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.
If we do not act with great force after they have killed about 7000 Americans in an act of terrorism (even if you don't consider it terrorism) and done great damage to our economy, then "Katy Bar the Door"-- next they will come at us with much worse things.
We must not be rash, but we must retaliate FOR THESE SPECIFIC UNPRECEDENTED ATTACKS.
If we do not retaliate forcefully, we are not chess-players, and we are not fit to be called Americans.
America's policy in the ME and America's posture towards Israel is of little matter in the overall scope of things. They hate us most of all, and Israel because they are patterned after the US freedom model.
Need to print this out and hand out copies at FReep rally for American troops.
Well then you are discussing a hypothetical and I am discussing a specific. Pacificism is not evil when we are at peace. Pacificism is evil when it it causes additional death/destruction/violence. Look at the title of the thread: "IN THE FACE OF SUCH EVIL, pacificism is immoral" We are not discussing pacificism when not in the face of SUCH EVIL.
In regards to your three questions: we know who to attack, we have the means and the American people are ready for action overwhelmingly (although this will wane if action does not come soon and a great opportunity will be lost).
These opportunities to do great good for civilization come along infrequently. Strike while the iron is hot.
"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." We owe it to our children and their children to beat this enemy now before they get stronger. Freegards, Rob
People like you scare me. Don't you realize that America must be defended to remain free, or do you think that we have an infinite supply of "get out of Jail Free" cards? We've been attacked by people who place no value on human life. We will be attacked again if we don't act. Ergo, we must act.
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.