Pacifism and War-Thomas Sowell

Although most Americans seem to understand the gravity of the situation that terrorism has put us in -- and the need for some serious military response, even if that means dangers to the lives of us all -- there are still those who insist on posturing, while on the edge of a volcano. In the forefront are college students who demand a "peaceful" response to an act of war. But there are others who are old enough to know better, who are still repeating the pacifist platitudes of the 1930s that contributed so much to bringing on World War II.

A former ambassador from the weak-kneed Carter administration says that we should look at the "root causes" behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We should understand the "alienation" and "sense of grievance" against us by various people in the Middle East.

It is astonishing to see the 1960s phrase "root causes" resurrected at this late date and in this context. It was precisely this kind of thinking, which sought the "root causes of crime" during that decade, creating soft policies toward criminals, which led to skyrocketing crime rates. Moreover, these soaring crime rates came right after a period when crime rates were lower than they had been in decades.

On the international scene, trying to assuage aggressors' feelings and look at the world from their point of view has had an even more catastrophic track record. A typical sample of this kind of thinking can be found in a speech to the British Parliament by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938: "It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles."

Like our former ambassador from the Carter era, Chamberlain sought to "remove the causes of strife or war." He wanted "a general settlement of the grievances of the world without war." In other words, the British prime minister approached Hitler with the attitude of someone negotiating a labor contract, where each side gives a little and everything gets worked out in the end. What Chamberlain did not understand was that all his concessions simply led to new demands from Hitler -- and contempt for him by Hitler.

What Winston Churchill understood at the time, and Chamberlain did not, was that Hitler was driven by what Churchill called "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them." That was also what drove the men who drove the planes into the World Trade Center.

Pacifists of the 20th century had a lot of blood on their hands for weakening the Western democracies in the face of rising belligerence and military might in aggressor nations like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In Britain during the 1930s, Labor Party members of Parliament voted repeatedly against military spending, while Hitler built up the most powerful military machine in Europe. Students at leading British universities signed pledges to refuse to fight in the event of war.

All of this encouraged the Nazis and the Japanese toward war against countries that they knew had greater military potential than their own. Military potential only counts when there is the will to develop it and use it, and the fortitude to continue with a bloody war when it comes. This is what they did not believe the West had. And it was Western pacifists who led them to that belief.

Then as now, pacifism was a "statement" about one's ideals that paid little attention to actual consequences. At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm "as an example to others," economist Roy Harrod asked one of the pacifists: "You think our example will cause Hitler and Mussolini to disarm?"

The reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?" In other words, the issue was about making a "statement" -- that is, posturing on the edge of a volcano, with World War II threatening to erupt at any time. When disarmament advocate George Bernard Shaw was asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, the playwright replied, "Welcome them as tourists."

What a shame our schools and college neglect history, which could save us from continuing to repeat the idiocies of the past, which are even more dangerous now in a nuclear age.

Discourse between nations . . .

. . . depends on the charateristics of the nations involved. For some, the "talking cure" is a waste of air, merely a means of buying time until they can triumph using blood and terror.

Well-intentioned fools in the US are determined to doom our citizens to suffer greater numbers of deaths and destruction by assuming that bin Laden et al are "just like us, ony they dress different."

At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm "as an example to others,..."

"The fact that slaughter [battle] is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but [it does] not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms."-- Carl von Clausewitz

Possibly, but trust between leaders, a respect for the sovereignty of nations and a mutual goal between nations to root out the truly reprehensible militant terrorists is repairing a decade of platitudes, pushiness (of Madeline Albright), mistrust of our Panderer-in-Chief and our nation. It is an immensely complicated task, but I guarantee that Pres. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice understand our international neighbors and the Constitution of the US.

Sowell's analysis is insightful as always. Nevertheless, I would argue that there are very few "true" pacifists. The Quakers come to mind. While their ideas are wrong-headed, they consistently apply a religious maxim as they see it. The fact is most of those who preach appeasement and "non-violence" in the face of demonstrated aggression and evil, have agendas other than abiding religious admonitions. Some view war as an inconvenience to their exploitation of the their "own" nation, i.e. to redistribute social power and wealth in the name of equality. Others view the capitalist system as the main enemy of the "world's" people. And the enemy of their enemy is their friend, i.e. they are traitors who wish to see our country's institutions collapse to be replaced by their dictatorship. These are variants of socialist ideology and have little in common with pacifists, except in that the pacifists are "useful idiots."

The American Catholics have been pretty torn apart by the Pope's early proclamations of turning the other cheek. The faithful are required to accept the Pope's word on an issue as gospel, and I have no doubt that millions of Catholics around the world would have reluctantly followed his will, but the Pope seems to have relented some today. He is stating that the US has a right to defend itself, so Catholics, at least, can breath easier today. (^:

As I posted on a thread regarding the Vatican's "clarifying" remarks: I'm very happy the pope doesn't think we have to let fanatics slaughter our people. I'm glad Catholics on these boards "care" what the pope says. But it is disturbing that the clearest moral guidance on the issues involved comes not from popes, priests, prelates, ministers, imams, rabbis, or gurus, but from the President of the United States. "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."

I find the President's moral clarity inspiring. The man is for real. The world has been under assault from the left for decades. Perhaps the church will now find the courage to speak out, to hold with time-honored teachings and not feel intimidated by the ACLU and the ever changing cultural whims and temptations.

The Republican isolationists in Congress could have accomplished the same thing as the pacifist in the Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever." It was largely because of them that we were woefully unprepared for the war.

What do you mean by 'isolationists'? Is it isolationist to let other countries decide for themselves what to do with their industrial output? Is it isolationist to let other countries decide for themselves if they want to subject their citizens to the jurisdiction of a world court that none of them voted for? Is it isolationist to let other countries decide for themselves if they want to join a coalition of countries that ban the tools of self defense to their citizens?

If anything, republicans are pro-business, and when you are trading with others, you are not isolationist. You enter markets, you talk to customers and get their input to make your product much better than your competition.

As far as being unprepared for war. True enough, the defense budget cuts were begun during Pres. George Herbert Walker Bush's term, but the cuts kept on being made all throughout the Clinton administration, when they were people yelling and screaming that the cuts should stop. And Clinton was the one that deployed multiple missions to foreign countries with no stop date or exit strategy in place.

"What a shame our schools and college neglect history, which could save us from continuing to repeat the idiocies of the past, which are even more dangerous now in a nuclear age."

Parents have a responsibility to educate their children in the important issues in life. If it is re-enforced by the schools, then that's gravy.

I'm beginning to understand that only someone like Colin Powell could have the patience (I'm being kind) to deal with the vast international population of crackpots, barbarians, spoiled children and zealots that have made a habit of exploiting our nation with the help of their leftist American friends and are now having a difficult time being weaned from the dependency and power forged by the appeasement, involvement of the UN (and other "relief agencies") and pandering of the Clinton administration. The Mideast is a tinderbox, post Rodney King spread over an area bigger than our nation, with rioters equipped with massive weapons, and a will to die for Allah. As long as Colin quits contradicting the administration, he may be the very best man for this job (I can't believe I'm saying this (^:)>

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.