War Does Settle Things, Says National Review Editor Rich Lowry

In a column published this week, Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, directly contests the common protest assertion that "war is not the answer," arguing instead that warfare has repeatedly proven capable of settling fundamental disputes and reshaping the political order. Lowry acknowledges the tragedy of military conflict while insisting that historical evidence demonstrates war's capacity to resolve questions "often with a terrible finality."

Lowry contends that military conflict can determine international boundaries, establish the nature of governments, decide who rules, and alter the relative power of states. He argues that the spread of Christianity, territorial consolidations in medieval Europe, and the outcome of Napoleonic and World War II conflicts all hinged on military victory. The column points to Constantine's victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312, Ferdinand and Isabella's conquest of Granada in 1492, and the Holy Roman Emperor's defense of Vienna in 1683 as examples where warfare produced consequences that shaped subsequent centuries.

Lowry emphasizes that while diplomatic solutions would have been preferable, "that's not how the world usually works." He notes that Europe's "Napoleon problem" in the early 19th century required military resolution at Waterloo, which then enabled the lasting peace established at the Congress of Vienna. Similarly, he argues that confronting Hitler militarily, ideally at an earlier stage when Nazi Germany was weaker, proved necessary for European stability.

The column further grounds its argument in American history, stating that the United States would not exist as constituted without two foundational military conflicts. The Revolutionary War secured independence from Britain, while the Civil War preserved the nation and eliminated slavery. Lowry acknowledges that this analysis does not justify "heedless warmongering" or excuse the brutality of conflicts like the Roman destruction of Carthage or World War I's Battle of Passchendaele.

Lowry applies his framework to contemporary events, referencing Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. He characterizes the invasion as a war that "never should have been launched," yet contends that Ukraine faces no viable alternative but military resistance if it seeks to protect its sovereignty and negotiate a tolerable settlement. The column concludes that in this case, war remains "the answer—as, sadly, it has been so often throughout human history."