No to War… A Search for Peace or a Strategic Deception?

By Abdulaziz Yaqoub

In every war, voices calling for peace inevitably rise, as war represents an exceptional and unnatural state, even while the sounds of battle continue in the background. Slogans such as “No to War” or announcements of a ceasefire often appear as a window of hope for the sincere. Yet history teaches us that such words, when issued without clear conditions, precise enforcement mechanisms, and a defined timeline, can easily turn into instruments of strategic deception. An unregulated ceasefire is not necessarily a path to peace; it may simply be a calculated pause during which one party regroups, improves its position, and prepares to resume hostilities.
Historical examples are both numerous and painful. During the Korean War in 1951, a series of “temporary ceasefires” were agreed upon, but the absence of effective oversight allowed both sides to strengthen their defensive positions and resupply rear lines. Some documents even described the truce as a “silent war fought with shovels rather than rifles.” In the Vietnam War, Viet Cong forces exploited the Christmas ceasefire to redeploy in the Mekong Delta, gaining valuable time to reorganize their rear lines despite the truce’s limited duration.
Similarly, during the October 1973 War, the United Nations imposed a ceasefire to halt the fighting. However, the lack of clear monitoring mechanisms enabled Israel to rapidly reorganize its forces and improve its positions on the western front, shifting the balance of power within days. The Bosnian War of the 1990s also witnessed several humanitarian ceasefires that lacked precise implementation and follow-up mechanisms, allowing forces to bring in new ammunition and alter deployments in strategic areas unnoticed. What appeared as silence thus became a battlefield without explosions.
These examples underscore a simple truth: any ceasefire or “No to War” slogan lacking clear conditions, enforcement mechanisms, strict monitoring, and binding timelines is nothing more than an open gate without a guard. It may lead to peace, or it may serve as a corridor for strategic deception aimed at prolonging conflict or reversing the balance of power. Genuine peace is not built on good intentions alone, but on agreements that close every loophole an adversary might exploit. When a truce lacks mechanisms, war does not truly stop—it merely changes form, shifting from the roar of artillery to the silence of maneuver, while losses on the ground continue, more quietly but more dangerously.
The lesson repeated by history remains clear: beautiful words are not enough. “No to War,” “Peace,” and “Ceasefire,” when stripped of strict implementation conditions, monitoring mechanisms, a clear timeline, and political consensus, become part of the game itself rather than a path to peace. True peace requires clear commitment, precise safeguards, and genuine will to end the conflict. Otherwise, the slogan “No to War” can easily turn into a strategic ruse, exploited by a rogue actor hiding behind humanitarian rhetoric to continue a proxy war in silence, amid foreign complicity whose layers are revealed day by day.