Copyright John T. Reed
It is a given among the political left that peace is always better than war, that diplomacy should be used rather than military force. As World War II war correspondent Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes described his feelings before he visited a World War II death camp, “that the worst peace is always better than the best war.”
Are they right about that?
Nah. They’re a bunch of airheads.
Peace is acceptance of the status quo
You cannot answer the question of whether peace is better than war without reference to the status quo. Preserve peace is another way of saying accept the status quo. Accepting the status quo is OK only if the status quo is acceptable. Sometimes, it is not.
Diplomacy is meaningless unless it is backed by potential use of force. As Wynn Catlin said, “Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice doggie! till you can find a rock.”
Labor negotiations occur only under the threat of strike or lockout. Marital counseling occurs only ender the threat of divorce. Legal negotiations occur only as long as there is a threat of a lawsuit or prosecution.
Nations negotiate diplomatically to prevent war. Were there no threat of war behind international negotiations, each side could just say “No” to the other foreverwhich means whatever status quo was in place remains in place. So saying negotiation is better than war is the same as saying peace is better than war. They are just two different ways of saying accept the status quo.
Too many wars
I would agree that the U.S. has gone to war too often in its history. Other countries outside Latin America have been as bad or worse. But I would not agree that the U.S. should never have gone to war or should never go to war in the future.
Conscientious objectors, under U.S. law, must object to all wars, not just the present one. Since that makes them national security parasites, I disagree with the law that allows them to avoid service.
I think all the conscientious objectors of all the countries of the world should be deported to some island somewhere. No country of people who are willing to fight should enter into a defense alliance with them, especially since it would be a one-way street. Then the conscientious objectors can figure out who to call if another country invades them.
Conscientious objectors must have very selective consciences. Their otherwise sensitive consciences apparently are not bothered by the fact that they avoid military service while others risk their lives for them.
Objecting to all wars is not an option for anyone unless the objector is protected by someone who does not object to all wars. No one should be willing to risk his life for such people.
Conscientious objectors were required to be medics in our past wars. That’s a good place for them.
Share this post