Posted on 09/26/2001 8:39:21 AM PDT by flamefront
Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are, and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet, it is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their appeal.
It is worth it, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea becomes.
It is worth it, secondly, because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What happened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered recede.
It is worth it, thirdly, because the American foreign policy establishment has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression really the right thing? Mightn't it just make matters ever so much worse?
Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality, and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument is rooted entirely in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence only begets more violence.
There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as occupying the moral position.
But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked — a situation such as we are now in — pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "
England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.
An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.
There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this outcome.
As President Bush said of nations: a war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this.
If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans — perhaps a great many more — to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.
That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.
Michael Kelly's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. The Washington Post Writers Group can be contacted via e-mail at writersgrp@washpost.com.
Pacifism is evil, by this logic.
The people should be supporting the people who are ensuring their freedoms!
In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'"
As we see the organized efforts of the so called peace or Antiwar.com side, these simple words of Orwell should be a standard response to all of their treason attempts. This is how they stopped us in the Viet Nam war, which resulted in the slaughter of millions after we left Nam!
bite me.
Well said. It is perhaps fortuitous that, if this attack had to come, that it came now and woke us up to the true danger of terrorism before they had weapons of mass destruction to use against us.
Yes, not only EVIL but COWARDLY too. Not necesarrily because those who expouse it are physical cowards--some may be, but others are not: but because it is MORAL COWARDICE that provides a convenient absolute that allows pacifists not only to avoid facing responsibility for their actions (or inaction), but to feel MORALLY SUPERIOR while doing so.
Where a thoroughgoing pacifism really breaks down, in my opinion, is that it devalues human life. If the lives of one's own family, one's own neighbors and one's own countrymen are not worth fighting for, then what is. John Lennon was wrong, there are things worth living and dying for.
Of course, coming from the same liberal left that argues that a fetus is not a human, the pacifist's effort to further devalue human life is no big surprise.
Just a note here, because to be fair, I personally believe that a 'My country right or wrong' attitude is just as demeaning to human life because it places ideology over human life. Sometimes our country is flat wrong and that is why from time to time we must stand up and say so. But in this case, the wrong position, yes the immoral postion, for our country to take would be for us to do nothing. We must respond and we must respond with all the force that is necessary to take a stand for the 7,000 souls who died as victims of this terrible evil.
A failure to respond would be to say that those 7,000 people were really of no value. When the God of the universe died on a cross for those 7,000 people He made the ultimate statement regarding the value of human life. If we fail to act it may well be that we are denying Him.
Sorry but this is quite a leap in logic. None of my friends who love Jesus think we should ignore this attack. They are differentiating between revenge and justice. Revenge is wrong. Justice is righteous.
bite me.
No thanks.
Making the right decision requires action.
Jesus never said one word about war, except that there would be "wars and rumors of war." His was not an earthly kingdom.
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.