Peice of the Dead...
Posted on 10/04/2001 2:03:10 AM PDT by 2Trievers
LAST WEEK, I argued that those Americans who preached pacifism in response to the attacks of Sept. 11 were (borrowing from George Orwell) objectively pro-terrorist, objectively in favor of letting the masters of this attack escape to live and to commit more mass murders of Americans.
This upset some people. One Pennsylvania man issued what in pacifist circles must constitute a violent threat: “You may expect a series of letters from me and other folks in this regard, until such time as you deem it appropriate to issue a complete retraction of, and unqualified apology for, your comments.” Please, not the dread Series of Letters.
Let me see if I may cause further upset. Two propositions: The first is that much of what is passing for pacifism in this instance is not pacifism at all but only the latest tedious manifestation of a well-known pre-existing condition — the largely reactionary, largely incoherent, largely silly muddle of anti-American, anti-corporatist, anti-globalist sentiments that passes for the politics of the left these days. The second is that, again in this instance, the anti-war sentiment (to employ a term that encompasses both genuine pacifism and an opposition to war rooted in America-hatred) is intellectually dishonest, elitist and hypocritical.
That the anti-war sentiment is in general only a manifestation of the larger anomie of the reactionary left is clear. The first large anti-war demonstration was held last weekend in Washington and the most obvious fact about it was that this protest against war was planned before there was ever any thought of war. It had been intended as just another in the series of protests against globalism that have been serving as a sort of kvetch basin for all sorts of unhappy people who like to yell about the awfulness of “Amerika” or international corporations or rich people or people who drive large cars or drug companies that test their products on bunny rabbits or life its own unfair self.
When the terrorists murdered more than 6,000 people and the President said that America was going to do something commensurate about this, the organizers of the Washington protest realized they had found a fresh complaint and a fresh cause. They thought up a few new instantly tired slogans (“Resist Racist War”) and printed up a few new posters and —presto-changeo — thus was born an anti-war movement. Or something.
As to the second proposition. Osama bin Laden has told us by word and action that he sees himself and his cohort as engaged in a total war against the United States and that this war is one not just of nations but of cultures: Holy Islam versus a corrupt imperialist America. He has promised further attacks such as Sept. 11 unless the United States sues for peace under impossible terms, the abandonment of Israel being only one. In short, Osama bin Laden wishes to defeat the United States. So do others; for instance, Saddam Hussein.
Do the pacifists wish to live in a United States that has been defeated by Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? Do they wish to live in a United States that has been defeated by any foreign force? Do they wish to live under an occupying power? Do they wish to live under, say, the laws of the Taliban or the Baath Party of Iraq?
These questions, you may say, rest on an absurd premise: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cannot ever hope to defeat and occupy the United States. Yes, but that is true only because the United States maintains and employs an armed force sufficient to defeat those who would defeat it. If the United States did as the pacifists wish — if it eschewed war even when attacked — it would, at some point, be conquered by a foreign regime. What stops this from happening is that the government and generally the people of the United States do not heed the wishes of the pacifists.
The anti-warriors must know that their position is a luxury made affordable only by the sure bet that no one in authority will ever accede to their position. The marchers and shouters and flag-burners in Washington pretended to the argument that war should not be waged. What they really mean is that war should not be waged by them. It should be waged by other mothers’ sons and daughters.
How many pacifists would be willing to accept the logical outcome of their creed of nonviolence even in face of attack — life as a conquered people? Not many, I would think. How many want the (mostly lower-class) men and women of the United States armed forces to continue to fight so that they may enjoy the luxury of preaching against fighting? Nearly all, I would think.
Liars. Frauds. Hypocrites. Strong letters, no doubt, to follow.
Michael Kelley is the editor of Atlantic Monthly magazine and a graduate of the University of New Hampshire.
The author ought to choose his words more carefully. Who exactly is occupying whom? Where are those Muslim bases? Troops? And where are ours?
Agreed. This reads like a high school essay, and was surely only published becuase the hysteria of our time demands more hysterical pulp to feed itself. I think I am going to have a year-long barf attack before this whole thing is over.
But this is one of those articles that future generations will have trouble with. The basic point is correct, as is the argument against pacifism, but the argument is a little too overheated with the image of conquering armies putting us under their thumb. The other problem is that the martial spirit that flourishes in times of real crisis can be exploited later on in less justified ventures.
I think the Jews under the Nazis are a good example of what happens when people practice pacifism. Then they need someone else who isn't a pacifist to come in and rescue them.
See also Bellesiles, Michael.
>Agreed. This reads like a high school essay, and was >surely only published becuase the hysteria of our time >demands more hysterical pulp to feed itself. I think I am >going to have a year-long barf attack before this whole >thing is over.
I feel your pain.
Ahhhhhh! But the governments are free (therein lies the problem). 
Let me start with my favorite quote, it can not be repeated enough:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
~~ John Stuart Mill ~~
Then a few words about "slimy" Donohue's (of junk TV fame) manic performance discussing how to respond to terrorism with Fox News' O'Reilly.
His pathetic emotional feel-good bug-eyed performance just underscored the mental vacuity in these people.
The satisfying thing about watching these losers rant is the certain knowledge that in any Islamic environment he and his kind would quickly fade into well-deserved oblivion forever.
I couldn't help wondering throughout the whole performance, how brief his pathetic rant would have been had he been debating the Taliban...
It totally escapes him that his ability to be able to mouth stupidity is made possible only by the response to evil through action and sacrifices of those he is attacking.
I simply can't understand the hysteria about the enemy landing on our shores. Is no one here aware that we have made the Middle East our bitch-boy? We supply Israel (really, we prop her up), we have landed and stayed in Saudi Arabia; we bomp Iraq with the regularity of Old Faithful; we armed and trained the Afghans we despise today; we fooled with Iran until they vomited up the Great Satan's waterboy; and on, and on, and on. What the hell are we doing?????????????????????????
The message is largely correct, but the rabbid-dog delivery has closed everyone's ears. - Tabby is right, how can a people who even pay property taxes call themselves free?
I recommend a careful reading of Clausowitz's On War And Sun Tzu's similar book.
That you are moulding young minds with the level of understanding of human nature and behavior in countries other than our own is truly frightening.
Self-styled intellectuals get to make up their own words.
Legends in their own minds.
I assume he meant "bellicosity" or "bellicoseness"
Twit.
>I still can't understand what happened at FR.
Never misunderestimate the general level of ignorance in any one large group of people.
But school's in session here, and between correcting work and pouring milk, sitting in front of the computer is good in-between work.
Thank goodness for the breaks you take here. Your rationality and dead aim is very much needed here at present.
I simply can't understand the hysteria about the enemy landing on our shores. Is no one here aware that we have made the Middle East our bitch-boy? We supply Israel (really, we prop her up),
What I cannot understand is those "conservative" pro-Israelis who scream "anti-semitism" as soon as someone suggests that welfare for Israel is detrimental to the country. Do they not accept that the welfare state has undermined the US socially and intellectually? So how is it any different with Israel? And someone who suggests -- as Netanyahu rightly did himself several years ago -- that Israel should be weaned off of US welfare is somehow "anti-Israel". Bizarre. I would think the opposite, but this world is upside down. I have stopped trying to make sense of all the contradictions.
I wish you well.....but must you shout?
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.