When War Must Be the Answer

Policy Review ^ | 12/4/2004 | James V. Schall (professor of government at Georgetown University)

[worldclass]

A calm and reasonable case can and should be made for the possession and effective use of force in today’s world. It is irresponsible not to plan for the necessity of force in the face of real turmoils and enemies actually present in the world. No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly. Without force, many will not talk seriously at all, and some not even then. Human, moral, and economic problems are greater today for the lack of adequate military force or, more often, for the failure to use it when necessary.

[worldclass]

A looong read but worth it for those interested in just war.

[blackeagle]

bttt

[tet68]

A looong read but worth it for those interested in just war.

Hey,I'm interested in other things TOO!

[theFIRMbss]

>"No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly."

Certainly. But for thousands of years, no one has agreed on "measured" . . .

[worldclass]

The article covers a lot of ground. But his summarizes it for me: I would maintain, therefore, that much of the thinking about the obsolescence of war is itself a major contributor to war, particularly to the new kinds of war that we see in the twenty-first century.

[johnny7]

Just war? No rape, pillage or plunder? How about massed insurections... any of that?

[Wiz]

What forced the half of Europe failed to recognize war as a solution is the poison of philosophy that spread out through Europe created by Immanuel Kant, the creator of the pacifist philosophy and the creator of the fundamentals of the failed United Nations. The pacifist movement in Europe failed once under World War, as they did almost nothing against the rise of Hitler. Again, they attempted another failure against Saddam Hussein, creating more unnecessary deaths of civilians by power abuses. War provided the collapse of Hitler, the end of World War, provided Romania with a bloody revolution in the philosophy of rights to revolt by John Lock, and liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. The liberals often ignore this or maybe they are blinded. Liberals say war solves nothing but the history proves war did solve many problems. If these brainwashed pacifists did not exist, the world would have been liberated from dictators much faster.

[plenipotentiary]

The Muslims say that anyone who supports an "Infidel" army in Islamic lands is a legitimate target, whether the support is by taxes, or by logistical, or actual military effort, and wherever the support comes from.

Is it not time to take them at their word, and apply the same rules to them?

Otherwise, it seems we are fighting with one hand tied behined our back.

After all the concept of "total war" is not a new one, it was applied successfully to the Nazis, and the "Tojos".

At the moment we are unable to effectively deter terrorism, because the terrorists hide in the population. Terrorism is a crime that is without effective deterrance.

The population that allows them to hide amongst them must be made accountable. If they fail to "give up", or cease supporting terrorism, are they not equally guilty?

A change should be made to the international law to designate certain areas as "terrorist areas", and allow in those areas, collective punishment. the penalties need not necessarily be of a capital nature. Financial penalties could be a solution. If terrorists have sufficient time and resources available to them to carry out terrorist acts could we not remove that time and those resources, thereby forcing the terrorists and assisting populations to spend there time more productively, and peacefully?

For example, it seems to me that the Palastinians are only able to continue their war with Israel because of funds supplied by others. Shouldn't these funds be withheld, and only paid in the event of an outbreak of Peace?

After all in the normal criminal law, those who conspire with, and aid and abet criminal acts are deemed to be equally guilty.

Why is collective support for the crime of terrorism not treated in the same way?

[CBart95]

Fair and balanced...and remarkably thorough in scope. This is not suitable fare for those who desire to "read and run" or to "damn the torpedos" and rush to action.It will be no solace for those whose loved ones lie in repose in battlefields,churchyards and watery graves.

[ex-snook]

"A calm and reasonable case can and should be made for the possession and effective use of force in today’s world."

Sure. As long as it destroys more enemies than it creates. Otherwise it is hardly 'effective'.

[Earthdweller]

For example, it seems to me that the Palastinians are only able to continue their war with Israel because of funds supplied by others. Shouldn't these funds be withheld, and only paid in the event of an outbreak of Peace? ....

Why is collective support for the crime of terrorism not treated in the same way?
------
Because the "funds" can be traced back to "Eurabia", mainly our darling france.

[1iron]

Peace through Strength.
Trust But Verify.
The price of Freedom is Forever Vigilance.

As to a post before, yes we should hold societies accountable for harboring terrorists in their midst. I say, DAY 1: White leaflets dropped to announce this view. DAY 2: Red leaflets reiterating the view in simple terms. DAY 3: Day of rest. DAY 4: Turn the area into a sea of glass.

[CHARLITE]

I received a reply to this article in an email from my friend, Richard. Here is what he wrote:

"War and conflict occur when a nation or people seek to impose their will on others who objecte to the imposition. The only way to therefore keep peace is to have a strong military capable of resisting aggressive overtures and act as a deterrent. An aggressor will attack the weaker due to confidence that victory will be assured. Considering Clinton administration's loathing of the military, and reducing the military as a means of "reducing size of government" as per a campaign pledge (rather than reducing redundant bureaucrats and incompetents shuttled off into a corner to 'count paper clips' rather than firing them), it was regarded by bin Laden as a sign of weakness. As a result, he and his terrorist minions figured the U.S. would cower rather than mount an aggressive response as did 'Dubya'.

The U.S. has never been territorial in using its military force to take over other nations or people for the sake of conquest, but has successfully used the military for defense against others who create war through aggressive actions. During WW II, my uncle in California compiled a scrapbook of WW II clippings. My mom had custody of it for a time, and it had some fascinating stories (I was 10 when the WW II 'argument" ended in '45) One I recall in particular was a map captured from the Japanese forces; it was a map of the United States showing a timeline for invasion of the continental United States showing the anticipated end of the war in 1950! The Germans were to invade the Eastern United States and march West, and the Japanese would invade the West coast to meet at the Mississippi river and jointly occupy the United States."

WAR was the "ANSWER to the above German and Japanese plans for the United States of America.

[edchambers]

I've said it before and I'll say it again War is what we do best.What other country in a couple hundred years has fought and won more wars than we have?My American history is a little rusty so bear with me, there was the Revolutionary war, the war of 1812,Barbary Pirates?the Mexican American war or was that the Spanish American war?,God knows how many Indian wars, the cival war,WW1,WW2,Korea,Viet Nam,Grenada,Panama,the gulf war 1,Afganistan and Gulf war two.I'm sure I missed something but that's not the point.You go with your strength we're not France, diplomacy is not our strong suit and it doesn't need to be.Walk softly and carry a big stick? screw that! swing that big stick till you run out of stuff to hit.The world doesn't have to love us so long as they don't think they can survive fighting us.