On bringing a pen to a gunfight
Ralph Peters knows that in any battle between a mere pen and a ruthless sword, the sword will win, despite the proverb to the contrary:
Billions of words have been hurled at Sudan’s government. The misery in Darfur not only continues but deepens. While intellectuals wrestled with compound sentences, Darfur degenerated from selective oppression to savage anarchy.
Yes, despite all those fine words that make writers feel good about themselves, the carnage will continue when the offenders don’t give a hoot about public opinion.
Peters, of course, is a writer himself (although a retired military man). But despite his current occupation as wordsmith, at least he recognizes (as I do) that words are seldom enough. Sometimes words can help galvanize a worldwide effort at sanctions—as in the case of South Africa—that over the long haul lead to change. That wouldn’t tend to work in a situation like that in the Sudan; South Africa dealt more in social, economic, and political repression than “savage anarchy.”
I’ve written before on the subject of the “war is not the answer” crowd. I’ll repeat now what I wrote then:
I’ve spent some time puzzling over the use of the “war is not the answer” mantra. For some people””the less thoughtful””I think it’s merely a kneejerk catch phrase, a method to decorate a car in a way that says, “I’m a good person, not a bloodthirsty sonofabitch like those who advocate war.” This group (and I have no idea what percentage of the whole it might represent) has no particular understanding of history, especially the history of warfare, and no real thought about the limitations of the perfectibility of human nature.
And then there are those who really don’t have much interest in pacifism, but have an ultra-Leftist political agenda that an alliance with pacifists serves. These people see pacifists as a subset of the category “useful idiots” that they’ve found so very helpful over time.
That leaves us with the third category, the one that interests me most, the committed and relatively thoughtful and well-meaning people who sustain a hope that, although war will sometimes happen, they can promote a set of programs that will lead to a world in which war will be resorted to less and less. I will summarize their position by saying that, although they understand that war sometimes has provided short-term answers to certain questions (such as the one posited above about the Third Reich), it has never provided a long-term answer to the problem of human intra-species aggression on a large scale, and each war has introduced new problems in its wake that lead to further war.
In other words, when members of this third group say “War is not the answer” their accent is on the word “the.” War isn’t not the final answer to the problems of human conflict, and although it may appear to solve some things, other problems are bound to arise that will lead to future wars.
Well, excuse me but: duh. Or to put it more politely: there are no solutions to the problem of human conflict that will eliminate the need for force at times, just as there are virtually no large-scale societies that can do away with police or prisons.
A penman can beat a swordman in a fight. But, the penman has to be super fast and have very good hand eye coordination.
It’s all about the surprise attack, rabid closing of distance, getting inside the swordman’s guard and delivering a devastating first strike. Often, it’s the eyeball or the throat that are targeted in such conflicts.
With gunmen though, an entirely different skill set is required. Penmen in such situations must rely on stealth and be very adept at various ambush techniques. Closing the distance on a gunman when armed with only a pen is always problematic. Success often relies more on the gunman’s lack of skill in his weapon, than on the penman’s abilities. It is, therefore, better to allow the gunman to wander into range for a first, sudden, strike before he’s even aware the penman is set against him.
Back to a contributive framing of thinking, here a very poignant exposé on Darfur — note I borrowed neo’s quote from Peters:
Christopher Hitchens gives anti war lobby a taste of its own::: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhwgQ2HoF0
Ralph Peters is looking at the bright side. Often, the intellectuals are using the power of their pens to prop up the oppressors: Walter Duranty supported Stalin; Anthony Lewis of the NYT (and others) supported Mugabe long after it was clear where he was headed, and Leftist intellectuals today rally around Hugo Chavez.
“Reason will not decide at last; the sword will decide.”
— Robinson Jeffers
Contemplation Of The Sword
The pen was never mightier than the sword. Without the sword the pen exuded just so much hot air and little else.
I suggest that those who actually believe this drivel try writing a note to the thug or terrorist who is about to rob or kill you.
It still amazes me how anyone who has lived life can believe such twaddle after watching the news or seeing the death and destruction utilized by those who desire power over others.
Hitch is good. Jeez, he’s good. Good on his feet.
Okay. War is not the answer. What is the question?
Problem is, conflict could be likened to bridge with violence as trump. If the opponent goes to trump, you overtrump him or you lose.
What cosmic force will stop an opponent who wants something badly enough that he’s willing to go to trump?
There is nothing conceivable except the extinction of mankind.
Therefore, we will be, sooner or later, faced with the choice of overtrumping or losing.
Those who are prepared to overtrump may find their opponents less willing to escalate. It’s a lot simpler to go to war with somebody whom you know will not fight.
I think the urban/suburban bumpersticker crowd are just as neo described; describing themselves to all as morally superior. Their ability to face the actual facts of the issue is not the issue. It suffices merely to boast.
Unfortunately, to complete the deception they must deceive themselves, which requires political participation against war, which is to say, to weaken the democracies vis a vis the tyrannies. And sleep the sleep of those who know, in their heart of hearts, that the sheepdogs will keep up their rounds no matter what.
You know, I can’t begin to describe my disgust with these so-called civilized people. Not even close.
Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But words will never….
If you can get into reasonable discussion with a ‘war is not the answer’ type, just ask them if they think perhaps Ghandi might have thought this through a bit more than they have. Of course, they will agree. Then point them to Ghandi’s “Doctrine of the Sword”. If you can watch them read it, do- and be ready to catch them when they read Ghandi saying:
“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”
They’ll practically fall out of their chair.
The only efficient measure against anarchy is military occupation lasting long enough to allow entrenching of completely another civil culture, which usually means ascend to power of new generation of leaders and citizen. For Africa this mean at least temporary re-colonization by white people. In some parts of this unfortunate continent even its native population begins to understand this. Recently my friend, a geologist, returned from Sierra Leone, one of the poorest countries on Earth. He was astonished by a very warm welcome his team got there from people on the streets and in remotest jungle willages, and especially by the reason for this reception: they were welcomed simly for being white. This country was a battlefield for unspeakably savage and brutal tribal war that ravaged for ten years, with a lot massacre, rape, slavery, compulsive recruitment of ten-year old boys as soldiers, cannibalism and so on. Than, at last, UN took an action, formally international, but really manned mostly by British and Australian troops, who disarmed and dissolved tribal militias, stopped the war and restored civil order. A lot of other restoration and reconstruction efforts also followed. Former rebels got a work as cab drivers, construction workers and civil servants; newly formed police force was not armed at all, except for umbrellas and sun glasses as signs of their status – and this was enough to keep order. This rare example of meaningfull and successful UN action was severely underreported, while all attention was engrossed to Bosnia war and Kosovo. I get to know about it by chance, accidently meeting old friend on the street. Hardly many people in the West ever heard of it.
“Pale Ebeneezer thought it wrong to fight.
But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.”
–Hillaire Belloc
And as Robert Heinlein once pointed out, if you think violence never settles anything, ask yourself why you can’t spend your summer vacation in Carthage (the one in Africa, not the one in Missouri).
“Reason will not decide at last; the sword will decide.” That’s why Reason should have a Sword; the biggest and best.
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue–and thoroughly immoral– doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The Ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more disputes in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”
-Robert Heinlein
“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay–and claims a halo for his
dishonesty.”
“John Joseph Bonforte” in Double Star
-Robert A. Heinlein
“Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than
for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi.”
-George Orwell
Pacifism only works if you’re dealing with opposition that has a conscience. If they don’t, and have the means and will to dominate, they shall do so.
That’s why Reason should have a Sword; the biggest and best.
Yes, and? a sword is just a tool. If Reason hasn’t got the means to wield it (say a functional arm) or the will to use it, having a sword is worse than useless. Someone will come along, take the sword, and chop off Reason’s arms.
(h/t to von Clauswitz)
“The pen is mightier than the sword” is perhaps a fair statement when speaking within civilized societies. Perhaps even when speaking between disparate, but basically rational societies.
The pen can frustrate and neutralize the sword. We have seen in Europe and in the United States that those who wield the pen (or more accurately the modern equivalent, i.e. the TV camera) can ensnare the sword and make it impotent. The years 1968 through 1990 illustrate that power. The pen and the sword have waged a mighty struggle between 2003 and 2008. To this point, the sword has held its own in the U.S., although it has been essentially neutered in Europe.
The error, and it is a very dangerous one, is to believe that the pen can overcome that sword which is wielded by the true barbarian. Unfortunately, there are people who aspire to leadership and apparently suffer under that delusion.
As one of the people who believes the history of war leads to a dead end, let me point out a few facts:
1) Most of what we call war planning over the past fifty years has consisted of what Gwynne Dyer rightly calls desperate attempts to preserve “conventional” war, because a real war would go nuclear, and that would end civilization. The converse holds: the willingness of countries with large armies to coerce smaller and weaker countries drives the logic of proliferation; countries whose leaders see themselves at risk (cf. Iran) know that developing nuclear weapons will make their enemies cautious.
2) The special problems nuclear weapons pose in relation to war and terror only illustrate a larger principle: as our civilization grows more diverse, and specialized, the destructive power available to each individual increases, as the ability of a society to resist disruption decreases.
3) Over the past sixty years, non-violence has a much better record at resolving conflict and removing tyrannies than violence. South Africa, USSR (and Central Europe)… the list goes on. And in occupied Europe, non-violent resistance achieved most of the successes at saving people from the Nazi machinery of genocide.
4) Heinlein’s arguments about Carthage ignore what the Punic Wars set in motion: the end of the Roman Republic. Heinlein trades here on a basic confusion about the English word “settled”; the Punic wars did bring the careers of the involved parties to a close, as the passage of time would have 20 centuries ago anyhow. But the word settled tends to imply a satisfactory conclusion for at least one party. I doubt that Cato, who called for the destruction of Carthage with every speech, intended to bring about the destruction of the republic.
5) In 1944, Orwell retracted the “objectively pro-Nazi” charge, and admitted it involved a bad form of argument.
6) Most of us who believe in non-violence know of Ghandi’s preference for violence over cowardice and dishonor. Nor do those of us who believe in non-violence consider it an easy or risk-free way to deal with conflicts. When Ron Sider challenged the Peace Churches to live up to their creed of non-violence, he told them Christians might have to “die by the thousands.”
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” – Ayatollah Khomeini
Good luck John
Vince P: If you mean to make a theological argument, I don’t follow Islamic Jihad teachings; as a Christian, I follow the call to peacemaking given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. If you mean to inform me that people out there use and believe in violence, I knew that already. As I pointed out, non-violence has succeeded against people much more committed to violence than the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and many who used violence more effectively than he did.
If you want to make an argument that takes into account my actual points, feel free to do so.
I’m making a practical argument. Islam teaches violence against Non-Muslims… your ignorant know-nothing do-nothing “advice” is suicidal.
What you call a “practical argument” appears to contain nothing more than a repetition of the claim that some Muslims behave violently. Some Muslims think their doctrines allow or even command violence. So do some Christians, some Jews, some Hindus, and some socialists. I knew all that. I think most of us know it.
A huge amount of history refutes your characterization of non-violence as “know nothing do nothing”. Non-violence in the Christian and Jewish traditions runs from the beginning of active non-violent practise in the Hebrew scriptures, through the Sermon on the Mount, Praxis Apostolian and the early Christian Church, and into the twentieth century, where people of all faiths, armed with nothing more than courage of heart and strength of mind, successfully defied some of the most powerful and brutal regimes in history.
You don’t have to learn this history, but endlessly repeating old news, such as the tautology that violent people behave violently, does not make for a convincing argument. Nor does ignoring the volumes of literature of the practise of non-violence by calling it “do-nothing” make for either a cogent case or a useful method of action.
This has particular relevance in the current situation. Almost all of us consider a nuclear-armed theocracy in Iran a bad thing; bad for the Iranians and bad for everyone else. But it also seems quite clear that if the governments concerned can imagine only a violent solution, they will do nothing, because the risks associated with violence simply carry too high a price. Neither Israel nor the US has agreed to pay that price for the past five years. I doubt the situation will change now that the Republican party faces an election and a public tired and disgusted with the war they have. At this point, the evidence suggests that the violent solution to Iranian nuclear proliferation has probably failed. This means that unless we find a non-violent approach that works, we and the Iranians will have to live with a nuclear-armed theocracy.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Because if you did you wouldn’t use the behavior of Christians or Jews in order to explain what Muslims would do.
Iran must be bombed into submission , or they will strike first.
If you really believe that Muslims have a sui generis form of hate, intolerance, and irrationality, you had better resign yourself to the end of civilization, because a Muslim country (Pakistan) already has nuclear weapons.
Thank you Captian Obvious.
Like I need lessons from you. Go back to your smoke circle.
If you want some source material on the radical proposition that Muslims have the ability to behave with tolerance and generosity, read this or this.
By the way, I find personal attacks neither impressive nor intimidating.
For anyone who does not yet understand that most of us committed to non-violence understand the stakes, and the realities, this source may prove helpful.
John Spragge thinks he can negoioate with this:
Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.
The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” — the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”
The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.
John ignores what they say because they’re religious. He refuses to take them at their word and insists his suicidal pacificism is something that impresses Muslims.
Muslims are only impressed by self-confidence and projection of power.
No, I believe we can negotiate with the majority of Iranians, who have no interest in the dreams of people such as Hassan Abbasi, and who, in the most recent elections, appear to have swung their support back to the centre. I believe we should at least consider negotiating with Iran’s business class, which evidence I have posted before suggests may have gone tired of a limited and highly statist economy.
A permanent state economy and fantasies of world power may appeal to Hassan Abbasi, but according to all of the indicators, the vast majority of Iranians, particularly young Iranians, don’t share his opinions. Likewise, I seriously doubt Ghandi thought he could negotiate with an individual such as General Dyer, but he understood that he could reach past the leaders to the British people.
By the way, providing cites helps your case; making assumptions about the one thing you can’t know, the way someone else thinks, does not.
This puts it even better than I could:
It seems pretty clear that using military force against Iran won’t work. It seems equally clear that, while neither we as individuals nor our political leaders can expect to negotiate with the hard men in power in Tehran. But we have a lot of evidence to suggest the majority of Iranians do not support those hard men.
So you have a choice: you can complain that your government, your military, your politicians won’t use the force their own prudence prevents them from using. Or you can embrace a non-violent solution, which means you can do something. A mass movement toward a citizen’s dialogue, with millions of people from the West supporting the desire of the Iranian people for more freedom; individuals would not have to wait for our governments to do that. Whatever your problems with that proposal, it makes more sense than cursing the government for not bombing
Neo wrote:
In 1760, slave-owners and their supporters could just as easily have written that no solutions to the problem of allocating labour power would eliminate the need for compulsion. Then came William Wilberforce, Ottobah Cugoano, Olaudah Equiano and many others, and the world changed.
People will never stop exploiting one another, just as people will never fully get rid of our aggression. But the abolition of slavery showed clearly, and for the first time, that people could make a collective choice, to renounce violence and exploitation in our institutions. Today, thanks to the anti-slavery movement, virtually the whole world recognises the slaver as a criminal. After Kellogg-Briand and Nuremberg, the laws recognise the criminality of using the violence of war as anything but the absolute last resort. Thanks to a long line of heroes, we know we have alternatives to violence. And we also know that we cannot continue to wage wars in a society where our wealth, and perhaps our survival, depend on cooperation.