Enjoy. January 15, 2003, 8:45 a.m. Down with the Peace Movement The trouble with the antiwar warriors. By Adam G. Mersereau The advocates of "peace at any price" are not waiting for a declaration of war against Iraq. Months ago they booked flights and hotel rooms and scheduled time off from work and school to attend prewar protests in America and abroad. Many have spent hours kneeling over posters with wide-tipped magic markers, scratching out their signature policy proverbs, such as "CHOOSE PEACE NOT WAR." An activist group called Voices in the Wilderness is sending small groups of American and British protesters to Baghdad. Over 100 celebrities signed an open letter opposing military action in Iraq. In October, actor Sean Penn placed an ad in the Washington Post that criticized President Bush's war policy. He then traveled to Baghdad to assess the situation for himself and, presumably, for his fans. Not surprisingly, Mr. Penn concluded that America, not Iraq, is to blame for the current tensions between the two nations. No doubt he will trek to Pyongyang before next summer and reach a similar conclusion. Peace activists may be well intentioned; but at their worst, they are more helpful to America's enemies than to America. The best we can say is that they are clinically naïve. They are as insufferable as a college freshman who believes he and his political-science professor can end poverty if only people would listen. It is as if the peace activists believe they have discovered for the first time those self-evident and thus ancient truths that human life is sacred, and war is tragic. Little do they know that a majority of the Iraqis who stroll past their peace marches in Baghdad support an American invasion. Many would eagerly fight and risk death in an armed revolution if they could obtain the resources and momentum to launch one for themselves. Naïveté allows the peace movement to thrive, but it is animated by arrogance. THE ARROGANCE While campaigning for the presidency, candidate Bush said that his administration would conduct its foreign policy with less arrogance than past administrations had displayed. He is now widely accused of forsaking the less-arrogant approach and of choosing, instead, to rattle his saber at any dictator he thinks he can rattle. But is it really arrogant for the president to insist that a violent and unpredictable dictator with ambitions to control the world's oil supply — who is also a friend of al Qaeda — should be denied a secret nuclear, chemical- and biological-weapons program? Is it arrogant to suggest that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power if he continues to defy and deceive the international community? Likewise, is it arrogant to expect the North Koreans to abide by the Agreed Framework, under which the U.S. promised to inject millions of U.S. tax dollars into the faltering North Korean economy? Perhaps it is slightly arrogant, but the peace movement is fantastically more arrogant. The peace movement is founded upon a subtle ethnocentrism that escapes detection even by the multicultural Left where most peace activists are bred. The group that most openly celebrates the diversity of mankind does not understand that many people in the world hold diverse beliefs and subscribe to ideologies that are entirely independent of American influence. In the mind of the peace activist, America is not just the sole superpower, it is the center of gravity for all world events; and so every world event is simply an equal (and sometimes opposite) reaction to a prior American action. Peace activists believe that America's economy and culture are such dominant forces in the lives of people throughout the world that the actions and policies of other nations can be interpreted only as mere reactions to the actions and policies of the United States government. Therefore, they believe America has the unbounded ability to manipulate foreign governments through economic and cultural means. Peacenik foreign policy is really very simple: Without an action by the United States, there will be no reaction by others. If America does not start a war, there will be no war. This is the arrogant ethnocentrism of the peace movement. Under this view, it is unthinkable that quaint little dictators — such as Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il — might deign to manipulate America as much or more than America tries to manipulate them. It is unthinkable that a nation would resort to building nuclear weapons if they did not first feel threatened by the world's only super-bully. It is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il might have diabolical plans and evil aspirations that were not created by, and are not controlled by, the U.S. State Department. The peace activist then reaches the conclusion that the United States can make a unilateral decision for peace, simply by choosing to lay down its arms. If the United States would ignore open and notorious breaches of U.N. directives and treaties, and simply refuse to disturb the current state of peace, then peace would prevail by default. Of course, the choice between war and peace is not ours alone. There could be war — and likely will be war — regardless of our course of action. The only questions are: on whose terms, and on whose turf? Many members of the peace movement also hold tightly to a loosely defined utopianism. They believe that the human race (save conservative Republicans) is evolving toward a higher and more noble plane of social existence. The activists themselves are, of course, at the forefront of the evolutionary curve; while the Cro-Magnon in the White House and his Cabinet of Neanderthals stubbornly resist progress. Although the Left has largely declared the concepts of "good" and "evil" to be passé, the peace activist believes that the heart of man is intrinsically "good," and that it would be "evil" if we do not give Saddam Hussein every chance to let his goodness shine through. Utopianism is dead in the minds of most people, because as veterans of the 20th century, which was the bloodiest century ever, we cannot deny that "good" and "evil" are entangled within the hearts of men and many of his ideologies, and that peace is little more than a welcome respite between wars. We also know that unless the Saddam Hussein's and Kim Jong-il's of the world are Utopians too, then to champion utopianism in America or Europe is useless. Utopianism is folly; unilateral utopianism is suicidal. But rather than adjust their policy to reflect reality, the peace activists will march in circles, carry their signs, and wait for reality to reflect their policy. TROUBLE IN UTOPIA While the peace activists march, the president and his Cabinet must face reality. Nations acquire weapons of mass destruction for one of three reasons: to deter their enemies, to obtain leverage in diplomacy, or to attack. Nations that wish to accomplish either of the first two objectives must announce their arsenals to the world. America is open about its nuclear capabilities to deter aggression. North Korea has boldly announced its nuclear capacity to set up another diplomatic shakedown. A nation keeps its weapons program secret, conversely, if it is planning an attack. Iraq's weapons program is highly secretive. Iraq also has ties to a terrorist network that is unlike any of America's historical enemies. The man who recently sprayed bullets into a Southern Baptist hospital in Yemen, killing three American missionaries and wounding a fourth, confessed that he did it to "get closer to God." Negotiations, economic sanctions and even appeasement are useless in the face of this new threat: terror as an end in itself. The peace activists have nothing to offer toward a solution. They are wrong to distinguish between the war on terror and the war against Iraq. Terrorists need money, safe harbor, weapons, training and intelligence. All signs indicate that al Qaeda gets them from sponsor states such as Iraq. Again, the peace activists have no response other than "CHOOSE PEACE NOT WAR." The peace activists are sincere, dedicated, and sometimes they display bravery and even a patriotism of sorts. But their policy of unilateral passivity will leave us vulnerable to being nickeled-to-death. Jimmy Carter was right when he said that war is evil, but only in the sense that war is the most undesirable state of human affairs. More evil than war, however, is the sentiment that pervades the peace movement: That there is nothing worth fighting for. Luckily there is a large group of Americans — those in uniform — who are willing to do the very dirty work that may be necessary to achieve another extended period of peace. — Adam G. Mersereau served in the enlisted and officer ranks of the United States Marine Corps from 1990 to 1995. He is now an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia. http://nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mersereau011503.asp
How many years did the author of this article spend in the military again? It's easy be a hawk if you know you won't lose anyone you know.
There are some truths in this article, even if there are things I disagree with.... 1. i think there are some things worth fighting for...you lose credibility arguing against force when you argue against force in every circumstance. 2. i think that the "peace movement" becomes a cultural event as much as any thing else...college kids protest because that's what college kids do....it's a recreation of the 60's, because it's cool to speak opposite the establishment and smoke pot. it's also cool because celebrities do it too...and they're so cool. 3. there does seem to be the notion that the only reason the rest of the world does anything that could be perceived as "bad" is because the US bullied them in to that position. you know, no one says that about hitler...and the terms of surrender after WWI are far more provoking than any US action I can think of. please don't try to twist that last sentence into some defense of hitler on my part...that jackass got exactly what he deserved. 4. there is the idea that we are the only ones who hold the cards...that we are the only ones who cause the chain of events to set in motion towards war...nevermind that dictators ignore UN mandates for a decade...it's ultimately our fault, if not for reason 3 above, then for simply wanting war and/or oil. 5. sheryl crow stands up and says the way to fight your enemies is to not have any...great...tell peter pan and wendy it's almost midnight and the carriage will turn back to a pumpkin soon enough. can you imagine this worldview?? God, I would love to have that kind of worldview, but i see nothing to convince me that you can make a friend of men like hitler, stalin, mao and hussein. men who torture children...men who release nerve gas on their own countrymen. and frankly, i don't want to be their friend...i'll pray for their redemption, but i crave justice as well.
He's back! I wonder how long it will be before he threatens to nuke me or something. Treeman, don't you just imagine him to be like some figure from theApocalypse Now movie or the Operation Phoenix assasination program during the Vietnam War? I wonder if he'll eventually turn out like my brother in law, the 20 year veteran of the US Special Forces, who now is against virtually all war. My brother in law believed that we should not have gone into Afghanistan at all. This from a guy who has been in at least 10 countries, with the invasion of Panama the last one, doing special ops for our government. He still considers himself a Bush supporter and a Republican; he just can't deny what his actual experience as a "foot soldier" for our foreign policy has taught him..
While sure some of this is no doubt true (shallow protestors), just as there is a culture around war (war is cool, fighting is cool, attacking the bad guys is cool, anything American does is morally right) that has been around far longer. Also: #1 Couldn't another alternative to the peaceniks are just looking for a good party expression be that largely starting with Ghandi and continuing with MLK and Mandela there have been more relatively [i/] peaceful transitions in culture and resources than most warhawks and historians thought were possible because all nonviolent avenues were explored in those situations. #2 A lot of the peace movement has its root is faiths like Christianity--I would go so far as to reduce these movements to a fad. #3 When we see how a few narrow thinking people can lead us into a war like Vietnam shouldn't the litmus test of when to fight be a little higher than years past. Just to end, again I think the "peace is cool" faddish sentiment to label protestors tries to dismiss some legit issues, and ignores the far greater, more entrenched, and equally potentially shallow reasons people can support war.
PEACE DEMO IN HOUSTON TODAY AND SUNDAY According to the Houston Chronicle page 20A there is a demo today at the intersection of Waugh and Allen Parkway, noon to 3:00 pm. I'll be there around 1:00 pm. On Sunday there will be a reading of Martin Luther King's "Beyond Vietnbam: A Time to Break Silence". The folks then plan to march in the MLK parade.
DON'T FORGET TO WATCH C-SPAN, Time Warner Cable ch 56 to watch the activities in Washington DC, today.
These peace movements (As well as our favorite liberal commentators/politicians/celebrities.) would have more credibility if they protested resistance against the unnecessary violence and continued bombing that killed thousands and destroyed hospitals, homes, schools, universities, bridges, power and water treatment plants, factories, and more during the Kosovo War? A war that obviously Clinton didn't involve himself in for the interest of national security. Where was Jesse Jackson, Sheryl Crow, Barbra Streisand and Tom Daschle? All obvious puppets and hardcore supporters of the liberal agenda. Yes Melosovic is a horrible person and I'm glad he's being tried for the war crimes he obviously is responsible but could anyone imagine the liberal outcry if Bush jr. beguiled the country into Kosovo? Not to mention this war wasn't a matter of national security which is what every liberal claims Iraq isn't but obviously is in the post 9-11 era. But I find it extremely hypocritical and am very weary of the obvious bias here. Bottomline you have a conservative/non-liberal in the Whitehouse who will continue to encounter this extreme liberal resistance. I watched some of the peace rally on Cnbc and couldn't help but wonder how many of these people arrived at the rally in a vehicle powered by the very oil they call sin. I am a supporter of any kind of peaceful resolution to any conflict of this magnitude. The liberals wanted Bush to go through the U.N. and so be it we did. Now to quote Sheryl Crow they "don't want us to have any enemies." So people next time you have a home invasion don't treat the criminals with resistance but with milk, cookies and a slap on the wrist for the misunderstanding. Saddam Hussein is just as malevolent as Milosevic. Despite the fact Saddam has caused war crimes against his people and albeit genocide has also been dealt to his people you have the liberals jumping in front of uncle Saddam screaming, "not in my name!" Saddam has become an enlightening figure to these people. I can't understand how anyone can coherently believe they have access to all the means of determining such a decision. I wish I had the kind of access they do to the CIA or other intelligence because I didn't know anyone other than the President was briefed daily. How can any pampered American citizen make this kind of decision for the Iraqi people? Don't you think the President has enough access to intelligence to make an educated decision?
Having access to good information is a prerequsit, but not alone sufficient, to make an educated decision. Information wasn’t the problem in Vietnam, judgement with that information was. X_PAC I took the liberty to take out your inflammatory rhetoric that reveals your own biases to focus on your content. But here are some responses: I don't think many American's, liberal or otherwise, think highly of Saddam (“enlightening figure my ass”). What some conservatives and many moderates & left leaning Americans object to is that UNLIKE Bosnia the Bush admin seems hell bent on the war regardless of who goes in with us--we think it is NOT in our national interest to be perceived as doing, or in actuality doing, such a task alone. Even Britian is saying slow down for Pete's Sake. The world/UN opinion, or at least the opinion of our main democratic 1st world allies, is critical to many of us--because these other poltical leaders ALSO have access to the key information you describe above, and thus become our KEY checks on whether our own governments potential BIASES (war for oil, good politics) are driving us (no pun intended) into a war we shouldn't get into.
I live very close to this area and drove past it today in my luxury SUV. Why is it that peace protesters are always wearing some 1970's outfit with horn-rimmed glasses and hair down to their waist? They waved at me and pointed their big poster board signs at my vehicle. I reciprocated by showing them a sign that I sometimes use.
Max: You know I totally respect your opinion, but this is more than a little insulting to those who honestly believe in the ideals of peace. Jesus, Buddha and Ghandi among others didn't say things like "let those among you who are without sin cast the first stone" because they were caught up in some cultural event that make it cool to speak outside the establishment and smoke pot. For those of us who truly believe in the cause of peace, I realize that the best way to make us look stupid is to categorize us as non-thinking, pot smokers just going along with the crowd, but I don't think the Pope or Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree. You are obviously completely entitled to your opinion about what is a legitimate reason for war and I respect that. I just think it is unfair to lump all of those who want peace into a stereotype that obviously doesn't fit. I drove past there as well and your description is pretty far off especially from the old couple in the sweaters and the young couple with the baby I saw, but whatever. -------------- I think it is important to realize that there weren't these kinds of organized peace protests against the fight to find Osama Bin Laden (remember him, you know, the guy that actually attacked us?). There weren't even real organized protestests against either of the world wars or Korea. In this instance, many, MANY of those protesting are not simply anti-ALL war. They are anti-THIS war. In reality, Korea is far more dangerous when it comes to WMD's. Saudi Arabia was the country that funded the terrorist attacks against us. Yet, diplomacy is the ONLY path in Korea and Saudi Arabia is our ally. I think that many honestly wonder what the hell happened to Bin Laden. Al Queda supposedly is to blame for the Bali bombing. Yet, the bulk of our military weight is sitting on Iraq. There are still supposedly terrorist camps in Saudi Arabi, but our missles aren't pointed at them. Where is Bin Laden? Why aren't we focusing every single resource we have on absolutely obliterating Al Queda? I doubt you'd see anyone complain about that. Hell, if Hussein was protecting Bin Landen, no one would complain a bit. For that matter, where is the guy that mailed all that anthrax? Anyone remember that? You know, some people actually died. Yes, there is no question that there are some nutcases involved in the peace protests. There are nutcases involved in EVERY protest. The hardcore extremists of every socio-political movement are a little nutty. But, when polls show that a majority of the American people want to know why we are attacking Iraq when we haven't even found Osama yet, are they all just air-headed peacenik's?
<i>"White-collar conservatives flashing down the street Pointing their plastic finger at me. They're hoping soon my kind will drop and die, But I'm gonna wave my freak flag high . . . HIGH! "</i> - Jimi Hendrix - "If 6 was 9"
Great post Jeff. . A few of the cable channels now have commercials advertising penis enlargement cremes/pills or something. Check into it little man.
I also drove by this demonstration and remarked to myself how it resembled a halloween party. I haven't seen a bigger collection of freaks in a while.
