the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

If this condition is to be met, no nation could ever defend itself properly.  History shows that rolling over with little resistance–generally, though not always–will garner mercy and goodwill from the aggressor.  However, defense and war against the aggressor means violence which intensifies and escalates the longer the conflicted is protracted.  Rules of engagement get ignored, “human rights” become less important to each side, and the body count keeps rising.

War is hell.  Anytime a people decide to go to war they decide to multiply violence and death–that’s the only effective way to fight a war.  There is no such thing as a nice war, a pleasant war.  War is no time for picnics.  War is gruesome and bloody and produces evils and disorders even greater than the real prospective evil imposed by an aggressor.

No war is worth fighting if a nation is unwilling to escalate conflict to the point of inflicting destruction, pain, and death greater than what could possibly be inflicted upon itself.  That’s why this doctrine fails–in theory and, more importantly, in practice.

This is the purpose of war.


Policing the World

February 10, 2012

It’s interesting that people generally have good relationships with the grocer but not with the taxman.  Why is it some people are willing to give away 8% of their income each week to a pastor but feel stolen from when they see Social Security withheld from their paycheck?  The government seems to get such a bad rap with citizens when it throws its weight around.

But why is it citizens think people in other countries would react differently when the same government throws its weight around and affects non-citizens?  If you don’t like it when the government intrudes on your life and you are a citizen, why would you think a non-citizen enjoys your government’s intrusion in his life?  If it’s good enough for the goose, why is it not good enough for the gander?

And why wouldn’t it be better for a nation to cultivate mutually friendly relationships with other countries?  Like the type of relationship you have with a sales associate or a clerk.  Why flash force when there is no need?

From John Stossel:

It’s said that when goods don’t cross borders, armies will. There’s plenty of evidence to support that. A report funded by European governments says armed conflict in Muslim countries is far lower today than it was two decades ago. A reason? Trade.

Richard Cobden, a 19th-century British liberal statesman, said, “The progress of freedom depends more upon the maintenance of peace, the spread of commerce and the diffusion of education than upon the labors of Cabinets or foreign offices.”

I agree. American music and consumer goods did more to bring down the Berlin Wall than our military did.

Americans need to rethink foreign policy.  Warfare has changed too much to say having the most powerful military means anything.  It costs too much to maintain and the military-industrial complex will only demand more war to make more money.  And it just doesn’t make sense when you cast our national behavior in everyday terms.

Teddy Roosevelt never said, “Speak loudly while beating everyone with a big stick.”

Visionary or Reactionary?

February 4, 2012

An interesting question about Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Given the amount of debt the U.S.A. has racked up spending on military, this seems like a fair question.  However, I believe it is easily answered because of his message.

Ron Paul consistently speaks about the Constitution’s limits on the federal government’s power concerning foreign affairs.  This doctrine of “isolationism” (really, military isolationism) is not popular among Republicans for some reason which puzzles me–most Republicans are against “baby-killing”, so why be so eager to commit “adult-killing”?  Ron Paul is the only person in politics (that I know of, so that’s not saying much) who bases his policies in interpretations of the Constitution.  To me, this makes him almost as visionary as the envisioners and creators of the Constitution.  Question answered.

To go even further, keep in mind the Framers themselves were reactionary.  Oppression is something which people should react to.  Oppression is something which should be replaced by the vision of liberty.  Visions often come as a result of reactions.  It makes sense that something which makes us challenge the status quo is the same thing which makes us expand our minds and hearts.