Objectively Pro-Terrorist Pacifists

During WWII, George Orwell observed that pacifism was objectively pro-fascist because it weakened the war effort and thus was, in its effects, in favor of the other side. Honesty compels us to the same conclusion about some of our fellow countrymen: they are with the terrorists.

There are two wrong ways to react to the terrorist attacks on September 11, neither of which, fortunately, is being pursued by our government so far. One is to create a wider war between the West and Islam, which we would win in the end, but at too high a cost to ourselves. A lesser consideration against it is that it would punish many innocent Middle Easterners. Such a war may ultimately occur, but it's an outcome we should try to avoid. The other is to do too little. Bin Laden probably expected one of these two reactions, either of which would have played into his hands. The first would radicalize relatively moderate Middle Easterners in his direction, and the second would make our nation look weak and increase his prestige. Bush has wisely steered between these two, following a policy of attacking the terrorist and their supporters, but not taking unnecessary action.

Neoconservatives, who've been spoiling for a fight since the end of the Cold War, are supporting the first wrong way. On the other side is a certain pacifistic segment of the Left. Only pacifists can oppose our current actions, because it would be hard to imagine a situation that more justifies a military response than an attack killing thousands of people and biological warfare against the American people. If you don't support action after this, you can never support it. A typical pacifist sentiment was expressed by Alice Walker when she said of bin Laden, "But what would happen to his cool armor if he could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love."

She doesn't understand that they aren't like us. Some of the things Americans consider essential to humanity turn out not to be so: they are alien to Islamic fundamentalists. This fact ought to be evident from the fact that they consider killing innocent people a meritorious act (which in itself destroys her "argument"; she presumes bin Laden shares her moral universe, and he doesn't). Even the non-terrorist Islamic fundamentalists aren't like us. Look, for example, at the way they treat women. In large parts of the Islamic world, they mutilate girls' vaginas to prevent them from having sexual pleasure when they become women. In Islamic fundamentalist countries, even ones on our side, women must have their faces hidden and are often denied education or the right to work. No man who has ever experienced romantic love for a woman could ever tolerate such customs. The Taliban outlawed music. The things that compose our daily lives and our whole life experiences are unknown to them.

The most fundamental problem with pacifism is that it makes no distinction between aggression and defense or retaliation. Pacifism cannot but place a rapist and a woman who kills a would-be rapist on the same moral level. No doubt many, if not most, actual pacifists would never do that, but this is their common sense overcoming their ideological principles. By hampering defense and retaliation, pacifism is always on the side of the aggressor, and as such is fundamentally immoral in its effects. It is an ideology dedicated to making good men do nothing, or at least nothing effectual.

Pacifism means passive victimhood before anyone who cares to assert himself by force. No wonder so many of the same people support gun control. Left unsaid, of course, is how gun control is to be enforced without the use or at least threat of violence. I suppose gun owners are supposed to see the "light" and turn their guns in. This will happen about the same time Osama bin Laden understands the preciousness of the lives he destroyed. Pacifism is dangerously disconnected from the real world; in order to work, everyone would have to abjure any and all violence. There is such a thing as evil in this world, and there are evil people who must be resisted.

Pacifism would do to nations what gun control does to individuals: leave them helpless before masked men with dark intentions.

Is a network leftist simply if they have reports that do indeed have content that is labeled leftist? Or is it their whole philosophy? Someone point me to a news source that
reports everything as it really is, unbiasedly. Anyone out there have a particular news source they always trust?

If a news outlet produces their presentations in such a manner as to reflect the leftist viewpoint, they're leftist. Yes most news outlets do produce leftist presentations on occasion. Where the problem comes in is when that leftist viewpoint excedes 50%. For my taste, it's a problem when they excede 10%, but that's my own taste.

You asked if anyone has a news source they always trust. I don't. I do have sources I trust more than others based on my observances of their past presentations. I try very hard to judge every single news presentation I hear. Even FoxNews and other sources I like slip false statements through. But they are better than the alternatives. CNN is nothing but propaganda most of the time. And if you don't like what they're selling, you're the problem according to them.

Here's an example of story from both viewpoints.

Yesterday the Red Cross warehouse was the victim of US bombing in Kabul. The manager of the facility was angered by the bombing and condemned any nation that would do such a thing. "The Red Cross is a humanitarian agency, and should be out of bounds for such attacks", he stated. Local Taliban officials sited this as still another example of United States sponsored terrorism. Local families lives were disrupted and joined in the condemnation of the United States' actions.

Yesterday the Red Cross warehouse was struck by US bombs during the night. There was no loss of life. The manager of the facility was angered by the bombing and condemned any nation that would do such a thing. "The Red Cross is a humanitarian agency, and should be out of bounds for such attacks" he stated. Local Taliban officials and neighbors of the facility joined in the condemnation. The Taliban stated that this was another example of US sponsored terrorism. When reached for comment US officials noted that the Red Cross warehouse facilities were being used to store Taliban weapons. As such they considered the warehouse to be a bonified military target.

They can give the leftist viewpoint as long as they balance it off. Some news sources seldom do. One of my favorites is the newspaper article that gives a false headline trashing the US or a conservative viewpoint, then during the last couple of sentences of the article, reveals the real truth. This happens all the time. There's an example on the forum right now.

I've served in the military. I'm currently in the process of recruitment for the Rockford Police Department (and on a slightly different note that may interest you, I'm taking the testing this Friday for the NIU Police). It would be difficult to call me a pacifist for these reasons.

I'm not opposed to wars for the right reasons and I would have to agree that having four jetliners hijacked and intentionally crashed into buildings would constitute the right reasons. But (you knew it was coming), I still reserve my right to feel uncomfortable about bombing targets in a nation where culpability has yet to be established. Unlike many Freepers, I didn't stop questioning the government and its motives when an R was elected instead of a D. I still maintain that there is precious little difference where the important things are concerned. Maybe Afghanistan is the right target, maybe not. Maybe it's about getting bin Laden, maybe it's about oil. I haven't seen enough evidence from our intelligence community to be sure either way.

Sure it feels good that we're doing something, but I won't just assume that it's the right thing just because I'm told that it is. The federal government doesn't have much of a track record to leave me feeling assured.

A lesser consideration against it is that it would punish many innocent Middle Easterners. A lesser consideration? Innocent human lives are a lesser consideration than cost? These things struck me right off. Back later.... -- tex-oma

The government's purpose is to protect innocent Americans, so that's the highest consideration. Of course innocent lives, of any nationality, are more important than monetary cost. -- tex-oma

I agree with, and will here amplify, Aaron's point:

In the prosecution of a Just War (the analysis herein naturally depends upon the War in question being a Just War of retaliatory defense), the State's priorities are as follows:

1.) The Lives of domestic Civilians (Principle of Covenant)
2.) The Lives of domestic Soldiers (Principle of Covenant)

3.) The Lives of enemy Civilians (Principle of Charity)
4.) The Lives of enemy Soldiers (Principle of Charity)

These priorities are ordered thusly, not on the basis of any disparity in the values of the respectives Lives (life = life = life = life, period), but on the basis of a disparity of respective Duty. State is Covenanted to provide the defense of the Lives and Rights of its Citizens -- indeed, that is its only legitimate reason to exist.

In Wartime, State's first duty is to protect the lives of its domestic Civilians -- if necessary, at the cost of its domestic Soldiers. This is certainly NOT because the life of a Soldier is worth "less" than the life of a Civilian -- it is simply because the defense of Civilians is what the Soldier signed up for, i.e., Covenanted (for which our Soldiers deserve the citizenry's unflagging honor and respect -- and the citizenry's determination NOT to send these covenanted warriors off to fight in various foreign wars - Kosovo, anyone? - which have nothing whatsoever to do with the citizenry's defense).
State's second duty is to protect the Lives of its own Soldiers, if necessary at the cost of the lives of enemy Civilians. This is, again, not because the lives of the enemy are worth less, but simply because the Soldier, while a covenanted warrior for his own citizens, is still a Citizen, and therefore a party to the Covenant of State himself. The enemy civilian is not a party to the Covenant of our State, hence they do not enjoy the protection which our Covenant of State extends to the Lives of its Citizens (both civilian and soldier). If killing enemy civilians will save the lives of Citizen Soldiers, then State must prefer the killing of enemy civilians to the loss of its own Soldiers. Why? Simply this -- State is Covenanted to defend the lives of its Citizens; and Soldiers, while they are covenanted warriors, are Citizens of that State Covenant nonetheless - and the enemy civilians are not.
State's third duty, if performance of such duty does not interfere with the defense of its own civilians and soldiers, is to minimize civilian casaulties among the enemy. Why? Because if the same Just Retaliatory Objective may be accomplished by the killing of 1,000 enemy civilians, or 10,000 enemy civilians, then accomplishing the objective with the killing of "only" 1,000 enemy civilians is simply the morally charitable and righteous thing to do. Provided that State is first performing its duty to defend the lives of its own civilians and soldiers, it may then (indeed, should) extend Charity in the killing of as few enemy civilians as will accomplish the Just Retaliatory Objective.
Lastly, if the same Just Retaliatory Objective may be accomplished by the killing of 1,000 enemy soldiers, or 10,000 enemy soldiers, then accomplishing the objective with the killing of "only" 1,000 enemy soldiers is, in like manner, simply the morally charitable and righteous thing to do.

All the foregoing is predicated upon a simple maxim -- Covenanted Duties must be performed prior to the extension of Charity. The State has a Moral duty to every single life of its Covenanted Citizens before it has a Moral duty to even a million lives of its enemies -- period.

If I owe tex-oma $1,000 dollars, and I see A.J. Armitage starving and destitute for want of $100 to food and shelter, my first duty is to repay tex-oma the $1,000 which I owe. It does not matter how much I may wish to extend Charity to AJ; that money is not mine to give (unless, God willing, tex-oma should release me from my debt to perform Charity). Likewise, State's first duty is the Defense of its Covenanted Citizens; State does not even have the moral option of extending Charity to the enemy in War unless its duty in this regard is fulfilled. (For the same reason, all Foreign Aid is illegitimate -- no matter how Charitable, State has the primary duty not to tax even one dollar away from a single taxpayer for any duties other than those it is Covenanted to perform.)

A codicil to points #3 and #4 must here be stated -- the "Brutal Peace" codicil. IF State is reasonably confident that a brutal attack (even one of horrific brutality) against 10,000 enemy soldiers or even enemy civilians will so completely demoralize the enemy that a rapid peace will thereafter be acheived -- saving the lives of its Citizens (and, perhaps, many enemy lives also), then the brutal attack is not a "necessary evil", but rather a moral necessity to the performance of its primary duty to secure the defense and Peace of its own citizenry. While I would not class the fire-bombing of Dresden (which was a completely wanton and sadistic orgy of slaughter having no redeeming value, IMHO) among this sort of action, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima -- given the uncertainty of Japanese surrender prior to that action -- arguably fits the bill. (Nagasaki, OTOH, was probably unnecessary, historically speaking. But, hindsight is 20/20).

As always, IMHO.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.