Violence for its own sake is bad. Generally, leaders, be they of countries, federations, armies, etc., take steps to avoid violence against their own.
At what point in history did human society decide that the best way to counter violence is with violence? Fire with fire? If I punch you, your initial reaction may be to punch me back. Which in response causes me to hit you again, and the cycle repeats until there’s an all-out fistfight. If history and human nature has taught us anything, it’s that a violent act will often lead to a retaliation of violence.
Human society has been around for thousands of years. We’ve evolved, gotten smarter and wiser, so why haven’t a vast majority of us realized that violence in response to violence solves nothing? So many leaders are convinced that brute force is the answer to ending what plagues their people, and as such, they become so blinded that they don’t realize the problem lies more so in their own actions than those they are fighting against.
If I punch you, you should put up yours hands to defend yourself, absolutely. But instead of hitting back, figure out why I punched you. What caused it? How can we solve this problem without another punch to the face? With the least amount of collateral damage. Maybe you’re still a little sore (physically and mentally) from my punch, but we’re avoiding a lot of future soreness if we take a less physical approach to things. Right?
I’m not really sure what prompted this thought, honestly. The U.S. is pretty divided right now, between what approach we take to solve our problems. I hope we see that force isn’t always the answer.