War is an Ugly Thing, But Not the Ugliest of Things

John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian philosopher in the 19th century. While his most significant contributions to humanity were in the fields of philosophy and economics, his most well-known quote is one cited, correctly and incorrectly, by many in the military and many who have an interest in military affairs. I have seen so many different versions of that quote that I decided to do some research into the correct quote, a few months ago, before we deployed to Iraq. I found it on my computer today. Here is the actual quote and the source:

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), “The Contest in America.” Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143, page 683-684. Harper & Bros., New York, April 1862.

The article was written in England about the US Civil War, as Mill attempted to sway public opinion to support the Union north. Original article

The second sentence of that quote is the most noteworthy, in my opinion. You do not need to look far to read weblogs, editorials, and other writings in which people will acknowledge the evil of Hussein but who still think that the war that we waged was an even greater evil. This defies all common sense and rational thought. Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Desert Storm cease fire, ordered the slaughter of thousands of Kurds, invaded Kuwait, had his real and imagined political opponents imprisoned, tortured and murdered, and directed the assets of his authoritarian regime towards the extravagant lifestyle of his Ba'ath Party elites, rather than providing sustenance to his impoverished country, when Iraq was under international sanctions imposed for its failure to comply with UN inspectors. And what are the criticisms of the war? That Bush lied, that we were just doing this to steal Iraq's oil, that our intelligence was faulty. So, we should have sat by as Hussein continued his brutal authoritarian ways? Seriously, how does one justify the notion that we were wrong to topple his regime? Let us assume that all of their arguments are correct - that Bush lied, that we are just here for oil, that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. What does any of that have to do with Iraq violating the terms of the Desert Storm cease fire? What does it have to do with Iraq being run by a brutal authoritarian regime?

The hatred that the left wing in the US has for President Bush blinds them to the evil that we defeated and to the freedom that we have brought. If you believe any of the left-wing arguments, then speak out against the President for lying or against ill intentions or against bad intelligence. But to degrade the sacrifices of our Servicemembers who have been killed in the process of liberating this country and beating back the insurgency is sick, in my opinion. The idea that war is the ultimate evil ignores the true evil that we defeated in this endeavor - the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein that waged constant terror, murder, and torture against his own people. To criticize the liberation of millions and the defeat of pure evil is idiotic. The idiots who will make the outlandish claims that we are evil for liberating a country need to get a grip on reality. The extent of their knowledge of evil seems to be what they see on television and in movie theaters.

I saw the aftermath of evil in Bosnia-Herzegovina, when we witnessed the exhumation of mass graves. This is my second tour in Iraq and I have seen evil in action here. Evil is what motivates people to detonate car bombs and improvised explosive devices with no regard to innocent civilians in the area. Evil is in the hearts of those who kidnap journalists and contractors, to hold them prisoner, videotape them for propaganda, and then kill them. Evil is what we fought during our first deployment, in 2003, when we toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein and what we continue to fight against today. I suppose that I am "judgmental", to call evil by its name. I am judgmental because I have spent enough time here to make an accurate judgment.

Some people back home will complain that I am accusing them of being anti-American or un-patriotic. I make no such accusations. There is nothing more American than having the freedom, time and energy to whine and gripe about a topic that you know nothing about. I understand that leftists hate the President and it is their right to feel that way. I see nothing un-American or unpatriotic about that. I do think that it is idiotic to decry the liberation of millions. The reason that so many people fail to recognize the absolute evil that we defeated is because they have no grasp of reality. They do not understand that evil exists outside of movies, television and novels. It does, I have seen it, and it does not wear an American flag on its shoulder. It wears a suicide belt; it carries an igniter attached to a car bomb; it kidnaps and murders innocent people; and it draws aid and comfort from those who refuse to call evil by its name. If you ignore reality, if you think that evil is just and that just is evil, then you are not un-American or unpatriotic - you are just an idiot. And, for those who continue wage an insurgent war in Iraq, you a useful idiot. Congratulations. You have taken the torch from Lenin's legions of useful idiots and you now march proudly on the side of evil, once again.

If you think that we are on the side of evil, then you are not un-American and you are not unpatriotic. You are an idiot. Be offended or get a clue.

Somehow I messed up a simple cut and paste.

This: "And, for those who continue wage an insurgent war in Iraq, you a useful idiot."

Should read: "And, for those who continue to wage an insurgent war in Iraq, you are a useful idiot."

At least I'm not useful...

Let us assume that all of their arguments are correct - that Bush lied, that we are just here for oil, that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. What does any of that have to do with Iraq violating the terms of the Desert Storm cease fire? What does it have to do with Iraq being run by a brutal authoritarian regime?

Nothing. But absent a threat to the US, what concern of our government to invade Iraq?

Why start with Iraq to break brutal authoritarian regimes? We could have invaded a lot of other countries and saved more lives per buck and per US casualty.

And assuming that Bush lied, doesn't that present a concern to a people fit for self-rule?

"Nothing. But absent a threat to the US, what concern of our government to invade Iraq?"

Two reasons:
1) We have recognized that governments not responsive to their people pose a threat to us.
2) We agreed to terms for a cease fire after Desert Storm. Iraq refused to comply with those terms, after agreeing to them. After 12 years of sanctions, UN resolutions, and Tomohawk strikes, they still refused to comply. The only logical recourse was military force.

"Why start with Iraq to break brutal authoritarian regimes? We could have invaded a lot of other countries and saved more lives per buck and per US casualty."

I am not sure which countries you are referrring to - perhaps we still have viable diplomatic, information and economic options available, before we resort to military force?

"And assuming that Bush lied, doesn't that present a concern to a people fit for self-rule?"

Yes.

Somehow I messed up a simple cut and paste. This: "And, for those who continue wage an insurgent war in Iraq, you a useful idiot."
Should read: "And, for those who continue to wage an insurgent war in Iraq, you are a useful idiot."

At least I'm not useful...

All your "are" are belong to us...

".....Nothing. But absent a threat to the US, what concern of our government to invade Iraq?"

Actually, there was a threat to the US. Have you ever heard of Salmon Pac? A little training base in Iraq, close to Bagdhad, which had, according to witnesses, ongoing training sessions which included "how to sieze a Boeing 707, 727,or 747 with box cutters". Sound familiar? In addition, contrary to public opinion and media reports, there were NUMEROUS chemical agents found. One of the reasons not all of Hussein's "crack" troops were in the field attacking us is that a full battalion was encamped around an insecticide plant, protecting it. Why protect an insecticide plant you might ask? Well, perhaps it would be a good idea to check into what most insecticides actually are.....Nerve agents. It only takes a little more distillation to make them into effective HUMAN nerve agents. Hmmmmmmmm. Interesting.
In other words, did Bush lie, or, heaven forbid, is it the media and leftists telling us Bush lied? Remember the old Communist teaching, "if you tell a lie often enough, people will accept it for the truth....." Is there something here? Hmmmmm?

I don't incline to think Bush lied about WMD, but Chalabi's INC may have deceived the White House:

"In a chapter entitled "Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism," the White House paper claimed that, "Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations." This allegation came from two INC-supplied defectors, Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, a former Iraqi army captain, and Brig. Gen. Abu Zeinab al Quairy, the purported commander of the training facility. Both men were rejected as unreliable by U.S. intelligence professionals. Nevertheless, the White House published their claims. Their claims, including suggestions that the September 11 hijackers may have been trained at the alleged facility, also appeared in the American and British media. After the invasion, the only training facility found at Salman Pak was determined by U.S. officials to have been used by Iraqi counter-terrorism units.

http://cjr.org/issues/2005/3/letters.asp?printerfriendly=yes

Here is the end of Mill’s text, which in fact follows the quote above :

I am far from saying that the present struggle, on the part of the Northern Americans, is wholly of this exalted character; that it has arrived at the stage of being altogether a war for justice, a war of principle. But there was from the beginning, and now is, a large infusion of that element in it; and this is increasing, will increase, and if the war lasts, will in the end predominate. Should that time
come, not only will the greatest enormity which still exists among mankind as an institution, receive far earlier its coups de grâce than there has ever, until now, appeared any probability of; but in effecting this the Free States will have raised themselves to that elevated position in the scale of morality and dignity, which is derived from great sacrifices consciously made in a virtuous cause, and the sense of an inestimable benefit to all future ages, brought
about by their own voluntary efforts.

[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/conam10h.htm]

“The present struggle” was a civil War, Americans vs Americans. The precaution that Mill takes regarding the exalted character of this very war is omitted from the quote that started the thread. Mill only opposed to absolute pacifism : reducing all criticism against this war
as absolute pacifism seems a bit farfetched, to say the least.

There is a difference between discussing actions and debating about their principles. But there is a gulf (pun intended) between quoting and arguing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.