Dennis G
02-25-2003, 09:35 PM
I know its old but its a good Read thought you guys would like to read it I know its a bit long but if you have some time to kill give it a chance thanks.
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.
Second, it is worth it 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 4,000 murdered recede. Third, it is worth it 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 this, in Partisan Review, 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.
Pacifism is a noble ideal; the word means "making peace." Real pacifists are sensitive to
human suffering and strive to mediate between hostile factions. But instead of using this
active, idealistic approach, many who call themselves "pacifists" are merely indifferent —
they stand aside, smugly looking down on humanity’s struggles. Rather than motivating
them to action, their false pacifism is merely an excuse for inaction.
Pacifists used to come in two varieties. The first holds that all violence is wrong.
Overcoming violent criminals often requires force, but strict pacifists reject this as
unethical. They are unrealistic, but at least they are honest.
The second variety of pacifist allows some exceptions — especially horrible evil may be
opposed with force if absolutely necessary. But these exceptions always seem to lie in the
past. Pacifists in the 1930s opposed rearmament, despite the rise of Hitler, pointing out
that no Genghis Khan was at the gates. Pacifists in the 1980s opposed rearmament,
despite the growth of the Soviet empire, pointing out that no Hitler was on the horizon.
Pacifists today oppose rearmament, despite the rise of global terrorism, pointing out that
the Soviet empire is no more. That is, the exceptions are never relevant to the current
problem — they aren’t really exceptions at all.
Recently, however, a third variety of pacifist has appeared. They hold that though all
violence is wrong, defensive violence is actually worse that aggressive violence. Instead of
being passive bystanders in humanity’s struggles, these pacifists are forced by this bizarre
belief to become active participants — but on the wrong side. Consider:
It is "gun control" to further restrict law-abiding citizens from buying guns, but somehow
it is not "gun control" to jail armed criminals.
Opponents of capital punishment are often supporters of euthanasia and
abortion-on-demand up to the ninth month of pregnancy. That is, the state’s killing
convicted murderers is wrong, but doctors’ killing innocent fetuses or patients is laudable.
The murder of innocent people, even babies, results in efforts to "understand," but let
someone shoot a would-be rapist or murderer, and there is prompt condemnation.
When citizens, particularly teen-agers, use a weapon to defend themselves from armed
criminals, pacifists often protest, "How did the kid get access to a gun?" The armed attack
didn’t upset them, but the armed defense did.
After the 1992 Los Angeles riot, journalists repeatedly told us to "understand the rage."
But Korean merchants who had to defend their lives and stores were called "vigilantes."
There was no effort to understand them, much less sympathize with them.
Rules were enacted to prevent the CIA from hiring informants who had records of crimes
or civil-rights violations. But how can Boy Scouts infiltrate terrorist or criminal gangs?
Being defended by minor criminals outraged the purists’ sensibilities, but the prospect of
being attacked by major terrorists didn’t disturb them.
The military has been made "kinder and gentler" as well as smaller, though it still troubles
pacifists. But the fear that it has also been made less effective appears not to trouble them.
And if our military is less effective, who will keep the peace?
Opponents of a missile-defense system object strenuously that our ability to stop incoming
missiles will only make things worse. Yet they object less vehemently, or not at all, when
terrorist states such as Iraq and North Korea develop biologic, chemical and possibly
nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction don’t scare them, but the possibility of
blocking them does.
Even the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon evoke only
sadness, while suggestions that we eliminate the terrorists bring forth strong objections,
often with the question, "What would Gandhi advise?"
Gandhi was a great man, but we know of him only because he was fortunate enough to
use his nonviolent methods against the British. Had he tried them on a more brutal foe, he
would have wound up in a forgotten grave. Indeed, Gandhi advised the Jews not to resist
the Nazis — perhaps the worst advice in history. Pacifists must choose their opponents
with care.
Pacifists narcissistically assume everyone is like them, open to reason. They lack the
imagination to see that some people do not use violence as a last resort, when other
methods fail, but enjoy violence — revel in it. They cannot imagine that there are people
who enjoy killing, and even some who look forward to dying themselves if enough
"others" die also.
Many pacifists are zealous in protecting criminals’ rights, but they forget the rights of
victims. Some time ago, a black store owner was robbed at gunpoint. He identified the
robber, who threatened to kill him. The store owner applied for a gun permit but was
denied. Later he used an unregistered gun to shoot the robber, who had been released
from jail and tried to carry out his threat. The store owner was given a year in jail.
Sympathy was used up on the robber — none was left for the store owner.
The word "peacemaker" has two basic meanings. The first refers to one who tries to calm
hostility. The second refers to the Colt .45 revolver, which may be required if the first
approach fails. Both types of peacemaker are needed to keep peace in the world.
Pacifists declare, "All life is precious," but what does this mean? I have seen the police
photographing a corpse on a sidewalk, and two coyotes tearing apart a cat on a Los
Angeles street. Every year coyotes kill many pets and occasionally attack a child, yet
hunting or trapping them is illegal. In practice, "all life is precious" means that the life of a
murderer is more precious than that of his victim, and the life of a coyote is more precious
than that of a cat or dog. Pacifists stand aside in self-satisfied neutrality while predators
roam free.
Pacifism is a luxury. Like golf, it can be enjoyed by a fortunate few, while most of us face
a harsher reality. Pacifists often live in safe suburbs or gated communities, so they cannot
understand why anyone feels the need for self-defense. They rarely work or live in
high-crime areas, as do many poor people and minorities. They need not dirty their hands
with weapons; gun oil has a pleasant smell with which they are unfamiliar. They depend on
the police and military to keep them safe — and then look down with contempt on their
protectors, while cutting their funding and hampering them with unrealistic rules.
As has been said, it doesn’t matter how many resolutions the sheep pass in favor of
vegetarianism; the only thing that matters is whether the wolves are hungry. The world is
full of hungry wolves. Sheep are too stupid to know this, so sheepdogs protect them. But
what if the sheep were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs, because the growls
disturbed their peaceful slumbers?
Rather than a coherent philosophy of nonviolence and peacemaking, today’s pacifism is
merely apathy and cowardice in fancy clothes:
"Give peace a chance." To do what? Allow more thousands of innocents to be
slaughtered, while we stand aside feeling superior? Is that peace?
"Let’s sit down and talk." About what? How to identify body parts?
"There is another way." What, specifically?
"Stop the cycle of violence." What cycle? We did nothing after a hole was blown in the
USS Cole and 17 sailors were killed. What good did our restraint do?
"Violence never settles anything." Really? What about World War II?
"We aren’t perfect." Neither is anyone. But this does not justify blaming the victims, and it
does not excuse us from our duty.
Horrific as the Twin Towers atrocity was, it cannot obliterate the memory of the other
18,000 or so Americans who will be murdered this year. Violent death, crime and
terrorism are realities we have been forced to face. We can no longer pretend that only
others are at risk — others who live or work in "bad" parts of town.
We have been forced to face the fact that all parts of town, and of the world, can be "bad."
There are people who want to see us dead. They don’t envy our free elections, free
speech, religious pluralism, or women’s rights; they hate us because of these freedoms.
They don’t want to take what we have; they spit on it. They don’t want to hijack our
plane; they want to crash it. They want us dead. Not just soldiers. Men, women, and
children. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, atheists and even Muslims who
disagree with their totalitarian agenda. All of us.
We are like the sheep that were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs. If we are
unwilling to defend ourselves, we can at least untie our protectors. Will we? Or will we
look around for our missing companions, promptly forget about them, bleat about the high
cost of dog food, and then go back to sleep, dreaming peaceful dreams, while our flock is
picked off one by one?
In the aftermath of the attack on America, voices from the United States and around the
world are calling for restraint and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The way to fight
terrorism, they claim, is not through force - violence only begets more violence. Opposing
the retaliatory use of force, however, is a sign of short sightedness. In the immediate
future, avoiding a comprehensive military response against terrorism will indeed prevent
bloodshed; in the long run, refraining from the use of force will lead to much worse
consequences.
It is hard to believe that following the worst terrorist attack in history — the murder,
carnage, massacre, barbarity — people are still advocating pacifism. Can one get any more
concrete proof of the dangers of pacifism than what we witnessed one month ago?
Pacifists called for restraint following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, after
the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania and following the suicide
assault on the navy ship, USS Cole, outside Yemen. The US government, pacifying the
pacifists, chose to do nothing beyond a token retaliatory act in response to each of these
crimes. The price for this restraint is unmistakable and unfathomable: the very people who
should have been hunted and destroyed with the full force of America´s might — the
actual terrorists and those who harbor them — have now murdered thousands of people.
Pacifism appeals to many people on an emotional level; whereas, the horrors of war appeal
only to a few, the terrorists among them. No civilized person would prefer war and
bloodshed to peace and negotiation, but emotions and preferences are insufficient criteria
for evaluation. The standards we must apply when judging whether an idea - pacifism or
war — is valuable or not must be founded in rational principles that are connected to
reality.
Pacifism is based on a detached understanding of reality — on fantasy, not on fact, on
emotion, not on reason. For those who still advocate a peaceful resolution following the
murderous attacks, it seems that wishful thinking has obscured the facts. Years of
indoctrination by our leaders and intellectuals, advocating pacifism and turning the other
cheek, is preventing people from seeing the glaring truth through the stillness of more than
six thousand corpses. The blind have made others blind.
The professed and worthy ideal of pacifism is to attain a resolution without shedding
blood. The underlying sentiment behind pacifism is compassion and mercy — human, and
potentially humane, emotions. Yet mercy and compassion detached from reality produce
disastrous consequences. Those who have mercy on the cruel, goes the Talmudic saying,
will ultimately be cruel to the merciful. The philosopher Edwin Burke recognized that “All
it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Kennedy knew this when
he dealt with the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis and Bush must know this in
dealing with the threat of world terrorism.
The formula of the pacifists for attaining peace is nothing short of immoral, when on the
other side of the negotiating table sit confirmed villains in the form of Osama Bin Laden,
Yasser Arafat, Mohammad Khatami, Bashar Al-Assad, Mulla Mohammad Omar and other
dictators whose hands are dripping with the blood of innocent people. Exercising restraint
when dealing with an unscrupulous aggressor produces the same results as pulling the
trigger on the innocent.
In the current call for appeasement, those who categorically oppose the use of force
against the terrorists are ignoring the lessons of history, yet again. In 1981, when Israeli
war planes disabled some of Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, the world roared with indignation.
Israel was condemned, almost universally, for its unprovoked aggression. Ten years later,
during the Gulf War, this “act of aggression” prevented a potential nuclear catastrophe.
In 1939, when British prime minister Neville Chamberlain returned from his meeting with
Hitler he declared that “We have peace in our time.” Most people heralded Chamberlain as
a hero for his ability to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis with Nazi Germany. Yes,
Chamberlain did bring peace to the world … for one year. Ultimately his (lack of) action
helped to bring about the greatest devastation the world has ever known.
Upon Chamberlain’s return, Churchill, who understood the philosophy of the Nazis in
particular, and of evil in general, said about Chamberlain: “He was given the choice
between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor and he will have war anyway.” Similarly, a
US retaliation is not merely a matter of honor - of bringing the perpetrators to justice and
making them pay for the attack. Doing nothing in response to the attack will also bring
about a greater war and calamity. It will send out an open invitation to other enemies of
freedom to commit similar acts without fear of being punished.
As terrorists are becoming more and more sophisticated, and as some terror sponsoring
countries are acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the free world cannot afford to be
myopic. We must look beyond the immediate and painful consequences of war and we
must do everything that we can to avoid the horrific, albeit deferred, consequences of
turning the other cheek. While the intentions of pacifists are most likely good, they are
paving the road to a worse hell than what we witnessed in the September 11th attack on
America.
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.
Second, it is worth it 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 4,000 murdered recede. Third, it is worth it 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 this, in Partisan Review, 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.
Pacifism is a noble ideal; the word means "making peace." Real pacifists are sensitive to
human suffering and strive to mediate between hostile factions. But instead of using this
active, idealistic approach, many who call themselves "pacifists" are merely indifferent —
they stand aside, smugly looking down on humanity’s struggles. Rather than motivating
them to action, their false pacifism is merely an excuse for inaction.
Pacifists used to come in two varieties. The first holds that all violence is wrong.
Overcoming violent criminals often requires force, but strict pacifists reject this as
unethical. They are unrealistic, but at least they are honest.
The second variety of pacifist allows some exceptions — especially horrible evil may be
opposed with force if absolutely necessary. But these exceptions always seem to lie in the
past. Pacifists in the 1930s opposed rearmament, despite the rise of Hitler, pointing out
that no Genghis Khan was at the gates. Pacifists in the 1980s opposed rearmament,
despite the growth of the Soviet empire, pointing out that no Hitler was on the horizon.
Pacifists today oppose rearmament, despite the rise of global terrorism, pointing out that
the Soviet empire is no more. That is, the exceptions are never relevant to the current
problem — they aren’t really exceptions at all.
Recently, however, a third variety of pacifist has appeared. They hold that though all
violence is wrong, defensive violence is actually worse that aggressive violence. Instead of
being passive bystanders in humanity’s struggles, these pacifists are forced by this bizarre
belief to become active participants — but on the wrong side. Consider:
It is "gun control" to further restrict law-abiding citizens from buying guns, but somehow
it is not "gun control" to jail armed criminals.
Opponents of capital punishment are often supporters of euthanasia and
abortion-on-demand up to the ninth month of pregnancy. That is, the state’s killing
convicted murderers is wrong, but doctors’ killing innocent fetuses or patients is laudable.
The murder of innocent people, even babies, results in efforts to "understand," but let
someone shoot a would-be rapist or murderer, and there is prompt condemnation.
When citizens, particularly teen-agers, use a weapon to defend themselves from armed
criminals, pacifists often protest, "How did the kid get access to a gun?" The armed attack
didn’t upset them, but the armed defense did.
After the 1992 Los Angeles riot, journalists repeatedly told us to "understand the rage."
But Korean merchants who had to defend their lives and stores were called "vigilantes."
There was no effort to understand them, much less sympathize with them.
Rules were enacted to prevent the CIA from hiring informants who had records of crimes
or civil-rights violations. But how can Boy Scouts infiltrate terrorist or criminal gangs?
Being defended by minor criminals outraged the purists’ sensibilities, but the prospect of
being attacked by major terrorists didn’t disturb them.
The military has been made "kinder and gentler" as well as smaller, though it still troubles
pacifists. But the fear that it has also been made less effective appears not to trouble them.
And if our military is less effective, who will keep the peace?
Opponents of a missile-defense system object strenuously that our ability to stop incoming
missiles will only make things worse. Yet they object less vehemently, or not at all, when
terrorist states such as Iraq and North Korea develop biologic, chemical and possibly
nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction don’t scare them, but the possibility of
blocking them does.
Even the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon evoke only
sadness, while suggestions that we eliminate the terrorists bring forth strong objections,
often with the question, "What would Gandhi advise?"
Gandhi was a great man, but we know of him only because he was fortunate enough to
use his nonviolent methods against the British. Had he tried them on a more brutal foe, he
would have wound up in a forgotten grave. Indeed, Gandhi advised the Jews not to resist
the Nazis — perhaps the worst advice in history. Pacifists must choose their opponents
with care.
Pacifists narcissistically assume everyone is like them, open to reason. They lack the
imagination to see that some people do not use violence as a last resort, when other
methods fail, but enjoy violence — revel in it. They cannot imagine that there are people
who enjoy killing, and even some who look forward to dying themselves if enough
"others" die also.
Many pacifists are zealous in protecting criminals’ rights, but they forget the rights of
victims. Some time ago, a black store owner was robbed at gunpoint. He identified the
robber, who threatened to kill him. The store owner applied for a gun permit but was
denied. Later he used an unregistered gun to shoot the robber, who had been released
from jail and tried to carry out his threat. The store owner was given a year in jail.
Sympathy was used up on the robber — none was left for the store owner.
The word "peacemaker" has two basic meanings. The first refers to one who tries to calm
hostility. The second refers to the Colt .45 revolver, which may be required if the first
approach fails. Both types of peacemaker are needed to keep peace in the world.
Pacifists declare, "All life is precious," but what does this mean? I have seen the police
photographing a corpse on a sidewalk, and two coyotes tearing apart a cat on a Los
Angeles street. Every year coyotes kill many pets and occasionally attack a child, yet
hunting or trapping them is illegal. In practice, "all life is precious" means that the life of a
murderer is more precious than that of his victim, and the life of a coyote is more precious
than that of a cat or dog. Pacifists stand aside in self-satisfied neutrality while predators
roam free.
Pacifism is a luxury. Like golf, it can be enjoyed by a fortunate few, while most of us face
a harsher reality. Pacifists often live in safe suburbs or gated communities, so they cannot
understand why anyone feels the need for self-defense. They rarely work or live in
high-crime areas, as do many poor people and minorities. They need not dirty their hands
with weapons; gun oil has a pleasant smell with which they are unfamiliar. They depend on
the police and military to keep them safe — and then look down with contempt on their
protectors, while cutting their funding and hampering them with unrealistic rules.
As has been said, it doesn’t matter how many resolutions the sheep pass in favor of
vegetarianism; the only thing that matters is whether the wolves are hungry. The world is
full of hungry wolves. Sheep are too stupid to know this, so sheepdogs protect them. But
what if the sheep were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs, because the growls
disturbed their peaceful slumbers?
Rather than a coherent philosophy of nonviolence and peacemaking, today’s pacifism is
merely apathy and cowardice in fancy clothes:
"Give peace a chance." To do what? Allow more thousands of innocents to be
slaughtered, while we stand aside feeling superior? Is that peace?
"Let’s sit down and talk." About what? How to identify body parts?
"There is another way." What, specifically?
"Stop the cycle of violence." What cycle? We did nothing after a hole was blown in the
USS Cole and 17 sailors were killed. What good did our restraint do?
"Violence never settles anything." Really? What about World War II?
"We aren’t perfect." Neither is anyone. But this does not justify blaming the victims, and it
does not excuse us from our duty.
Horrific as the Twin Towers atrocity was, it cannot obliterate the memory of the other
18,000 or so Americans who will be murdered this year. Violent death, crime and
terrorism are realities we have been forced to face. We can no longer pretend that only
others are at risk — others who live or work in "bad" parts of town.
We have been forced to face the fact that all parts of town, and of the world, can be "bad."
There are people who want to see us dead. They don’t envy our free elections, free
speech, religious pluralism, or women’s rights; they hate us because of these freedoms.
They don’t want to take what we have; they spit on it. They don’t want to hijack our
plane; they want to crash it. They want us dead. Not just soldiers. Men, women, and
children. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, atheists and even Muslims who
disagree with their totalitarian agenda. All of us.
We are like the sheep that were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs. If we are
unwilling to defend ourselves, we can at least untie our protectors. Will we? Or will we
look around for our missing companions, promptly forget about them, bleat about the high
cost of dog food, and then go back to sleep, dreaming peaceful dreams, while our flock is
picked off one by one?
In the aftermath of the attack on America, voices from the United States and around the
world are calling for restraint and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The way to fight
terrorism, they claim, is not through force - violence only begets more violence. Opposing
the retaliatory use of force, however, is a sign of short sightedness. In the immediate
future, avoiding a comprehensive military response against terrorism will indeed prevent
bloodshed; in the long run, refraining from the use of force will lead to much worse
consequences.
It is hard to believe that following the worst terrorist attack in history — the murder,
carnage, massacre, barbarity — people are still advocating pacifism. Can one get any more
concrete proof of the dangers of pacifism than what we witnessed one month ago?
Pacifists called for restraint following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, after
the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania and following the suicide
assault on the navy ship, USS Cole, outside Yemen. The US government, pacifying the
pacifists, chose to do nothing beyond a token retaliatory act in response to each of these
crimes. The price for this restraint is unmistakable and unfathomable: the very people who
should have been hunted and destroyed with the full force of America´s might — the
actual terrorists and those who harbor them — have now murdered thousands of people.
Pacifism appeals to many people on an emotional level; whereas, the horrors of war appeal
only to a few, the terrorists among them. No civilized person would prefer war and
bloodshed to peace and negotiation, but emotions and preferences are insufficient criteria
for evaluation. The standards we must apply when judging whether an idea - pacifism or
war — is valuable or not must be founded in rational principles that are connected to
reality.
Pacifism is based on a detached understanding of reality — on fantasy, not on fact, on
emotion, not on reason. For those who still advocate a peaceful resolution following the
murderous attacks, it seems that wishful thinking has obscured the facts. Years of
indoctrination by our leaders and intellectuals, advocating pacifism and turning the other
cheek, is preventing people from seeing the glaring truth through the stillness of more than
six thousand corpses. The blind have made others blind.
The professed and worthy ideal of pacifism is to attain a resolution without shedding
blood. The underlying sentiment behind pacifism is compassion and mercy — human, and
potentially humane, emotions. Yet mercy and compassion detached from reality produce
disastrous consequences. Those who have mercy on the cruel, goes the Talmudic saying,
will ultimately be cruel to the merciful. The philosopher Edwin Burke recognized that “All
it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Kennedy knew this when
he dealt with the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis and Bush must know this in
dealing with the threat of world terrorism.
The formula of the pacifists for attaining peace is nothing short of immoral, when on the
other side of the negotiating table sit confirmed villains in the form of Osama Bin Laden,
Yasser Arafat, Mohammad Khatami, Bashar Al-Assad, Mulla Mohammad Omar and other
dictators whose hands are dripping with the blood of innocent people. Exercising restraint
when dealing with an unscrupulous aggressor produces the same results as pulling the
trigger on the innocent.
In the current call for appeasement, those who categorically oppose the use of force
against the terrorists are ignoring the lessons of history, yet again. In 1981, when Israeli
war planes disabled some of Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, the world roared with indignation.
Israel was condemned, almost universally, for its unprovoked aggression. Ten years later,
during the Gulf War, this “act of aggression” prevented a potential nuclear catastrophe.
In 1939, when British prime minister Neville Chamberlain returned from his meeting with
Hitler he declared that “We have peace in our time.” Most people heralded Chamberlain as
a hero for his ability to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis with Nazi Germany. Yes,
Chamberlain did bring peace to the world … for one year. Ultimately his (lack of) action
helped to bring about the greatest devastation the world has ever known.
Upon Chamberlain’s return, Churchill, who understood the philosophy of the Nazis in
particular, and of evil in general, said about Chamberlain: “He was given the choice
between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor and he will have war anyway.” Similarly, a
US retaliation is not merely a matter of honor - of bringing the perpetrators to justice and
making them pay for the attack. Doing nothing in response to the attack will also bring
about a greater war and calamity. It will send out an open invitation to other enemies of
freedom to commit similar acts without fear of being punished.
As terrorists are becoming more and more sophisticated, and as some terror sponsoring
countries are acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the free world cannot afford to be
myopic. We must look beyond the immediate and painful consequences of war and we
must do everything that we can to avoid the horrific, albeit deferred, consequences of
turning the other cheek. While the intentions of pacifists are most likely good, they are
paving the road to a worse hell than what we witnessed in the September 11th attack on
America.