the most overlooked yet essential component is operational wisdom the ability not just to react but to anticipate, understand, deep analysis and respond proportionally to complex threats in a strategic and ethical manner. Operational wisdom is not about short-term political gains or reactive military strategies; it is about cultivating a deeper logic, grounded in both historical context and future foresight.
At its core, operational wisdom blends strategic patience, analytical rigor, moral responsibility and inclusive leadership. It is the capacity to detect early warning signs, interpret them in a broader systemic context and respond through a balanced framework that considers both immediate stabilization and long-term transformation. It enables actors to move from short-term tactical responses to long-term peace architecture what we may call a totalisation approach to conflict resolution.
Unfortunately, many governments and international actors still rely heavily on experience-observation based reactive models of conflict management. These approaches are often shaped by personal judgment, anecdotal observation, or political expediency resulting in inconsistent, fragmented, and sometimes counterproductive outcomes. In contrast, knowledge-based methods, rooted in empirical research, data analytics, historical insights and interdisciplinary frameworks offer a more reliable and scalable path to peace. They promote structured situational sensing and systematic risk assessment rather than ad hoc responses to crises after they erupt. Operational wisdom requires deliberate investment in both institutions and mind-sets. It calls for:
Early Warning Systems – not only for detecting overt threats but also for sensing latent tensions rooted in inequality, marginalization or unresolved historical grievances.
Inclusive Political Processes – that go beyond elite negotiations to include women, minorities, youth and civil society actors whose perspectives are critical for holistic solutions.
Social and Economic Reforms – addressing structural injustice and disparities that fuel resentment and violence between states or populations.
Multi-Track Diplomacy – engaging actors at various levels governmental, regional, academic, religious and grassroots in sustained dialogue and confidence-building.
Where operational wisdom is absent, conflicts are misdiagnosed. Attacks are treated as isolated provocations rather than symptoms of deeper, systemic breakdowns. In such contexts, military retaliation and punitive diplomacy replace dialogue, reform and empathy thus perpetuating cycles of hostility rather than breaking them.
In today’s interconnected world, sustainable peace between nations cannot rely solely on coercion or containment. It must be built upon knowledge-based operational wisdom a disciplined forward-looking approach that marries critical intelligence with compassionate statecraft and which understands that the real victory lies in preventing war not winning it.
The Doctrine of Wisdom: An Algorithm for Peace
This brings us to a foundational gap in modern governance: the lack of a robust and operational Doctrine of Wisdom an intellectual, ethical and strategic framework that guides how nations respond to complexity and threat.
The Doctrine of Wisdom is not philosophical abstraction. It is an algorithm of human decision-making rooted in four rational functions:
- Understanding – The ability to grasp multidimensional truths, situational dynamics and the perspectives of others.
- Responsibility-Taking – The internalized ethic of accountability at every level of decision-making.
- Reasoning – The application of logic, data and foresight to evaluate consequences and strategic outcomes.
- Concluding – The synthesis of learning to form actionable, long-term solutions rather than short-term reactionary fixes.
These four functions are the diagnostics of sustainable peace. Their absence in statecraft leads to what can only be called institutional irrationality therein governments that overreact, miscalculate or ignore the moral and strategic costs of violence.
The Doctrine of Wisdom integrates short-term situational awareness with long-term strategic vision. It offers not merely tools of prevention but a paradigm of intelligent governance, aligning national interest with global stability.
Structural Deficiencies: The Roots of Conflict
The persistence of wars across modern history reflects not merely surface-level disputes, but deep-rooted structural deficiencies in the global political architecture and leadership paradigms. These deficiencies influence how states perceive others, interpret risks and formulate responses. Unless these flaws are acknowledged and restructured, the recurrence of interstate conflict remains a persistent reality.
Perceptual Narrowness
A prevailing issue in conflict-prone systems is the dominance of narrow national perspectives. Nationalist ideologies and rigid identity constructs lead to a worldview where the concerns and rights of other nations are dismissed or demonized. This form of tunnel vision blinds leadership to shared interests, mutual vulnerabilities and human commonalities eroding opportunities for peaceful resolution
Emotional Leadership
When leadership is guided by reactive emotion whether driven by public sentiment, political survival, or sensationalist narratives decision-making loses its strategic coherence. Emotional governance amplifies threats, rushes responses and resists compromise. It obstructs the calm deliberation necessary for de-escalation and long-term peace planning.
One-Sided Narratives
Conflicts are often constructed through binary narratives that frame one side as entirely righteous and the other as wholly aggressive or illegitimate. These one-dimensional perspectives erase complexity, delegitimize historical grievances and create a moral justification for violence. They polarize societies and inhibit reconciliation.
Intellectual Myopia
Wars are frequently treated as isolated, episodic events, rather than the manifestations of deeply embedded structural, historical and psychological factors. This myopic view leads to superficial peace processes and reactive interventions, leaving the core dynamics of hostility unresolved. Sustainable peace requires systemic thinking not event-based responses.
Lack of Strategic Depth
Short-term thinking dominates many policy decisions, often ignoring the broader consequences of military or political actions. The absence of strategic foresight leads to peace settlements that are fragile, reforms that are partial and diplomatic efforts that are reactive rather than preventive. Without long-term vision, stability remains elusive.
Ideological Rigidity in Leadership
Another often neglected deficiency lies in the personal histories and psychological profiles of political leaders. Some leaders may hold deeply extremist or radicalized views shaped by ideological indoctrination, early-life trauma or long-standing grievances. These internal belief systems though not always visible to the public can profoundly influence decisions toward confrontation and inflexibility. When such individuals rise to power, especially in authoritarian or populist systems their worldviews may override institutional checks and provoke aggression, particularly if masked behind nationalistic rhetoric or manipulated democratic mandates.
Addressing these deficiencies requires a conscious shift from reactive to reflective governance. Nations must cultivate leadership accountability, systemic thinking, strategic patience and empathetic diplomacy. Only by confronting the psychological, ideological and institutional roots of conflict can a durable and equitable global peace architecture be built.
Imagine a World Where War Budgets Fund Human Welfare
Over the last four decades, the world has witnessed escalating military expenditures exceeding $14 trillion. These vast sums have been allocated to armed confrontations across continents often in the name of national security. Yet, they come at an enormous opportunity cost. Imagine redirecting even a fraction of these resources toward education, healthcare, poverty eradication and sustainable development.
Trillions spent on destructive operations, military build-ups and post-conflict reconstruction could have built a world of progress, health and hope. Schools would reach the world’s most impoverished children. Medical clinics would treat preventable diseases. Clean energy and water would reach rural villages. The seeds of extremism, poverty, ignorance and hopelessness would be eradicated before they sprouted. This staggering outlay raises an urgent moral, strategic and theoretical question: what if these trillions were used not for war but for peace?
The Immediate and Long-Term Costs of War
The reflection becomes especially urgent in light of recent conflicts such as six days of intense warfare between two major nations in a volatile region. Without assigning blame, it is evident that immense suffering has already been caused. The loss of innocent lives, displacement, psychological trauma and economic disruption remind us that war rarely ends with winners only survivors. The real tragedy of war lies not in who prevails but in what is lost forever.
If such conflicts continue or escalate into broader regional or global confrontations, the consequences could be unimaginable. Modern warfare is shaped by long-range drones, precision-guided missiles, artificial intelligence, cyber warfare and hypersonic weapons. In a world of interconnected technology and vulnerable infrastructure no one is insulated. A single conflict can ripple through the global economy, disrupt energy supplies, collapse communications and affect millions far beyond the battlefield.
Should tensions escalate further, the world may face conditions unseen since the darkest periods of the 20th century. With more than a dozen nations possessing nuclear capabilities and many others tied to defence alliances, the possibility of a third world war looms large. The weapons of today do not merely destroy cities they obliterate futures.
Theoretical Perspectives: Opportunity Cost and Structural Violence
Economics and conflict studies emphasize the principle of opportunity cost: every dollar spent on warfare is a dollar not spent on social welfare. Johan Galtung’s theory of structural violence is particularly relevant here. It refers to systemic social structures that harm individuals by preventing them from meeting basic needs. War, then, is not only bullets and bombs it is the silent killer of dreams, opportunity and dignity. Resources directed toward destruction rather than development rob generations of their chance at a better life.
Reimagining Human-Centered Investment
Imagine redirecting war budgets toward human welfare:
- Universal education could empower generations, eroding ignorance and extremism’s breeding grounds.
- Healthcare investments could save millions from preventable deaths.
- Social welfare programs could drastically reduce poverty, a root cause of many conflicts.
- Infrastructure development could provide opportunities and hope to marginalized communities.
- Clean water, electricity, transportation and digital access could reach billions.
Education
Universal education remains unrealized largely due to funding gaps. UNESCO estimates that providing universal free quality education would require roughly $39 billion annually a fraction of global military spending. One year of war budgets could educate every child on Earth for generations. Education enhances literacy, vocational skills, critical thinking, social cohesion and democratic values. It mitigates conditions that give rise to conflict and ignites an era of creativity and cooperation.
Healthcare
The recent pandemic exposed the fragility of global health systems. The World Health Organization estimates that an additional $200 billion annually could ensure basic healthcare for all. Millions die not from disease, but from the absence of will to fund their survival. Robust healthcare systems build societal resilience and stability forming a bedrock for peace.
Poverty Eradication
Ending extreme poverty is achievable. The UN estimates that $175 billion annually for twenty years could eliminate it. This is a small fraction of global war expenditure. Poverty reduction enhances lives, removes instability, reduces crime and fosters hope. Where there is hope there is peace.
Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability
Vast numbers still lack access to basic infrastructure. Resources currently allocated to conflict could finance green infrastructure, renewable energy and sustainable cities. Climate change and environmental degradation are global threats that require collaborative investment. A healthier planet promotes shared security.
Research and Innovation
Peaceful investment in science surpasses the benefits of defence-driven technologies. Medicine, agriculture, artificial intelligence and clean technologies improve lives globally. Scientific discovery flourishes in peace not in conflict.
Debt Relief and Economic Liberation
Many nations struggle under the weight of external debt, limiting their development capacity. A portion of global military budgets could relieve these debts allowing economies to rebuild based on local needs and cultural strengths. Prosperity begins with financial autonomy not dependency.
Economic Growth through Peace-Oriented Investment
According to Keynesian economic theory, investment in
infrastructure, education and healthcare stimulates economies. The hands that heal and the minds that teach build societies just as surely as those that protect them. Redirecting resources from war to welfare generates jobs, invigorates economies and fosters intergenerational growth. True security lies in fulfilled lives not in fortified borders.
Psychological and Societal Transformation
The psychological consequences of war are deep and lasting. Generations raised in violence carry trauma, distrust and disillusionment. In contrast, peaceful environments foster empathy, cooperation and resilience. Children surrounded by hope rather than hostility are more likely to grow into leaders who unite not divide.
A New Global Ethos
This is not simply a plea for reallocating funds, it is a call for a new global mind-set. The tragedy is not scarcity but the refusal to prioritize life over conflict. Peace is not a passive state but an active investment in justice, dignity and opportunity. A world without war is not just imaginable it is necessary and within reach.
Conclusion
Investing in human welfare is the most profound peacebuilding act possible. This is not utopian idealism it is a rational, strategic and ethical alternative. The costs of war are both immediate and generational. The benefits of peace are enduring. The Doctrine of Wisdom urges governments and societies to quantify this opportunity cost and act accordingly. The choice between destruction and development lies before us. Peace is not only the moral path it is the wisest one.
References
• Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. D. (2001). Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century. Prentice Hall.
• Diamond, L., & McDonald, J. W. (1996). Multi-track diplomacy: A systems approach to peace (3rd ed.). Kumarian Press.
• Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
• Institute for Economics and Peace. (2024). Global Peace Index 2024. Retrieved from https://visionofhumanity.org
• International Institute for Strategic Studies. (2024). The Military Balance 2024. Routledge.
• Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Macmillan.
• Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.
• Mankiw, N. G. (2020). Principles of economics (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2024). SIPRI military expenditure database. Retrieved from https://sipri.org
• UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report: Education finance watch. Retrieved from https://unesco.org
• United Nations. (2024). Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org
• United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. (2023). Early warning and early action. Retrieved from https://dppa.un.org
• Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. (2024). Costs of war project. Brown University. Retrieved from https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar
• World Bank & United Nations. (2018). Pathways for peace: Inclusive approaches to preventing violent conflict. World Bank Publications.
• World Health Organization. (2023). Universal health coverage: Monitoring report. Retrieved from https://who.int
