The pacifist crowd is quite curious. While they would have us believe that "violence is never the answer," a great deal of violence is committed in the name of pacifism. The unreported attacks on Miltary Recruiting Offices, University Laboratories, and even home construction by groups espousing pacifism or animal rights is a prime example not only of the violence of pacifists, but the MSM cover-up of their less savory cousins. More often, the pacifist elitists attempt to incite violence through aggressive rhetoric. This is demonstrated in a recent post at This Ain't Hell.
Does anybody remember the outrage about Muslims being murdered in Bosnia? Does anyone remember the outrage that the world stood by and watched the slaughter of Darfur? Who stood up when Iran was raping and murdering Persians in the streets and in college dorms? Tyrants do not care that foreign citizens are outraged or that diplomats publicly protest their atrocities. They notice a bit more when their ports are blocked or sanctions are enforced, but as Saddam and Castro proved, the sanctions may effect their people, but not the largesse of the tyrant. And if a tyrant is willing to abuse his own people, why would he care that they suffer a bit more so he can thumb his nose at the butting in of the world body?
There is a time and place, when violence is the only answer. When psychosis (aka evil) is the only side willing to commit violence, tyranny will reign supreme. A 20th Century rock band may have made popular the words "There is a time for everything," but it was King Solomon in Ecclesiates that wrote the words.
"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:" (King James Version)
"A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to break down, and a time to build up;" Ecclesiastes 3:3
"A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace." Ecc 3:8
There is a time for non-violence. There is little more powerful than a man willing to risk his life by daring the tyrant to kill or maim him. Martin Luther King and Ghandi both showed the power in such a dare. The world opposes the use of brute force against the non-violent. But it also takes the willingness of others to exact retribution for those wrongs.
If only the violence of the Black Panthers and Weather Underground had been the known norm, then Our Nation would have turned against the elements behind it. It was MLK's willingness to boldly reject violence against the threat of violence that won the day. In the end, the Persian non-violent protests for democracy have ended in violent repression, multiple times, by the Iranian tyranny, because no one was willing to violently oppose the tyranny.
In the face of violent tyranny, only the willingness of good men to commit violence will deter it. This is proven time and again the world over. It is as true in combatting the violent gangs of Los Angeles as it is in combatting acid throwing suicide bombers in Afghanistan. Violence in Africa is often committed by the minions of different tyrants attempting to attain power, but it was the realistic threat of violence that put an end to violence in Liberia.
George W Bush parked two ships of Marines off the Librerian coast before issuing an ultimatum to the worst tyrant that nation had ever known. Liberia, embroiled in turmoil since the days of Jimmy Carter, saw peace in days. Within 2 years, they peacefully elected a new President. Soon, they will hold elections again. Had Charles Taylor not believed the United States would send in the Marines, he'd still be in power, unless the continuing violence had installed a more violent dictator, such as his son Chuckie Taylor.
Libya didn't need even that much of a threat of violence to realize the error of their ways. After watching the War On Terror, including the invasion of Iraq, Qaddafi understood the precarious position he was in. He voluntarily gave up his yellow-cake and nuclear program. Iran had held its breath for those few years when America stood ready to commit violence against the violent. Had Congress not undermined the perception, Iran might not be what it is, again, today. Diplomacy is very effective when the realistic threat of violence is the alternative.
But what of the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it really necessary? As we reduce our commitment to do what is necessary in Iraq, violence against civilians rises. In Afghanistan, the impotence of the enemy is seen in reports of greater violence against civilians. On the 19th, we reported 11 more Afghans killed by the enemy. Is that the fault of the murderers? Or those that risk their lives to prevent such murders?
Would that violence cease if we pulled out? Only in small part in some ways. Instead of violence committed by insurgents, it would be violence committed by the government, only it would be a government formed of the insurgents of today. It would be tyranny rather than terrorism. There would be fewer schoolgirls killed by roadside bombs because there would be no schoolgirls. Instead there would be government executions in the public square of women who dared show their hair. Is that better?
I would argue that it is not, as would the majority of Afghans. The majority of Afghans recognize democracy is not perfect, but that it is the best form of government available. The majority of Afghans believe educating women is a good thing. The majority of Afghans are non-violent, but don't have the means to violently oppose the violence of the Taliban.
On the individual level, it is the ability and capability to commit violence that prevents violence. A video of Michael Moore on Rachael Maddow demonstrates what they are trying to argue against. As Moore points out, the more guns in an area, the more safe it is, the fewer crimes, the fewer murders. Conversely, Chicago and DC have the most restrictive gun laws and the highest violent crime rates.
There is "a time to kill" and "a time for war" and that time is when only violence can protect the peaceful from the evil, the tyrant, the psychotic that would rule by violence. There is a difference between the wolf and the sheepdog. The wolf kills for his own gains while the sheepdog stands ready to kill to protect the sheep from death.
Stumble It!
