A definition

War (as I believe) is a conflict between 2 wills in which each part uses every possible mean to force his will on the other. This includes military, economic and political means. And until the will of one part is forced or an agreeable peace is reached, the war can never be considered as ended.
One can conclude from the above that war in Iraq, for instance, has not ended yet, and the only thing that is ended is the battle to control Iraq. Winning the war will take more efforts in rebuilding Iraq and helping the Iraqi people as they try to establish a strong, peaceful, democratic and a prosperous state.
Wars are generally bad cases, but of course not all wars. Every rule has its own exceptions.
Some people just shrink back when the word (war) is mentioned. This is a normal response, as the word immediately reflected in our minds as; bombs, corpses, destroyed building, fires and great suffering for all parts, even those whom are not evolved.
Yet, one has to look at each war in a rational -detached but not indifferent- manner, beseeching the causes, justifications, allegation of each part and the possible outcome to finally set his mind of whether it's a good or a bad cause.
One time I was chatting with a friend from Spain and as I mentioned the words "Saddam's stupid wars", my friend instantaneously replied "all wars are stupid".
This is understandable and natural, but (there is always a but) what if there was no wars? Meaning what if all good men and women discarded war as an option for answering the endless threats presented by the evil? Who could stop people like Hitler and Mussolini?
It's a great thing that a human being cherishes peace so much, but there has to be exceptions, as peace and war are relative concepts rather than absolutely representing good and bad respectively.
As I understand it, a humanist should care for all human sufferings and endure whatever possible difficulties to help them including, money, fight and risking lives and should not be stopped by absolute terms such as sovereignty, peace and order in the world.
I have to be honest here; some people calling themselves anti-war and humanist, where in fact, they are only against the war because it evolved risking their peoples life and loosing some of their tax money, as it is obvious from the alternatives they give to war such as " let the Iraqis deal with it and revolution will happen even if after decades". Or "send Iraqi rebels and support them with money and arms".
Answering the 2nd statement; doesn't that interfere with other nations' sovereignty? This makes you wonder if their real objection was to risking lives or risking their people's lives. The 1st part says that let that tragedy continue it will sure come to an end one day at the hands of the native people. I have 4 objections to this;
- This means continuous loss of others lives and more torture and sufferings, as god only knows when it will come to an end.
- There is absolutely no guarantee that such a revolution will happen. Tell me please how many real revolutions that you know had happen in the modern history? In my opinion and you probably will not like it; only 4; The French, the American, the Iranian, and the Russian revolution. I don't support the ideology behind all but they still are revolutions.
-Even if such revolution happens in case of Iraq the most qualified parties to achieve such revolution are radical groups which will result in a similar, if not worse, oppressing regime as happened in some revolutions mentioned above and usually hostile to other nations.
- Such revolution would probably cost, at least, ten times of lives and economic disasters than a war from outside.
Another point worth mentioning here is that sometimes war is the only way to guarantee peace for a long time as it acts as a warning to other radical regimes to make reforms and stop defying the international community.
I would like to say that the only humanists and peace activists that I know are those who honored humanity with their sacrifices for the sake of others and those who helped them even if by words or feelings.
I'm probably not the 1st one to say this, and if anyone still think that it is an internal matter, all I can answer is some verses from a modern Arab poetry (I hope the translation works):

When we replied to the drowning cries with laughter
When we danced with clamor..
In our mad parties.
When each one of us said..
As long as I'm fine..
Let the word be drowned by flood.
Just when that happened….
We became the invaders of our city.
We became the enemy.