Warring Krishna

A common argument against the Bhagavad Gita arises from an opening scene.

The leaders of two foot armies are meeting in the middle of the battlefield to discuss possible terms and neither side will back down. One leader laments to Lord Krishna that he is about to enter a battle where he will be forced to kill the opposing army's leader, a member of his family.

The mortal says that he would rather simply lay down his arms and be killed than have to kill his family member, but Krishna advises him to fight. His army will die if you fight, yours will die if you do not, Krishna tells him. So it makes no difference if you wage war or are a pacifist. Either way, a life is a life, and someone must die.

The argument is that in this scene the Bhagavad Gita is condoning war. I disagree.

To me, Lord Krishna isn't saying "Somebody gon' die, fuck it, do whatever."

He's saying:

1) As long as mankind has existed there have been battles.
2) Denouncing battles has never led to peace.

So:

3) As long as mankind continues to exist there will continue to be battles.
4) Denouncing these battles will never lead to peace.

So:

5) You can either die fighting, or
6) You can die not fighting.

So:

7) You can stand up for what you believe in, or
8) You can let a wicked man stand up for what he believes in.

Does this condone war? That is to say, does it condone offense?

Maybe in an American or even White mindset.

To me, it condones nothing more than the defense of what one knows to be righteousness. Whether in words, lifestyle, actions, or on a battlefield.

To me, this is the true message of Krishna's advice on war. This is one of the few defenses of the text that I have seen, and the only one to explain it in any way remotely approaching what I see as logical.