Exactly What Would Justify War To The Pacifist Hordes

by Casey | Sep 27, 2011 | Blog, Featured

I’ve often asked this question in my writings and on my show. Most often, in discussions with the ignorant about Saddam being the innocent victim of Bush/Cheney aggression.

No clear answer has been given by pacifists to the question: “What would justify war?”

The pacifist hordes often give conflicting answers.  For example, Ron Paul (who claims a form of pacifism) was interviewed by John Stossel in 2007, and was asked what would justify a war.

If you’re attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

That sounds nice, but I found Paul’s answer interesting, and vague.  What constitutes an attack?  Is it on your property, your citizens, or must it be within your national borders?  Pacifists have been unable to clarify this position for me over the years.

What does this have to do with Iraq, and my greater point later?

Before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam was repeatedly ‘attacking’ the US and her allies in a little discussed conflict in the no fly zones.  Yet Ron Paul, and others, have frequently said that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq.  So … shooting/attacking US citizens, and destroying US property is not an attack?

I’m of a different viewpoint, and my training to invade Iraq under Clinton proved that even Slick Willy agreed with me.

So why bring this up now?  Iraq was a resounding success, and Saddam is dead.  Because we may be heading for another war.

Tensions have been rising with Pakistan for years.  The killing of Osama bin Laden only catapulted those tensions to the mainstream.  During the aftermath of that operation, we clearly learned that Pakistan is no friend of the US. Yet, something far worse was kept from us.

NY Times:

A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.

Yep.  Ambushed by the Pakistanis … ahem … allegedly.

Maj. Larry J. Bauguess lost his life in the attack.

This blatant act of war was covered up by both the Pakistanis and Washington.  In fact, Pakistan has been well-known to retaliate for collateral damage by US forces with open attacks on US personnel.

Some will blame America for the incident, and say that Pakistan was just retaliating for their losses.  An interesting point, albeit one that ignores Pakistan’s hindering our intelligence, and often openly helping the enemy against us.

Then there’s Iran.  We know they are sending weapons across the border into Iraq to help kill Americans.  There have even been clashes with US and Iranian military forces.  Something that was also kept quiet, and has happened more than once.

Right about now someone will say that none of this would happen if we weren’t there to begin with, so we are still the aggressor.  That’s about as intelligent as inviting someone over for dinner, and then calling them a burglar.

Am I calling for war with Pakistan or Iran?  No.

Were those two incidents justification for war in my opinion?  Yes.

I’m saddened that neither party has an option for president that touts legit military credentials.  We have, after all, been at war for a decade with no truly experienced military veteran in the White House.  Going forward, we may not have an option for peace either.  It makes me wonder … how different things would be if a competent military commander were also sitting in the White House.

Related articles

• What is contingent pacifism (wiki.answers.com)
• Pakistanis Tied to 2007 Border Ambush on Americans (nytimes.com)
• Report: Pakistan behind deadly 2007 ambush (cbsnews.com)
• Pacifist Indiana college picks anthem replacement (wilderside.wordpress.com)
• What Progressives Fail to Understand: This Is War (The Left plans their attack on us) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)