Even the news media has refrained from calling those who strap explosives to themselves and detonate them suicide bombers and now call them homicide bombers as if the person wearing the explosive vest survived his own insanity. When Hamas commits an act of war against Israel and Israel responds, the world cries foul on Israel and offers comfort to the terrorists. It would seem that those who aspire to pacifism have forgotten one cardinal rule of humanity: some people just need killing.
There is no amount of reason or diplomacy that will stop a bullet from reaching its target. Therefore, it is the will that must be broken because it is the will that launches that round downrange. That is the sole reason for the use of violence, to break the will. If someone attacks you do you try to reason with that person while they are pummeling you or do you ball up your fist and punch them in the nose in order to convince them that it is a poor course of action to attack you? Because if you do not convince them quickly of their error, you are at the mercy of your attacker and those who have been on the receiving end of such a beating will tell you it is not pleasant.
Here in the U.S. the courts have ruled that public law enforcement has no responsibility to protect any individual, but to protect the general public at large. This leaves the responsibility for self defense squarely on the shoulders of the individual. Yet the individual is discouraged from defending himself at every opportunity. This does not create a more peaceful society, but rather a society of willing victims. Yet those who assiduously seek to disarm the American people do not seem to care if they are creating a flock of lambs to be led to the slaughter.
Irrespective of whether the fight is personal or international, if the will must be broken to preserve the state or the individual then violence is the only answer. For if that stage is reached, then diplomacy and reason has already failed and only two choices remain: surrender or fight.
If we choose surrender, then we must ask ourselves why it is the better response. Are we surrendering because our preservation is not necessary? Is it because we deserve what we are going to get? Is it because we cannot defend ourselves effectively? Or is it because life is so precious that there is nothing worth dying for? As Ronald Reagan once asked of the last question, if that is true then when did that happen? (See video posted below – Reagan’s Rendezvous with Destiny) What if we felt that way during the time of the Revolutionary War or the Europeans felt that way when they faced down the Muslims at the battle of Tours? History would have been changed and the world would be very different.
Laser guided munitions, strategic weapons, and carpet bombing of cities all have their place, but breaking your back and exposing your troops so that you can avoid or minimize civilian casualties is stupid. If the enemy has moved artillery into a residential neighborhood those targets should be engaged. If the enemy retreats to a hospital to continue combat, the hospital now becomes a target. If we can avoid or minimize civilian casualties while engaging such targets then great, if not, we did not make the residential area or hospital the target, the enemy did. By avoiding such targets we do not break the will of the enemy, but encourage him to use more human shields and to continue his resistance prolonging the conflict and increasing civilian casualties.
When violence is applied with maximum alacrity and force, the conflict will resolve quickly minimizing casualties on both sides. Long, protracted conflicts increase casualties and move rapidly toward stalemate. During Operation Desert Storm, the Iraqis bunkered down in trenches hoping to achieve such a stalemate. The use of earth moving equipment buried hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers alive and neutralized the Iraqi defenses quickly putting enemy forces on the run where they could be captured rather than killed. The combat was short and casualties were kept to a minimum because of the correct use of violence.
Where the “peace at any price” crowd consistently fails to achieve results is in the Tibet region. For decades I have seen the peaceniks place “Free Tibet” bumper stickers on their vehicles, hold rallies, concerts, speaking engagements, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and yet Tibet is not free. Despite decades of giving peace a chance, they have failed miserably in their goal. Had they organized an army, armed themselves and the Tibetans, the goal could have a chance of actually happening. Instead, their dogged adherence to their hopes and dreams has produced nothing except fodder for punch lines. Yet these people still listen to the Grateful Dead, smoke dope, and sing Kumbaya while they fervently hope that their good wishes actually frees the people of Tibet.
By acknowledging that violence is a necessity and has a place in human interactions, we confirm that there are bad people who actually deserve the act of violence. Violence is not in and of itself evil or bad. It is the intent behind the violence that makes it use good or bad. If the intent is to victimize, abuse, or deprive another of their rightful possessions, then the use of violence would be bad. If violence is used to defend, protect, or prevent a crime, then the use of violence is good. For far too long has there been 64 million shades of gray defining morality in human interactions. If we return to just right and wrong, the judgment of such actions will once again become clear and maybe when there is a fight at school, only the aggressor will be punished rather than to also suspend the victim for defending himself. I believe that the world has had its fill of appeasement and now needs a far more direct approach for the miscreants that seek to victimize others.
** Note: The photo accompanying this article is that of the corpse of Che Guevara who richly deserved what he got