A Stale, Male Tale: War is Not a Governing Strategy
Since God was a boy, men have predominantly used war as a primary governing strategy. Women leaders, not so much. Female leaders have engaged in war, but men have historically favored lethal weaponry over diplomacy, cooperation, or compromise to achieve political goals. Whether through wars of words or wars of swords, guns, or bombs, men have tended to resort to violence and domination as their primary means of resolving conflict. It’s the 21st century. It’s time for a new approach.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s retort to the growing recognition of the Palestinian State, “Whoever hurts us, we hurt him,” exemplifies this aggressive approach. Netanyahu’s belligerence cannot conceal his lack of genuine leadership. His geopolitical posturing exacerbates a humanitarian crisis that neither the Israeli nor Palestinian people can endure.
The male-dominated political entity of Hamas threw the first punch in this ongoing conflict. Hamas claims to elevate the voice of Palestinians worldwide, yet the sound of war deafens ears to the cries of misery and death. The political bluster of unelected Hamas leaders overshadows the voices of the majority who seek peace but are trapped in a humanitarian nightmare ignited by their leaders.
This pattern of political gamesmanship, retaliation, and indulgence in might over right characterizes the global, male-dominated response to conflicts worldwide. Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, in his book “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders (and How to Fix it),” explores how the surplus of managerial incompetence and arrogance in male-dominated spheres reduces opportunities for competent leaders, both women and men while keeping leadership standards depressingly low and dangerously ineffective at maintaining peace.
History is filled with examples where leaders opted for war as a first resort, often with catastrophic consequences. World War I, ignited by a web of alliances and a belief in military might, decimated a generation and redrew borders without regard for ethnic and cultural complexities, leading directly to World War II. The so-called Great War was supposed to end all wars, but instead, it set the stage for more conflict.
The modern era offers no respite from this pattern. The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 based on the belief that military intervention could swiftly bring democracy and stability. Instead, this intervention led to prolonged conflict, destabilizing the region and fueling the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. The human cost, in lives lost and communities torn apart, continues to reverberate today.
A governing strategy that prioritizes war over dialogue overlooks the fundamental needs of people. In Yemen, the civil war has caused one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. The Saudi-led coalition’s military intervention, aimed at curbing Houthi influence, has resulted in widespread famine, disease, and death. The focus on military solutions has failed to address underlying governance and social justice issues, leaving millions in peril.
Alternatives to war exist and have proven effective. In South Africa, the end of apartheid was achieved not through a bloody civil war but through negotiation and reconciliation. Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk’s ability to engage in dialogue and compromise set a precedent for peacefully resolving deeply entrenched conflicts. Their leadership demonstrated that even the most divisive issues could be addressed without violence.
In Colombia, the peace process with FARC rebels, despite its imperfections, has provided a framework for ending decades of armed conflict. The emphasis on dialogue, justice, and reparations over outright military victory has offered a path to lasting peace. This approach acknowledges the grievances of those involved and works towards a future where differences are settled through discussion rather than destruction.
These examples underscore the critical need for leaders to embrace diplomacy and dialogue over force. Governing through war perpetuates cycles of violence, creating wounds that take generations to heal. It often fails to address the root causes of conflict, leaving underlying tensions unresolved and ready to flare up again.
War as a governing strategy is a failure of imagination and courage. It reflects an inability to see beyond immediate gain and a refusal to invest in building sustainable peace. Authentic leadership requires the vision to recognize that enduring solutions come not from the barrel of a gun but from the negotiating table.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a stark reminder of the limitations of war. Decades of violence have yielded only more suffering and insecurity for both sides. The international community must pressure leaders to pursue peace through dialogue, recognizing the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. This requires courage, empathy, and a willingness to engage in difficult conversations.
In a world fraught with complex challenges, reliance on war as a primary governing strategy is an anachronism. It is time for leaders to embrace a new paradigm prioritizing human dignity, justice, and peace over the destructive allure of military might. The future depends on our collective ability to imagine and create a world where conflicts are resolved not through violence but through understanding and cooperation.
This new era of leadership must be feminist at its core, recognizing the value of empathy, collaboration, and the strength of diversity. By elevating female voices and embracing a more inclusive approach to governance, we can move towards a future where peace, not war, defines our global strategy.
