As a veteran, I am no fan of unnecessary war and I believe most of our recent ones have either been unnecessary or incompetent. Incompetent war is worse than not fighting - it diminishes the perception of strength. I am also no fan of the John McCain approach of desperately searching for a war to fight because I personally want to kick someone's ass. It is a shame he never got the treatment he needed. I also think it is a bizarre perversion of cultural sensitivity that leads us to, within our own borders, accept a wide range of cultural perspectives and practices, while insisting that other countries and cultures accept our idea of rights and freedoms (e.g., why are other cultures not free to have their own beliefs about human sexuality?). You know, it is the usual "Rights we want are good, rights you want not so much". It will be interesting to see how the US federal government reacts when a foreign country decides to sanction it for how it treats its citizens.
But most of that is stuff for another day - I came here today to talk about a central philosophy - one of disarmament, of professed helplessness and victimhood, the admission that we are not armed.
NBC and multiple other outlets reported that President Obama noted:
"We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine," he said in an interview with KNSD in San Diego. "What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we've got a strong international coalition that sends a clear message, which is that Ukraine should decide their destiny."
I was struck by the fact that this philosophy, this approach, so closely mirrors the notion of disarmament that underlies the gun control debate - it is a core belief. The President, in essence, is establishing a gun-free zone; this statement differs from a "No guns allowed" sign only in scale, but not in philosophy. It is, at its core, not a lot different than the sign put up by a South Carolina Pub Owner (minus the douchebags comment) or any other sign put up to forbid such carry. Just as such a sign says "No one in here can defend themselves from an armed criminal", Obama's statements says "We will hope that you will not do bad things". Brutish despotic types are criminals in this regard; such a sign tells them that their prey are defenseless and the worst they will have to do is listen to whining and bleating of people pleading with them not to do bad things. In return they smile that Putin grin.
A point of reference; one of the main reasons for carrying a concealed weapon is to create some degree of uncertainty in those who would prey on us; if carry is allowed (or even encouraged) in a given location, then the predator can never be sure whether they will meet armed resistance should they ply their trade there. It seems reasonable to view our military in the same fashion; one need not march in with it for it to have a deterrent effect. But to say, pre-emptively, that it will not be used, to at least, symbolically, disarm at the door, removes any uncertainty. So if we assume that despots think in similar fashion to criminals (indeed, are criminals), that they calculate risk that someone in there might be armed and act accordingly, then hanging that sign is foolish. When one hangs out a sign that says "There are no real threats here" (a discussion of the real might of American sanctions will be left for someone else to ponder, but I fear we may be paper tigers in that regard), there is no ambivalence.
It seems clear that liberals, due to their aversion to protecting themselves and belief that someone else will do it for them (or that all criminals are angles who have been forced into a life of crime), think in terms of taking options off the table. And it would be fine if it were only liberals' options that were effected by their decisions. But when they decide that we cannot defend ourselves with equal force, they make that decision for us. The good thing is that, in the case of the pub above, we can choose to take our business elsewhere where our rights are respected or even encouraged. We can shop elsewhere or live elsewhere. When it is the government that putatively represents all of us that decides, rather than to leave some sense of ambiguity and uncertainty, to put the sign up that says "No one will use armed resistance here" it makes the decision for all of us.
No, I have no desire to see us waste more young American lives on policing the rest of the world - we have enough to do here. But such decisions reveal what is likely to be seen as a philosophy of weakness, of a life as prey. As the saying goes "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum" - one need not make war constantly, but being prepared to do so is often a motivator for others to choose peace.
The failure to recognize that strength (not necessarily violence) is respected and allows for peace is at the heart of the failed philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment