Yesterday my wife asked me for a child-friendly definition of war at the request of my oldest daughter. I explained that there was no way to translate the wars of mankind into child-friendly language. The loss of life or forceful taking of life found in war cannot be couched in anything except what it is. Intuitively a child knows that in most cases (if not all from their point of view) that the taking of human life is somehow wrong. At best, I think, we attempt to explain our own formulations, contrived or otherwise, of just war theory. We explain to children that as human beings we have a responsibility to protect ourselves (others who cannot) when we are confronted by those that would try to take from us our lives. In general, this is somewhat sound if we assume for the moment we all have a common set of values and a common set of responses for the violations of these values. I know, it may be a stretch and in practice we find that it is. It is more difficult when we approach the bounds of this simple justification as is the case of the current war. How do you explain to a child the notion of preemption? Preemptive action is not a strictly defensive response. This is almost like (and my analogy and logic may be way off) walking up to the bully at school and knocking his block off because he has done it to others and may do it to you. When my daughter wonders out loud how the family’s manage during Christmas it causes me, at least, to reflect a bit longer. I appreciate the freedom that we have and I understand the price that was and is being paid to preserve it. However, I hope that when we go off to war we look at it through the eyes of a child. Sometimes their purity can be a source of clarity.