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.
I think pacifism in this instance flys in the face of common sense AND religion. Why would anyone argue for murderers to go free? Even the Bible doesn't say such things. Our government and military are taking the place of a police force. Justice is just on a much bigger scale. Remember too that the Vatican turned a blind eye to the Nazis killing Jews. I have to disagree with the Pope. He, of all people, should know what the Bible says about justice and wars in the OT.
Thanks! Your posting of this article is why I contribute to FreeRepublic on an automatic monthly basis and come to FreeRepublic for most of my news! Kudos! Rush may have picked it up from your post!
Thanks for this from Kelley's article:
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.'!"
Substitute Pro Arab Terrorist for Pro-Fascist, and Orwell's statement is up todate after 9/11!
I'm not nearly so saintly as Jesus or Ghandhi. I accept the likelihood that military action will be required to flush out criminals responsible for these terrorist attacks.
Punish the guilty but spare the innocent.
Check it out at --- http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010926-16894360.htm
Perhaps they hadn't heard that the IMF/World Bank conference was cancelled. That would explain why a group of about 90 anti-something individuals showed up Monday at Farragut Square to protest globalization, er, free trade, er, the anticipated U.S. response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – and why thousands of others plan to join them this weekend."I just came down from Boston to be a part of whatever protest I could find," said one participant, who presumably carried additional posterboard, or possibly even interchangeable placards. ...
But more than anything else, participation in the protest circuit provides the smug, self-righteous satisfaction that comes with knowing that parading around parks named after deceased admirals and shouting slogans at high volume is all that is necessary to solve all the world's problems, including racism, sexism and yes, terrorism. Surely, even Osama bin Laden would have come around if only he had seen the "Restraint is not retaliation" sign featured at Monday's rally....
The IAC is predicting that "thousands" of its clueless brethren will show up for a rally in Washington this Saturday, which, shockingly, is scheduled to start at noon. It should certainly be easy to pick them out: Each of them will be brimming with indignation . . . and carrying an interchangeable placard.
This is not the principles of my country and the fools who believe this will sell out their freedom for security, for revenge and for a narrow interpretation of reality.
bite me, butthead.
How's that?
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.
Do really mean to say that Jesus would expect me to stand by and watch someone murder my children?
Jesus' mission was quite specific. His death on the cross was not pacifistic, it was quite literally to defeat sin, evil and death in the universe. It was, in a way, an act of war. In it he was coming to the defense of every person who ever lived.
That does not mean we are not called to defend ourselves and others by the appropriate means, in love and justice, not revenge. Yes, sometimes those means result in the death of the one who attacks us. But to fail to defend—even to the point of willingess to sacrifice our own life in that defense—would be to deny the very value of human life that Jesus died on the cross to protect.
It's amazing the things you know that just aren't true. In the first place, the chief Rabbi of Rome during WWII converted to Catholicism because of the great help given to his people by the Catholic Church. You have fallen prey to recent attempts to rewrite history. Even the NY Times praised the Pope at the time for speaking out in defense of the innocent. You have been deceived.
And in the second place, the Pope's spokesman recently let it be known that the Pope did not have a problem with the US defending itself against terrorists. So there's no "pacifism" from the Pope for you to ignorantly rail against.
SD
Certainly those with deeply felt religious convictions aren't making that argument. That is a leap from what you quoted to where you landed.
That's why I qualified the judgment. Jesus was mostly, but not entirely, non-violent. OTOH, he didn't just condemn sinners to an ignominious fate. He sought them out, ate with them, and offered them a path to forgiveness and redemption.
Major bad idea.
This would result in Bin Laden's dream of a united Islamic world engaged in jihad against the infidels of the West.
Repeat after me:
Not all Muslims are Arab;
Not all Arabs are Muslim;
MOST of both groups are not terrorists.
gee, now you're peaceful and mature...
But then, that's your right.
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.