The newest fad among lefties is to adopt the phrase “waging peace” as an anti-slogan against the perceived policies of the Bush Administration. While this hardly represents a new ideological direction for a group of people who still insist that “real communism” has never been given a fair shot, it is worth noting the extent to which the meaning of peace has been mutated in our culture.
Peace, according to Dictionary.com, represents a state characterized by an “absence of war or other hostilities,” an agreement to achieve such an arrangement, or my personal favorite, to attain “freedom from quarrels or disagreements.” While the first two definitions are uncontroversial, the later seems rather ostentatious. Is it possible to have a workplace or household, let a lone a country or world, without “quarrels or disagreements”? With few exceptions, most faiths and philosophies deny the absolute realization of, as the herald angel famously sang, “peace on earth, and mercy mild.” It is not that peace is disagreeable. No one finds conflict, particularly of the violent variety, an acceptable first option for redressing grievances. Nevertheless, the more realistic among us (mostly those who missed the 60s), find attempts at a world without conflict a dangerous fiction.
Why is universal peace impossible? Human nature precludes the ability to deal with all persons in a rational, non-violent matter. Many of the world’s inhabitants have been brought up with value sets, or under circumstances, that make them immune to diplomatic overtures. What do Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Hitler truly have in common? All of them were or are insane, and despite the media's efforts to humanize them, are without exception persons incapable of operating within the bounds of civilization. Basic, contractual agreements that lift men out of the state of nature, like agreeing that impulsive murder and seizure of another’s property are illegal, are forever lost on such degenerates. Then why is believing in perpetual peace dangerous? Even beyond the nutcases discussed above, human nature is universally unconquerable. Someone somewhere, defying every anti-nuclear or anti-SUV treaty the UN can muster, will try to maim someone else in pursuit of treasure, power, sex, property, resources, or even the divine right to spread their religion with the butt of a gun. Sure we are a leap above the animal kingdom. Not far enough, however, to expect that everyone will play by the rules that most follow under normative circumstances. Hence men have to be willing to forcibly assert the rule of law to preserve life. That’s why we have administrators, police, courts, and military to execute laws.
Now, my aim isn’t to paint an overly dark picture of the human condition. Most humans are good at their core, and working to make the world more civilized in a noble goal. In fact, the world is a place more full of hope thanks to democracy. Our current system of elections, courts, and free markets provide a humanizing mechanism for civilizing conflicts. The problem arises when too many western democratic leaders, thinkers, and voters begin to view peace as an acceptable end to human history, as both a possible and sustainable aim that makes confrontation forever unnecessary. For subscribers to this ideology of neopacifism, war is no longer acceptably waged to free a people or protect national interests. Now the aim of every battle must be “peace,” or by our earlier definition, creating a world or region devoid of “quarrels or disagreements.” Conflict avoidance is the order of the day because antiquated ideas of individual freedom, justice, life, liberty, happiness, etc, are all subordinated to the desire to bypass hostile and unpleasant confrontations.
How did westerners, the descendents of the martial Romans, develop such an intense, wholesale distaste for conflict? It begins at childhood. How often do we read articles describing baseball leagues where everyone wins, teachers that let kids run amok, and school councilors and authorities that pride mediation over punishment? Fighting, arguing, teasing, bullying, and other practices are deemed more intolerable than cheating, lying, stealing, or general academic laziness. The home front merely reinforces these foolish notions. Parents try to be their child’s best friend, giving timeouts and refusing to raise their voices. Maybe if I had grown up in a postmodern parenting environment I would be less confrontational (and more palatable to you the reader), but better adept to face the real world? Doubtful. As a consequence of this bizarre cultural development, adults are displaying an equally moronic approach to confrontation. You need look no further than today’s politics. The Senate’s “Gang of 14” was hailed as peacemakers, inventing a fake “tradition” to protect the glorious Senate, accomplishing nothing but to undermine a democratic debate. Maybe I wanted to hear senators, elected to defend the interests of their constituents and the country, have an actual discussion over what that best interest might be! Whenever two candidates ferociously argue a controversial bill or issue, media pundits immediately bemoan the “incivility” of politics and plead for someone, anyone, to make everyone shake hands and have a picnic on an arbitrary common ground. One wonders why liberals have been so effective in making Americans feel guilty about Iraq. After all, saving the lives of millions of Middle Easterners and protecting our civilization from destruction does little to alleviate the discomfort caused by fighting for it.
A generation is now graduating college that knows nothing of the necessity of confronting those with whom no bargain is attainable. It is my generation; a group of students with all the benefits of a society that has not known real conflict for decades- until now. Faced with the challenges of the War on Terrorism, many Americans seem curiously and frighteningly confused by the challenges at hand. 9/11 horrified us, but the subsequent analysis and response has been woefully inadequate. Some think that the battle against terrorists can be won through economic and verbal diplomacy. Then simply give jihadists a time-out in Gitmo, but don’t dare feed them gruel or forget to leave a mint under each pillow! Others react to our current situation by feeling guilt. It must be something we did, just as it must have been my fault when little John Doe hit me in 3rd grade because I wouldn’t let him play with me. Therefore, let’s apologize to the mullahs, abandon Israel, and operate under the assumption that America should be the world’s patsy because, after all, it’s our fault! How did your oil money get in my pocket, Mr. Hussein?
We must stop treating peace as an end unless we want others to determine an end for us. Peace is a state of affairs that can allow for freedom, justice, life, liberty, happiness, love, humanity, the arts, virtue, and many other wonderful things, to flourish. But a peace that keeps millions under the steel boot of oppression, leaves families under constant threat, and does nothing to advance the causes upon which this nation was founded is not acceptable. It is time to relearn that conflict is not always bad. In fact, they *gasp* often have positive outcomes. To avoid the responsibilities we have in the world and to ourselves, simply to give idealists some temporary security, is to wage stupidity.
6 comments:
I suppose it is easier to call one's enemies insane than it is to make any real and honest effort to understand them... Insanity is nothing more than a political term used by people in power to characterize behavior they find undesirable. For instance, in early America, a slave that attempted to escape from captivity was often labeled insane, as were pacifists, independent women and other social dissidents. Needless to say, many of these individuals, despite the label fixed to them by those in power, did not suffer from what we would now consider mental illness.
Numerous experts have suggested, for instance, that terrorism is not a behavior that is necessarily associated with mental illness and indeed, most major terrorist groups screen their recruits carefully in order to avoid the recruitment of "unstable" individuals. I would refer you to the 1999 State Department report on terrorist profiling "Who becomes a terrorist and Why?" for more information on this particular subject.
Likewise, Saddam Hussein, for all of his ruthless brutality, seems to have been motivated by rational self interest throughout his tenure as ruler of Iraq. His actions were calculated to cement his grip on power, increase the strength of his position in the region, and so on and while he made a number of miscalculations, and visited horrors upon his own people, his actions were not without their own reason, evil though it may have been.
In a broader sense, I think it is important to recognize the humanity of one's enemies. Despite your assertions to the contrary, neither War nor any harm our enemies can visit upon us is an excuse to abandon our attempts at empathy. Indeed, it is easy to see oneself in the victims of horrific acts, but it is much more difficult to see in oneself the potential to become the perpetrator of such acts. It is important that we recognize in ourselves, the potential for the evils with which we are confronted. It is important that we recognize in others the fundamental humanity that we all share. Finally, it is important that we consider what thing or circumstance could drive a person to commit acts of evil, and ask ourselves whether, in their positions, any of us would act differently.
Sincerely,
Daniel
Just a minor note: What anonymous says with regards to 'insanity' is somethong of a worn-out platitude among the chattering classes. Instead of challenging the substance of an argument, the argument is deconstructed based on something as insignificant as a loaded adjective. Yes, we know that way back in the past all the beautiful things we have today were called insane - but how does that nullify the argument whatsoever?
In any case, terrorism may not be a result of medical psychosis as it is understood today (though mentally disabled individuals have been deployed by the insurgency in Iraq), but doesn't that make it even more dangerous? That people, in a medically sound state of mind, are willing to immolate themselves just to knock out the corner pizzeria and all the civilians inside? Another kind of insanity prevails here, and one that is clearly more existentially threatening than schitzophrenia.
In the end, I think the whole notion of peace being the absence of war only brings up the question of what actually defines war. For example, it kills me how many on the left are passionate and sincere about ending the genocide in Darfur, and yet it seems ending genocide is somehow secondary to ensuring that "American Imperialism" is unconnected. Of course, perhaps we're only one or two more Turtle Bay cocktail parties away from ending genocide, world hunger, and discrimination.
There's your peaceful world.
Contrary to Mr Cecire's naive notions, the words we use are important, and to make use of loaded adjectives in ways that prevent the honest and educated exchange of information is hardly unimportant and is, in fact, damaging to said attempts at dialogue. Indeed, I am accused of not answering the argument behind the word "insane" when, in fact, my entire point was that the word "insane" is used by the author of the post in question as a replacement for a real argument and that such a rhetorical trick is unworthy of such a scholar as Mr. Rooney. Words are but a path to meaning and, used improperly, are a means of conveying falsehood. They can be used to spread the hatred that motivates genocide. They can be tailored to downplay the importance of doing something about genocides in progress. They mold the thoughts of humanity, and in so doing give rise to reflections of those thoughts in the actions people take. Words are important and should be viewed as such, especially by those affected with the pretention of expressing injustices and calling for an end to them.
And as a point of clarification, I did not intend that my discussion of the subject of "insanity" be regarded as an assertion that terrorism is "less dangerous" because it is carried out by mentally sound individuals. On the contrary, Mr Cecire is correct in asserting that the fact that terrorism is carried out by the mentally sound makes it all the more dangerous. I merely intended my comments to highlight the importance of seeking an understanding of what would motivate mentally sound individuals to engage in actions such as terrorism. If rational motivation makes terrorism more dangerous, it certainly makes it worthier of more honest consideration than is offered by merely labeling said behavior as "insane."
Sincerely,
Daniel of the "Chattering Class"
The US lived under the treat of 10,000 nuclear missiles aimed at us for over 30 years. To go to war meant utter destruction, so we had no choice but to find another way. I don't see the problem of terror any more susceptible to a military solution than was the problem of communism, but for different reasons. Nor can freeing people from opression be acomplished by war. If Iraq has not yet convinced you of that, watch for another couple of years and maybe you will get it.
OK, fine. The author gave you all the opportunity to red-card his entire essay by using the word "insane" to describe some people who did some horrific things. The writer must have been insane.
Now, on to the rest of the article. Any of you willing to feel the pain of Mr. Zarqawi? How about we seek to understand the motivation of Pol Pot?
Any of you read this yet: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn03.html yet?
You are going to get us all killed.
Milo
Are we so post-modern that either everything is subjectively rational or nothing is at all? The author, by my reading, seems to be saying simply that foreign policy presents irrational creatures from time to time. Someone, for instance, who insists on destroying an entire race or invading Russia in winter for ocult-driven reasons.
The Soviet Union was indeed largely a rational power. As Sting so eloquently said in his hit Cold War song, the Russians "loved their children too." Do radical Muslims? Maybe so, but maybe less than killing Jews. Most fascists (Hitler and our current Islamic variety) are most certainly not rational players. I agree with the last comment- you will all get us killed (and I think that was the author's point)!
Post a Comment