Everyone says they want peace; the United Nations, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, CAIR, you name it. It is universal.
During my youth, people would flash the victory sign of WWII but say "peace". The peace sign was everywhere, young people liked sewing peace-sign patches on holes in their blue jeans. My point is that peace has universal appeal and is espoused by practically everyone. Since it is such a widespread ideal, why is it so hard to possess?
On a national level, it appears that the only way to a lasting peace is through decisive military victory. One of the opposing sides must defeat the other. The result is a period of peace. One only need to look at the results of WWII to see what I mean. The Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan are now some of our closest allies. Enemies from 60 years ago are now our friends. Not a one of them has threatened the USA. But the period of peace came with a transition. Vietnam was a decisive military victory for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. It has brought with it a relative period of peace.
By contrast, in the absence of a decisive military victory, we have no real peace. Look at Korea for example. That stalemate still haunts us today.
No matter how careful we are, civilians get caught up in the fighting. War is hell. No doubt about it.
Do we really want peace? Then prepare yourself for the decisive military victory!
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Peace
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have always felt strongly that the only way any nation can have peace is to be just too dadgum gruesome, horrifying, and dangerous to attack. The perceived price has to be way too high for any enemy.
"it appears that the only way to a lasting peace is through decisive military victory."
Like destroying Fallujah to save it.
Post a Comment