The only true "purists," I believe, are pacifists, and I'm not sure that anyone who has contributed to Balkinization takes such a position. Everyone else is necessarily implicated in what Harry Blackmun once so memorably called "the machinery of death," and we have to figure out where we draw our lines.
-- Sandy Levinson
I am currently reading War: The Lethal Custom by Gwynne Dyer which supplies a history of war until the presence with many pictures and quotes from the ages. It is depressing in its consistency suggesting a biological origin (if not necessarily a mandate) for our war-like ways. The book also furthers my sentiment that the often thinly dismissive talk of "pacifists" (obviously a minimal force not worth considered as significant to determine public policy) is a bit too ... dismissive. There is a certain insanity in the "accepted" path of war.
How else can we speak of a field in which it is far from surprising for tens of thousands of men (not to speak of civilians, in the long run especially) being killed in one day for little net gain in the long run. As a person who studied the Civil War a bit more than some, that too starts to seem insane rather fast -- especially if one looks at it from the South's p.o.v. after Gettysburg (surely after the 1864 elections), during which a not insignificant number of the million or so death fell ... this after only a fantasy view would assume the South would actually win. Think of the thousands who died in 1865 alone, clearly pointlessly, given there was not a shot in hell (though hell continued to befall many) that the South would win by that point. "Honor" or the like seems like a rather paltry reason to continue -- especially after the horrors of Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Cold Harbor.
By the end, even slavery was seen as doomed in the Confederacy by the most reasonable sorts. But, one might say, war is unreasonable. It seems not to be -- that is, over the long haul, there is assumed to be some reason to submit to the efforts required to inflict war on each other. Irrational emotions surely factor in, but we assume there is some reason involved, except perhaps in various cases when "they" do something. Thus, Saddam Hussein had a reason for invading Kuwait, even if his judgment was questionable. Al Qaeda uses strategy to further their ends -- they don't just kill willy-nilly, even if some claim otherwise. And, so forth. Nonetheless, there is clearly something irrational about war, or at the very least, the cost/benefit rationale is surely debatable.
We deal with smaller numbers these days, but luckily, time has increased our respect for life ... or rather, our unwillingness to accept its destruction. It all seems relative on some level, and is aided by advances in medicine, but even the death toll in Vietnam -- on our side relatively small -- is deemed as unreasonable this time around. We have a couple thousand deaths and perhaps a tenfold more (or more, tossing in psychological ... plenty more probably) injuries of various sorts and it's too much ... this doesn't even factor in the other side, which assumingly matters to some degree. Is this -- which in 2003 simply was not a shocking development [I took part in the online debates] -- really rational?
Are we to patronizingly mention "pacifists" in passing, as if they are the dreamy idealists, when "limited" war (or whatever you wish to call it) leads to this? It is like those who support the invasion in 2003 "if" ... this is the "and a pony" philosophy Atrios and others rightly sneer at. I honestly do not think the human race is ready for pacifism, but the dismissing tone underlines how little is done to seriously address the threat of war. Just consider a passing comment in the book on how conflicts linger -- before they get too far militarily, some ceasefire is proposed by the U.N., making a long term bloody loss of life unlikely. This is messy, but not in the blood and guts way of the past -- not anywhere near as much, at least. But, the U.N. is sneered at ... they are useless sorts. Of course, the U.S. cannot take a bigger role ... we need to Boltonlike take the unilateral approach.
I sneer at that. That deserves the patronizing tone supplied to it -- the general tone that should be given to those who support this administration and its overall policies (this goes far beyond them or even their party, thus former NYC mayor Ed Koch [D] is a co-promoter of a fund raiser for Joey along with our current one [R]) -- we really should not take what they say seriously. They have gone far beyond that though obviously we have to take them seriously to the degree they have power. But, actually assuming they are rational policy-makers ... not so much.
If you were to pick the single greatest hypocrisy of the Bush Presidency, wouldn't it have to be this: that the man who ostentatiously claims Jesus as his favorite philosopher (he of "do unto others as ye would have them do unto you" fame) would say, in all seriousness, "Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. "What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity'?"
-- TPM Reader
Blessed be the peacemakers.