Shots Across The Bow

To All Those Protesting for Peace

Here's a quick reality check for you.

1. We pull out of Iraq immediately and completely as you demand.

   The new Iraqi government is immediately torn apart by sectarian fighting as Sunnis and Ba'athists, aided by an unfettered flow of "insurgents" from Syria, attempt to regain total power, and repress the Shia majority. Tens of thousands die in the struggle.

   Iran senses weakness in Iraq, and, nominally in support of their Shia brothers, invades. Tens of thousands die in the struggle.

   Iranian dissidents see an opportunity when their government is distracted by the Iraq campaign, and stage a popular revolution that is brutally crushed by the Mullahs, with help from their buddies in Syria. Tens of thousands die in the struggle.

   The UN is asked to intervene and the Security Council votes to condemn George Bush for starting this all in the first place. But they will take no action, as this is purely an "internal power struggle." Koffi and his son will make more millions in bribes and kickbacks from the Mullahs and will be shocked and dismayed at any implications of impropriety.

   
   
2. We pull out of Afghanistan immediately, as you demand.
   

   The central government in Afghanistan is in a bit better shape than is Iraq's so it will last longer, at least in the area around Khabul. However, the provinces will revert entirely to warlord control, and the resulting battles for control and territory will kill thousands.

   The Taliban will not stage a comeback, but a new organization nearly identical to it will. Al Qaida will again have a safe base from which to train, recruit, and plan.

   Civil unrest will eventually topple the Musharref government, resulting in a power vacuum that the warlords will be eager to fill. The resulting war and chaos will take the lives of tens of thousands.

   Again, the UN will consider this an "internal matter" and while they may send in a few observers to say "tsk, tsk," and maybe catch a quick piece of foreign tail on the side, they will do nothing of consequence. Remember, the only time the UN intervened in a genocide was when the US dragged them kicking and screaming into it in the Balkans. If we aren't willing to do it, nobody will be. And thousands will die because of this lack of will.

   
   
3. The US will suffer tremendous loss of credibility around the globe.
   

   If you think it's bad now, just wait until we cave. Liberals and peaceniks don't give a rat's butt right now because they figure they can blame everything on Bush, so it won't hurt them.

   Pretty damn short sighted of them since what it means is that every tinpot tyrant with dreams of glory will sleep comfortably in the knowledge that he (or she; we must be politically correct) will be able to do whatever the hell they want to and nobody on the planet will lift a finger to stop them. Want to slaughter a few thousand political dissidents? Have at it. America will shake its finger at you and still give you Most Favored trade status because we want to "remain engaged." There may be a few caustic speeches in the UN, but since Libya heads the human rights commission, nothing will come of it. Besides, just slide a couple million to the right diplomats, and you're bulletproof. Is your neighboring country irritating you by insisting that their border is non-negotiable? A couple of armored divisions will take care of it for you and nobody will do a thing about it.

   Except maybe for selling you new tanks to replace any that get damaged.

   
   
4. Iran, North Korea, and any other country that wants one will have a nuclear weapon inside of a decade.
   

   The collapse of the Soviet Union means there are literally thousands of weapons available to the black market, and once there is no serious threat of repercussions, the bidding will commence.

   And millions will die.

   
   
5. Once a nuclear weapon is used against the US, the pacifists might just realize that there comes a time when you have to fight back, but I really doubt it.
   

   They'll continue to blame Bush, and try to appease the terrorists. I wonder how Cindy Sheehan looks in a burka?

   
   
6. I could go on, but what's the point?

If these folks had a lick of sense, they'd realize that the time for peace ended on September 11, 2001. Our enemy has declared that left up to them, the only peace we'll know is that of the grave. They slaughtered almost 3,000 of our friends and neighbors to make sure we got the message.

Now, whether you agreed with the decision to go into Afghanistan or not; whether you agreed with the decision to go into Iraq or not, anybody not blinded by ideology or politics has to recognize that a unilateral and total withdrawal now would be the absolute worst thing to do. It would directly cause hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths. Even if you think this war was a mistake, a point I do not concede, you can't fix a mistake by making a worse one. Like it or not, the only sane course of action is to see this thing through, to win the fight by helping Iraq establish a secure, stable, representative government, one inimicable to terrorists.

But the peace lovers want to bring all the troops home today, regardless of the consequences. Their pacifism is not about saving lives, or creating a lasting true peace; it's about selfishness, and not wanting to get involved.

Here's 2 questions for the pacifists:

1. Which is worse: that thousands of people die in battle over the next 5 years so that millions live 10 years from now, or saving a few thousand today with the direct result of millions of deaths in a decade?
   
2. When a man looks you dead in the eye and tells you he's going to ambush and kill your family, you have only one decision to make: Kill him now or watch them die. What choice do you make?

For the purposes of this discussion, assume that in question 1 the two groups of deaths are solidly linked. Save the debate about whether the analogy is apt for our current Middle East policy for another time; I'm more interested in the general attitude towards the application of violence, both on an impersonal level, with this question, and a personal level, with the second question. In question 2, realize that trying to go to a default position, ie, "I'd call the police" or some equivalent is a cop-out that will clearly illustrate my point above, that pacifism is essentially selfish bullshit.

You see, in the real world, the safety and welfare of my family is my responsibility, not the state's. It is incumbent on me to ensure their security. The state assists when and where it can, but ask any police officer if they can protect all citizens all the time. Hell, they can't even protect abused spouses with orders of protection and restraining orders. How can I expect them to protect my family against some nebulous threat? I can't. It falls to me.

Also realize that if you default to the police, or some other law enforcement substitute, you are embracing the use of violence, just as long as you don't have to do it yourself. This reveals the essential selfishness of pacificm that I mentioned earlier; most pacifists do not shrink from the use of violence in protection of themselves as long as they don't have to get their own hands dirty doing it. And they're usually very comfortable putting down the police and others who use violence while enjoying the security that they provide.

Posted by Rich at August 17, 2005 2:30 PM | TrackBack