UK Fellows 2006



39370855.doc......................................................................................................................................................1 ***Militarism Good/Pacifism Bad/Terrorism Bad***.......................................................................................1 Militarism Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................2 Militarism Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................3 Terrorism Inevitable............................................................................................................................................4 Violence Inevitable..............................................................................................................................................5 Violence/War Inevitable – Human Nature..........................................................................................................6 Militarism Good – Terrorism Bad.......................................................................................................................7 Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad.........................................................................................................................8 Militarism Good – Diplomacy Bad.....................................................................................................................9 Militarism Good – Terrorism............................................................................................................................10 Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad...............................................................................................................11 Militarism Good – Violence Good....................................................................................................................12 Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad...............................................................................................................13 Militarism Good – Would’ve Prevented Wars..................................................................................................14 Militarism Good – Peace...................................................................................................................................15 Militarism Good – Moral...................................................................................................................................16 Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad...............................................................................................................17 Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary.............................................................................................................18 Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now.............................................................................................................19 Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary.............................................................................................................20 Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad.......................................................................................................................21 Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad.......................................................................................................................22 Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary.............................................................................................................23 Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now.............................................................................................................24 Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad...............................................................................................................25 Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (1/2)...................................................................................................................26 Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (2/2)...................................................................................................................27 Militarism Good – Killing Necessary................................................................................................................28 Militarism Good – Violence Solves Evil...........................................................................................................29 Militarism Good - Pacifism Bad (1/2)...............................................................................................................30 Militarism Good - Pacifism Bad (2/2)...............................................................................................................31 Militarism Good – Violence Key to Solve Terrorism.......................................................................................32 Militarism Good – Terrorism............................................................................................................................33 Militarism Good – War Inevitable Despite Alternative....................................................................................34 Militarism Good – Must Uphold American Values..........................................................................................35 Militarism Good – Moral Certainty Key to WOT.............................................................................................36 Militarism Good – Peace/Societal Reconstruction............................................................................................37 Militarism Good – A2 WOT Is Indefinite.........................................................................................................38 Militarism Good – Annihilation Good/Appeasement Bad................................................................................39 Militarism Good – Critical to Public Support...................................................................................................40 Terrorists Bad....................................................................................................................................................41 Appeasing Terrorists  More Terrorism..........................................................................................................42 Appeasing International Feelings  More Terrorism......................................................................................43 Appeasement Bad..............................................................................................................................................44


UK Fellows 2006



Appeasing International Feelings  More Terrorism......................................................................................45 Appeasing Terrorists  More Terrorism..........................................................................................................46 A2 WOT Causes Recruitment/Resentment.......................................................................................................47 A2 Muslim Resentment (1/2)............................................................................................................................48 A2 Muslim Resentment (2/2)............................................................................................................................49 A2 World Opinion Means We Shouldn’t Act...................................................................................................50 A2 WOT Fuels Terrorism..................................................................................................................................51 A2 Must Identify Root Causes..........................................................................................................................52 A2 You Say All Muslims Are Terrorists...........................................................................................................53 Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................54 Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................55 Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................56 Pacifism Bad – A2 We Allow Violence In Extreme Circumstances................................................................57 Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................58 Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................59 Pacifism Bad – Non-Violence Fails..................................................................................................................60 Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................61 Pacifism Bad - Their Argument = Dictator Propaganda...................................................................................62 Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................63 Non-Violence Permutation................................................................................................................................64 ***Imperialism/Multiculturalism***................................................................................................................65 Not Imperialist...................................................................................................................................................66 Not Imperialist...................................................................................................................................................67 Not Imperialist – A2 We Force Our Culture Unto Others................................................................................68 Not Imperialist – Prefer our evidence................................................................................................................69 Imperialism Good – A2 Should Appease States...............................................................................................70 Imperialism Good - Proliferation......................................................................................................................71 Multiculturalism Bad – Destroys Western Culture...........................................................................................72 Multiculturalism Bad - Extinction.....................................................................................................................73 Multiculturalism Bad – West is Best.................................................................................................................74 Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................75 Multiculturalism Bad – Double Standard..........................................................................................................76 Multiculturalism Bad.........................................................................................................................................77 Multiculturalism Bad – Racist...........................................................................................................................78 Multiculturalism Bad – Racist...........................................................................................................................79 Multiculturalism Bad – A2 West Is Best Is Imperialist.....................................................................................80 Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................81 Multiculturalism Bad – Intellectuals Must Advocate Western Values.............................................................82 Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................83 Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................84 Multiculturalism Bad – Racist...........................................................................................................................85 Multiculturalism Bad – Destroys Autonomy.....................................................................................................86 Multiculturalism Bad – Racist...........................................................................................................................87 Multiculturalism Bad - Conformity...................................................................................................................88 Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................89


UK Fellows 2006



Multiculturalism Bad – Indoctrination .............................................................................................................90 ***A2 The Other***.........................................................................................................................................91 A2 Obligation to the Other................................................................................................................................92 A2 Obligation to the Other (1/2).......................................................................................................................93 A2 Obligation to the Other (2/2).......................................................................................................................94 A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO 1NC............................................................................................................95 A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO 1NC Alternative.........................................................................................96 A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Destroys Progressive Politics.....................................................................97 A2 Obligation to the Other - A2 Given Permission to Speak For Others/Others Can’t Speak for Themselves ...........................................................................................................................................................................98 A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Link: Speaking About the Other................................................................99 A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Link: Reading Text..................................................................................100 A2 Obligation to the Other – A2 “You’re Nihilist”........................................................................................101 A2 Obligation to the Other – A2 “No Alt”......................................................................................................102 A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Hierarchies Link.......................................................................................103 ***Nuclear Weapons/Fear Good***...............................................................................................................104 Nuclear Weapons Good - Nationalism............................................................................................................105 Nuclear Weapons Good...................................................................................................................................106 Nuclear Weapons Good – Pacifism Bad.........................................................................................................107 Nuclear Weapons Good...................................................................................................................................108 Nuclear Weapons Good...................................................................................................................................109 Nuclear Weapons Good – Consequences Key................................................................................................110 Fear Good – The Futterman Card....................................................................................................................111 Fear Good........................................................................................................................................................112 Fear Good........................................................................................................................................................113 ***Miscellaneous***......................................................................................................................................114 A2 Zero Point of Holocaust.............................................................................................................................115 A2 Realism  Iraq/Vietnam...........................................................................................................................116 A2 Realists = Neocons....................................................................................................................................117 A2 Civilian Casualties Bad..............................................................................................................................118 A2 Civilian Casualties Bad..............................................................................................................................119 A2 Civilian Casualties Bad..............................................................................................................................120 Good/Evil Definitions Good............................................................................................................................121 National Self-Interest Good.............................................................................................................................122 Military Unpredictable Violence Good...........................................................................................................123 Gaza Withdrawal/Israel Softline Bad..............................................................................................................124 Atomic Bomb Good.........................................................................................................................................125


UK6 The Truth ***Militarism Good/Pacifism Bad/Terrorism Bad*** 1 .

dominance over which became an essential element for world hegemony. such as Britain. The Iron Triangle These factors crystallized into the Cold War. two developments greatly transformed our militarism: the exigencies of global hegemony and the fact that militarism became a direct source of economic advantage. which implied a permanent garrison to preserve the order of things. However. the military establishment another. the Soviet Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard College. military interventions have occurred at the rate of about once a year. This was greatly reinforced by the drastic realignment of capitalist power as a result of the war. have been formed in just such a way.UK6 The Truth Militarism Inevitable Militarism is entrenched in society – it is a cornerstone in our history and is believed to help the economy Dr. The world had been realigned and the United States had assumed a global imperial role. In part. One of the lessons of that time was that propounded by the British economist John Maynard Keynes. and indeed the great bulk of us interventions prior to World War II were done without very much in the way of fixed military institutions. through the triangular relations of the mic—with the great armament industries comprising one leg. despite its aggressivity. power. If you remember. after WWII a basic change set in. Previously the us had used militarism to secure economic advantage. built on violent conquest and expropriation of native peoples. Joel Kovel. to the effect that capitalist societies could ameliorate chronic [economic] crises by infusions of government spending. Russia. Now. no less a figure than George Washington warned us against having a standing army. the nuclear arms race. and the state apparatus the third. 2 . our country had invaded Nicaragua no fewer than 14 times in the pursuit of its imperial interests. a country utterly incapable of being any kind of a threat to its giant northern neighbor. The Great War had certified this wisdom. this was because policy planners knew quite well that massive wartime mobilization had been the one measure that finally lifted America out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. But one of the special conditions of the formation of America. “The United States Military Machine.html. Policy planners like George Kennan lucidly realized that this meant safeguarding extreme inequalities in wealth. profits. the process was halted and the permanent warfare state started to take shape. The final foundation stone for the new military order was the emergence of frightful weapons of mass destruction. The notion was especially compelling given that one other state. http://www. and permanent military expenditure readily became the received wisdom. South Africa. domestically.chronogram. A considerable number of contemporary states. America was essentially the only capitalist power in 1945 that did not lay in ruins and/or have its empire shattered. Since the forming of the American republic. War-weary America longed for demobilization. into those structures that gave institutional stability and permanence to the system: the military-industrial complex (mic). November 21. UK: Fisher The United States has always been a bellicose and expansive country. Consider the case of Nicaragua. and personnel could flow through the system and from the system.” Chronogram Magazine. and Israel. had emerged a great power from the war and was the bellwether of those forces that sought to break down the prevailing distribution of wealth. yet after a brief beginning in this direction. Yet prior to the Sandinista revolution in 1979 (which was eventually crushed by us proxy forces a decade later). was an inhibition against a military machine as such. 2002. and.

UK6 The Truth Militarism Inevitable Bases are everywhere Dr. After the first Gulf War the us military became installed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. American armies now stand the us has military bases in 113 countries. One feature of us military policy since WWII is to make war and then stay where war was made. Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard College. with 11 new ones formed since the beginning of the War Against Terror. encircling China and creating new sources of military tension. And America still maintains large forces in Germany.html.000 buildings. http://www. and Korea. 2002. Currently. after going to war in Kosovo. Uzbekistan. provoking massive demonstrations). Again. Japan. Imagine that: 800.” Chronogram Magazine.000 buildings in foreign countries that are now occupied by us military establishments. The us now has bases in Kazakhstan. UK: Fisher US Armies Taking Root Everywhere From having scarcely any standing army in 1940. the us military has erected some 800. This huge investment is no doubt determined by proximity to Iraq. with tens of thousands of troops permanently on duty (and making mischief. On these bases. “The United States Military Machine. as two us servicemen recently ran over and killed two Korean girls. 3 . November 21.chronogram. rooting itself in foreign territory. and Kurdistan. in which latter place it currently occupies one quarter of the country—750 square miles devoted to military activity. Joel Kovel. the us left behind an enormous base in a place called Bondsteel.

pp. 4-16. to whom the poison of blame is always delicious. We imagine a will to support our endeavors where there is only a pursuit of advantage.” But Muslim extremists are determined to remain involved with us. and the duplicity of so many states we insisted were our friends. http://www. and you cannot win a peace through inattention.carlisle. For decades we have downplayed—or simply ignored—the hate-filled speech directed toward us. Parameters. is the cause of woe Ralph Peters. Autumn 2002. Rolling Back Radical Islam.UK6 The Truth Terrorism Inevitable Terrorism is inevitable – Muslim extremists are determined to fight and will continue to indoctrinate the youth that the U. and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own We simply do not want to get involved more deeply than “necessary. while the future lies with the discontented young. but our struggle must be with the many. And we deal with cynical.S. In peace and But nations do not have friends—at best. 4 . Retired US Army officer. embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies.htm. UK: Fisher You cannot win a war if you do not fight. But the most radical elements within the Muslim world are convinced that they are at war with us. Above all. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified. those futureless masses yearn to excuse their profound individual inadequacies and to explain away the prison walls their beliefs have made of their lives. We are not at war with Islam. the monstrous lessons taught by extremists to children. Hatred taught to the young seems an ineradicable cancer of the human condition. the American response to the violent extremism that so damages the Islamic world has been as halting and reactive as it has been reluctant. corrupt old men who know which words to say to soothe our diplomats. they have allies with a confluence of interests. Our fight is with the few. for the local extermination of opportunity.

especially in the 1980s. UK: Fisher There is no better example of our unthinking embrace of an error than our rejection of the term “war of attrition. the term bubbled up again and again. however important it may appear at the moment.carlisle. “In Praise of Attrition. is secondary.” The belief that attrition. the best an Army gutted by Vietnam and its long hangover could hope to do. as an objective or a result. And to kill the enemy is to attrit the enemy. Summer 2004. Last year. But the nature of warfare never changes—only its superficial manifestations. And they do so by killing effectively. 24-32.htm. from our numerical disadvantage vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact to our knowledge that the “active defense” on the old inner-German border was political tomfoolery and a military sham—and. Well-trained. the term “war of attrition” conjures the unimaginative slaughter of the Western Front. All else. frankly. p. well-led soldiers in well-equipped armies do. Retired Army officer. seconded by glib military careerists. http://www. The notion that killing even the enemy is a bad thing in war has been exacerbated by the defense industry’s claims. All wars in which bullets—or arrows—fly are wars of attrition.” Parameters. when journalists wanted to denigrate our military’s occupation efforts in The Truth Violence Inevitable War is war – violence will always be there – the soldier’s job is to kill the enemy Ralph Peters. that precision weapons and technology in general had irrevocably changed the nature of Yet we heard a great deal of nonsense about “maneuver warfare” as the solution to all our woes. Of course. 5 . is inherently negative is simply wrong. Theories don’t win wars. The US Army also did great harm to its own intellectual and practical grasp of war by trolling for theories. with massive casualties on both sides. A soldier’s job is to kill the enemy.

postmodern man is hardwired to survive. support was nearing 70 percent. In our present context. eat. coerce an opponent to alter his behavior. UK: Fisher Yet lost in all this confusion is the recognition that the essence of war remains unchanged—the use of force to eliminate an adversary. a Professor Emeritus at California University. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. in Classics. The current depressing debate about preemption. Technology. or prevent annihilation. allies. These were issues raised after the fact for political purposes during a campaign that happened to coincide with a change in American perceptions as the war’s rocky aftermath unfolded. the human desire for victory still trumps most other considerations. But what about the far more likely scenario of guerrilla wars and counterinsurgency? In such lesser conflicts. Should we lose the stock exchange or the White House. when Saddam’s statue fell. and thus really will use his full arsenal when faced with the alternative of extinction. After all.UK6 The Truth Violence/War Inevitable – Human Nature Humans have a will to survive – they will do whatever necessary to ensure that survival Victor Davis Hanson. an insurgency.victorhanson. but do not alter or affect the substance of conflict. and al-Qaida ties originated in the subsequent inability of the United States to project a sense of absolute victory in the postbellum occupation. D. there would be almost no calls for restraint against states that harbored or aided the perpetrators. as looting led to terrorist reprisals. February 8. WMD. http://www. Stanford University. on the logic that every terrorist must sleep. Fresno. the ease and luxury of the West—these are simply the delivery systems that change with the ages. and use an ATM card somewhere.” City and three weeks later. and televised beheadings. Ph. 6 . “Postmodern War. modern social theory. The hysteria over the Iraqi war in the 2004 election did not really result from a failure to find weapons of mass destruction or to publicize a clear link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. on the eve of the invasion over 65 percent of Americans supported the war. 2005. Like ancient man. all our concern about American combat casualties would vanish should there be another mass murder similar to 9/11.

But we are fighting so we can die in the cause of God. August 14.S. Secretary General Kofi Annan has repeatedly asked wealthy nations to double their foreign aid. the argument that poverty causes terrorism has been central to America’s botched war in Iraq--which has focused. It would destroy the political embodiment of the terrorists' cause. not welfare handouts. Such assistance is the cause of the terrorist threat--and America has the military might to remove that cause. It would declare America's intolerance of support for terrorists. but by using military force. It is precisely in the name of fighting terrorism at its root that America must extend its fist. Terrorism is not caused by poverty." The terrorists hate us because of their ideology--a fact that filling up the coffers of Third World governments will do nothing to change. they would seek to emulate the United States--not to destroy it. Americans are "infidels" who should be killed. we must above all go after the single main source of the threat--Iran. http://www. To the fundamentalists. A desire to destroy wealth and to slaughter innocent. More fundamental. showing what will happen to other countries if they fail to crack down on terrorists within their borders. can our government do? It cannot directly eradicate the deepest. Graduate of Duke University. is the only way for our government to attack terrorism at its root.” San Francisco Chronicle. 2005.N. Its adherents resent America's success. This theocratic nation is both the birthplace of the Islamic Fundamentalist revolution and. BA Philosophy. “Fight the Root of Terrorism With Bombs." Indeed. To the contrary. And it would acknowledge the fact that dropping bombs. along with the appeal its culture has to many Middle Eastern youths. The fundamentalists' hostility toward America can translate into international terrorism only via the governments that employ. These terrorists are motivated by the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. It is the ideas that individuals choose to adopt which make them pursue certain goals and values." Businessman Ted Turner also concurs: "The reason that the World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don't have any hope for a better life. "The Americans are fighting so they can live and enjoy the material things in life. not food packages. is the means of doing so. Whatever other areas of the world may require U." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees: "We have to put hope back in the hearts of people. not on quickly ending any threat the country posed and moving on to other crucial targets. As a former Taliban official said. and provide refuge to terrorist networks. If he and his terrorist minions wanted prosperity. and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity. philosophical roots of terrorism. The wealthy Osama bin Laden was not using his millions to build electric power plants or irrigation canals. not its hand. authoritarian doctrine views America's freedom. 7 . their stated goal was to repel any penetration of the prosperous culture of the industrialized "infidels" into their world. troops to stop terrorist operations. productive human beings cannot be explained by a lack of money or a poor quality of life--only by anti-wealth. anti-life ideas. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. UK: Fisher The pernicious idea that poverty causes terrorism has been a popular claim since the attacks of September 11. as a consequence. The terrorists of September 11 did not attack America in order to make the Middle East richer. but on bringing the good life to the Iraqi people. poverty as such cannot determine anyone's code of morality. it can eliminate the only "root cause" relevant in a political context: state sponsorship of terrorism. Not Bread. What then. This other-worldly. U.aynrand. Removing that government from power would be a potent blow against Islamic terrorism. a leading sponsor of terrorism.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Terrorism Bad Ideology breeds terrorism and will continue to indefinitely – only way to prevent future acts of violence is hard-line militarism by the United States Alex Epstein. finance. It would be an unequivocal lesson. naming as a cause of terrorism "that far too many people are condemned to lives of extreme poverty and degradation. train. We have to show people who might move in the direction of terrorism that there is a better way. Eliminating the root of terrorism is indeed a valid goal--but properly targeted military action.

8 .org/site/News2? page=NewsArticle&id=7458. Had we annihilated the Iranian regime 23 years ago. must shift from this dangerous trend Alex Epstein. and more powerful. December 9. Pacifism practically dictated the American response to terrorism for more than 23 years. by making our enemies more aggressive. The suicidal stance of peaceniks is no innocent error or mere overflow of youthful idealism. After years of American politicians acting like peaceniks. UK: Fisher We do not need to predict or deduce the consequences of pacifism with regard to terrorism and the nations that sponsor it.” Ayn Rand Institute. It is an obvious evasion of history and logic for the advocates of pacifism to label themselves "anti-war. Islamic terrorism had proliferated from a few gangs of thugs to a worldwide scourge--making possible the attacks of September 11. or by offering diplomatic handouts to terrorist states in hopes that they would want to be our friends. http://www. beginning with our government's response to the first major act of Islamic terrorism against this country: when Iranian mobs held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days at the American embassy in Tehran.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad Hardline militarism is the best alignment – pacifism has emboldened and strengthened enemies. And if we fail to use our military against state sponsors of terrorism today. with far less cost than will be required to defeat terrorism today. Yet such a world is the goal of the "anti-war" movement." since the policies they advocate necessarily invite escalating acts of war against anyone who practices them. It is the product of a fundamentally immoral commitment: the commitment to ignore reality--from the historical evidence of the consequences of pacifism to the very existence of the violent threats that confront us today--in favor of the wish that laying down our arms will achieve peace somehow. imagine the challenge we will face five years from now when Iraq and Iran possess nuclear weapons and are ready to disseminate them to their terrorist minions. 2002. The only means of imparting this lesson is overwhelming military force-enough to defeat and incapacitate the enemy. they are not helping to prevent war. BA Philosophy. more plentiful. “Peacenik Warmongers. Graduate of Duke University. The only way to deal with militant enemies is to show them unequivocally that aggression against the United States will lead to their destruction. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. Those of us who are committed to facing the facts should condemn these peaceniks for what they really are: warmongers for our enemies. because we experienced those consequences on September 11. American Presidents sought to avoid military action at all costs--by treating terrorists as isolated criminals and thereby ignoring the role of the governments that support them. With each pacifist response it became clearer that the most powerful nation on Earth was a paper tiger--and our enemies made the most of it.aynrand. potential aggressors--that it will benefit by attacking the United States. they are acting to make war more frequent and deadly. To whatever extent "anti-war" protesters influence policy. we could have thwarted Islamic terrorism at the beginning. Military inaction sends the message to an aggressor--and to other. In response to that and later terrorist atrocities.

but to continue the war on terrorism--to continue it throughout Gaza and the West Bank. once we accept the vicious policy of negotiating with terrorists. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. not to surrender to terrorism. to be an effective means of extorting concessions? This is why it would have been absurd for America to negotiate with al Qaeda. This is the only road to peace: to abandon diplomacy and destroy the terrorists. time and time again. it merely rewards and emboldens the aggressors. Yet for decades the Palestinians have consistently adopted brute force and mass murder as their primary means of pursuing their "diplomatic" goals. our loyal ally in a treacherous region. when it proves. http://www.aynrand. All attempts to negotiate an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict have merely illustrated the destructive consequences of sacrificing justice to diplomacy. with the same results. Why should they end terrorism. rewarding the good and punishing the evil. UK: Fisher There is a reason we keep getting the same failed peace plan. We should be pressuring Israel. Nothing else is possible. It is also why America should not pressure Israel. but the total and ruthless elimination of the terrorists and those who support them. And their ultimate goal has never changed: they seek the destruction of Israel.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Diplomacy Bad Diplomacy only serves to embolden terrorists and strengthen opposition to US policies – a commitment to hardline militarism is critical to saving lives Robert Tracinski. Justice demands that one judge rationally the character and conduct of those one deals with. Peace requires. June 2. to negotiate with its terrorist enemies. not the accommodation of the terrorists' To insist on diplomacy as an unqualified virtue--regardless of the nature and conduct of one's foe--does not save lives or resolve conflicts. 2003. Legitimate diplomacy can only take place between those who are open to settling their differences through persuasion and who recognize each other's right to live. and to take it to the planners and suppliers of terrorism in Lebanon and Syria. 9 .” Ayn Rand Institute. the Taliban. “The Road Map to Hell. or Saddam Hussein.

are good--that we have a moral right to exist for our own sake--that we don't owe the rest of the world anything--and that we should be admired and emulated for our virtues and accomplishments. you may remember. Thus. In neither war was the aim to smash the enemy. was also George W." Taken together. the meaning of their foreign policy is clear. This. as long as the citizens of London return to "normal" lives with subways exploding all around them. totalitarian Islam is emboldened. free to return to kill our young men. the West must buy permission to exist from the rest of the world. will help us "triumph over terrorism. Blair's response to the London bombings. Madrid. in philosophy.D. to bestow with our soldiers' blood an unearned gift on these people. because it is productive. in meaning if not in explicit statement. until they drop their arms." with the hope that they would then stop killing us.D. collectivist and anticapitalist ideas--are responsible for their poverty. In the aftermath of the bombings in London. when he called on Americans to return to our shopping malls and not be afraid. what is our response? Do we proudly proclaim our unconditional right to exist? Do we resolutely affirm to eradicate power base after power base of the Islamic totalitarians. they will be crushed. because we subordinated the lives of our soldiers to concern for the enemy's well-being and civilian casualties. unharmed by the mightiest military force in human history. What we desperately need is a leader who proclaims that the rational ideals of the West. Prime Minister Tony Blair has asked the British people to remain calm and maintain their daily routines. by explicit order. in finance from the University of Texas at Austin and Onkar Ghate. when the Allies would flatten cities to achieve victory. We face an enemy. we must help build them up by supplying the terrorist-sponsoring Palestinian Authority with billions in aid. and foreign governments and civilian populations no longer have the nerve to support them? 11. the terrorists win.Sc. that if those opposed to these ideals take up arms against us. as long as the West continues to negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons--as long as the West continues to appease its enemies. that allows totalitarian Islam to thrive. In the face of this mounting threat. UK: Fisher Until the West asserts its moral right to exist. because it believes it has no moral right to destroy them. reason. Ph. Our goal was not victory but. This. in word and deed.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Terrorism Hardline militarism is critical in the War on Terror – only way to prevent terrorists from getting stronger and obtaining deadlier weapons. Its agents have shown an eagerness to kill indiscriminately in London. “The Foreign Policy of Guilt. It is the prospect of success against the West. 10 . August 1. as Bush so often tells us. with Bush and the other members of the G8 by his side. The West has no moral right to exist. New York and elsewhere. if one gives in to fear. he says. Bush's response after Sept. fueled by the West's apologetic response.aynrand. our duty is to shower the globe with "democracy. poor and unfree. in civil engineering and an MBA and Ph. But the rest of the world has an unquestionable right to exist. Islamic totalitarianism. tiptoed in the Middle East. Thus we must lift them out of their plight with $50 billion in aid. because it is unproductive. we will not be safe from Islamic totalitarianism. This leader would then demonstrate. Terrorists and insurgents went free. with its money and its soldiers' lives. was. our duty is to shower the globe with money. holds a B. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. but that would be an error. And somehow we in the West and not the Africans--with their decades of tribal." The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq might be considered exceptions to this orgy of penance. But we should be afraid--precisely because of Blair's and Bush's policies. They continually seek chemical and nuclear weapons. http://www. is a senior fellow at ARI. 2005. Support for totalitarian Islam will wither only when the Islamic world is convinced that the West will fight--and fight aggressively. science. According to Blair. committed to our deaths. "freedom" and "democracy. Blair claims. Unlike in WWII. individual rights and capitalism. imagine the death toll if such devices had been used in London's subway bombings. prosperous and free. to apologize and do penance for our existence. not denounced. It is the West's moral weakness that feeds terrorism and brings it fresh recruits. Until we in the West reject this monstrous moral premise. Weakness allows violence Islam to thrive Dr. the American and British armies.” The Ayn Rand Institute. we will never have cause to feel safe. As long as the insurgents continue with their brutal acts in Iraq. According to Bush. Somehow we in the West and not the Palestinians--with their rejection of the freedoms attainable in Israel and their embrace of thugs and killers--are responsible for their degradation. even at the cost of their own lives. materially and spiritually.

We even had evidence that agents connected to al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. To cite only a few of depressingly many examples: we initially expelled Iranian diplomats--but later sought an appeasing rapprochement with that ayatollah-led government. September 11 was not the first time America was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists engaged in "holy war" against us. “Diverting the Blame for 9/11. So we already knew that al-Qaeda was actively engaged in attacking Americans. In 1941 we did not attempt to indict the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor--we declared war on the source.S.aynrand. unprincipled foreign policy. killing 17 sailors.S. April 2. Saudi Arabia--and the governments that assist them. But how did America react? Did our government adopt a principled approach and identify the fact that we were faced with a deadly threat from an ideological foe? Did we launch systematic counterattacks to wipe out such enemy organizations as al-Qaeda. In 1979 theocratic Iran--which has spearheaded the "Islamic Revolution"--stormed the U. Whatever errors or incompetence on the part of a particular individual or intelligence agency. And we knew in 1996 that bin Laden had made an overt declaration of war against the "Satan" America. Yet we spent millions trying to indict specific terrorists--while we ignored their masters. 11 could have been prevented only by having a principled foreign policy. Despite emphatic pronouncements from Islamic leaders about a "jihad" against America.and Iranianbacked group Hezbollah bombed a U. UK: Fisher Sept.S. had for decades conducted an accommodating. In 1983 the Syrian. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up the U. Our government. Hezbollah and Fatah? Did we seek to eliminate enemy states like Iran? No--our responses were shortsighted and self-contradictory. http://www. our political leaders failed to grasp the ideology that seeks our destruction. This left them unable to target that enemy's armed combatants--in Palestine. we refused to uncompromisingly support our ally and instead brokered the killers' release. what made September 11 possible was a failure of range-of-the-moment. embassy in Tehran and held 54 Americans hostage for over a year. Syria. We intermittently cut off trade with Iran--but secretly negotiated weapons-for-hostages deals. At home we treated our attackers as if they were isolated criminals rather than soldiers engaged in battle against us. 11 .D.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad A foreign policy dedicated to force would have been able to prevent terrorism – past acts of appeasement have served to only embolden terrorists Onkar Ghate. Ph. 2004. killing 241 servicemen while they slept. the explosives came from Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. The squabbling and fingerpointing surrounding the 9/11 commission only serve to obscure the fundamental lesson of that horrific day. whether controlled by Democrat or Republican. And with respect to al-Qaeda. in philosophy. we dropped a perfunctory bomb or two on one of its suspected camps. killing 224 individuals. is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. 2004.” The Providence Journal. Iran. When Israel had the courage to enter Lebanon in 1982 to destroy the PLO. marine barracks in Lebanon. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In 2000 al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Yemen. while our compliant diplomats waited for al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks to fade from the headlines. Originally published March 31. Iraq.

troops. “What a Real War Looks Like. http://www. with the same justification. Sparing our civilians and soldiers from mass death is precisely the purpose for which we maintain our nuclear arsenal. sparing the lives of hundreds of thousands of U. We must be prepared to use nuclear weapons. for fear of killing German civilians. Nuclear weapons were first employed to secure the surrender of Japan. we must be prepared to use these horrific weapons once again. September 14.aynrand. a full-scale war will be horrific. If any terrorist nation chooses to resist our demands. then our nuclear deterrent becomes a hollow threat. a policy that merely emboldened the terrorists. if we are to attack all of the nations that have harbored terrorists. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. If we are not willing to use it now. But war is supposed to be horrific--so horrific that our enemies cannot endure it and will not dare to repeat it. Here the liberals will make their most dishonest objection: that the use of such massive force will merely escalate a "cycle of violence.S. 12 ." This evades the fact that Tuesday's attacks are the result of decades of turning the other cheek to evil. Yes. however. it has been asked. By this standard. 2001.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Violence Good The War on Terror mirrors World War II – an awesome show of force is critical to make evil surrender or else we will surrender to evil Robert Tracinski. are we really capable of such a massive task? The answer is that we must threaten our enemies with a level of force so awesome that no nation in the Middle East can resist page=NewsArticle&id=7386&news_iv_ctrl=1509. It is obvious that such a pacifist philosophy would require a total surrender to evil. the allies could not have fought Hitler. This is the real "cycle of violence. liberals will balk at the prospect of civilian casualties in enemy countries. UK: Fisher But.” Ayn Rand Institute." Even worse.

as Israel has been under relentless assault by Palestinian terrorists. and the governments that sponsor them.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad Appeasement and acquiescence to world opinion sent the message to the world that the US will not fight – this triggered continue terrorist attacks Robert Tracinski.aynrand. An attack of this size and scope. It is worse than Pearl Harbor. These terrorists have not awakened a sleeping giant. September 11. a giant who refused to see. That message was received and acted upon. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. and we have sent them a clear.” Ayn Rand Institute. Through our actions. And for the past year. 2001. killing hundreds. UK: Fisher Our enemies have attacked the very center of our civilization. not a military base far out in the page=NewsArticle&id=7384&news_iv_ctrl=1509. This is not a mere criminal act. We allowed our judgment to be blunted by those who tell us that it is wrong ever to pronounce moral judgment. we urged restraint and demanded that they negotiate with the leader who unleashed those attacks. This is not the act of a few isolated terrorists. They have attacked a complacent giant. http://www. When they bombed the USS Cole--less than a year ago--we did nothing. we rounded up a few of the conspirators and put them on trial--while we left the terrorist leaders and their sponsors untouched. Americans were seduced by those who advocated a "measured" response and pinprick strikes against terrorists and the countries that support them. an attack carefully timed and coordinated across the country. until it was too late. we sent off a few Tomahawk missiles. Our enemies have attacked. 13 . When terrorists bombed the World Trade Center the first time. When they bombed our embassies in Africa. scaling back our attack to avoid any civilian casualties. that they will escape retribution. but the very center of our civilization: our nation's political capital in Washington and its commercial capital in New York City. It is an act of war. but it is estimated that tens of thousands of Americans--most of them civilians--have been murdered. We cringed before unfavorable "world opinion" as if that were the worst thing we had to fear. we have assured the terrorists. That message must now be decisively reversed. is the product of a large organization that can only operate with the support and protection of a foreign government. consistent message: We will not fight back. Terrorists have been at war with the United States for years. the disastrous consequences of his policies of restraint and appeasement. “Acts of War. The scope of these attacks is not yet clear. by those who say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

S. when we held a monopoly on nuclear weapons. During the 1930s. that if it started making nuclear weapons we'd bomb its facilities. we should give axis-of-evil member North Korea notice to destroy its nuclear weapons or we'll do it for them. I am not going to wait for you to finish construction. UK: Fisher Fighting terrorism as well as rogue dictators requires a policy of pre-emption. bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.asp?ID=3596. We would have avoided Soviet adventurism and trillions of dollars fighting a cold war. 60 million lives lost in World War II might have been spared. I'm You might ask. Had Britain and France had the guts to do that.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Would’ve Prevented Wars Preemptive military action is the best strategy – would’ve prevented the major wars of the 20th century Walter Williams. we should have told the U. http://www. are you a warmonger?" No. 2004. there should have been a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany. Today. “Fighting Terrorism and the Case for Pre-emption. If you hate my guts and have designs to hurt me. 14 . but here's the way I look at it. After World War II.” Capitalism Magazine. "Williams. April 8. and I see you building a cannon aimed at my house.S.R.

A negotiated peace would have failed to discredit the ideology of war. Under the shock of defeat. a sense of morality had returned to Japan. A defeat is a fact. the Japanese chose wisely. Following are our terms. President Truman demonstrated his willingness to bomb the Japanese out of existence if they did not surrender. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. The method was brutally violent. April 29. http://www. There are no alternatives.capmag. . the victor must be intransigent. and would have left the motivations for the next war intact. for everyone if necessary. a stunned silence results. and the permanent renunciation of aggression. To achieve this. or death. met by civilians who had not confronted defeat. It would have left the Japanese unable to reject military aggression the next time it was offered as an elixir of glory. and the actions of its soldiers worthy of contempt. UK: Fisher Yes. a journal of culture and politics. After the war. Japan was beaten in July of 1945-but had not surrendered. Had the United States negotiated in 1945." The approach worked brilliantly. young boys no longer play samurai and dream of dying for the emperor-children no longer memorize sword verses from the Koran and pledge themselves to jihad. To have shielded Japanese citizens from the meaning of their own actions-the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March-would have been a massive act of dishonesty.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Peace Hardline militarism is good – World War II proves that intransigence in battle is critical to winning and assuring future peace John Lewis is a Consulting Editor for The Objective Standard.” Capitalism Magazine. The Potsdam Declaration of July 26. twenty years later. 15 . and only a brutal action could demonstrate its nature. He does not accept Japanese troops would have returned to a homeland free of foreign control. We shall brook no delay .asp?ID=4648. women no longer bear children for the Reich. . After the bombs. We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces . We will not deviate from them. but with derision. under the same leaders who had taken them to war. he demands prostrate surrender. Fortunately. Military officers no longer plan for victory. “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima. an aggressor's ability to fight effectively is destroyed. . 2006. Forced to confront the reality of what they had done. the Americans were in no mind to compromise. many returning Japanese troops were welcomed by their countrymen not as heroes. We might have fought the Japanese Empire again. to recognize the fact of defeat. Surrender is an admission of impotence. the collapse of all hope for victory. The imperial cause was recognized as bankrupt. Surrender is a decision. . . 1945 is stark: "The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan . Such recognition of reality is the first step towards a return to morality. . by the political leadership and the dominant voices in the culture. as it had to be-because the war unleashed by Japan was brutally violent.

Americans should be immensely proud of the bomb. Let those who today march for peace in Germany and Japan admit that their grandparents once marched as passionately for war. president of the Technological Research Mobilization Office. This destroyed the foundations of the war. Hisatsune Sakomizu. The facts are otherwise. Were it true that total victory today creates new attackers tomorrow. in the case of Japan's total defeat. and then to greet new friends on proper terms. . There is no room on earth for this system. to permanently discredit the enemy's ideology.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Moral Militarism is the most moral choice – total victory allows the ending of dictatorships and build-up of peaceful societies John Lewis is a Consulting Editor for The Objective Standard. For the Americans to do so while refusing to sacrifice their own troops to save the lives of enemy civilians was a sublimely moral action. to stand guard while a replacement is crafted. Some did just that. UK: Fisher There can be no higher moral action by a nation than to destroy an aggressive dictatorship." But let him thank the American peoplenot heaven-for it was they who made the choice between the morality of life and the morality of death inescapable. and that only total defeat could force them to re-think their place in the world and offer their children something better. its ideas and its advocates. a journal of culture and politics. http://www.asp?ID=4648. It ended a war that had enslaved a continent to a religious-military ideology of slavery and death. . Let them thank heaven-the United States-for the bomb.” Capitalism Magazine. . . the great humiliation [the bomb] is nothing but an admonition administered by Heaven to our country. but the Japanese people will rise to the occasion during the next several decades to reform themselves into a truly splendid people . chief cabinet secretary of Japan. Okura Kimmochi. wrote before the surrender: "I think it is better for our country to suffer a total defeat than to win total victory . 2006. the armed forces would be abolished. April 29. as prosperous inhabitants of the earth. while North Koreawhere the American army did not impose its will-would be peaceful and prosperous. we would now be fighting Japanese suicide bombers. 16 ." He wanted to look like a peaceful man-which became a sensible position only after the Americans had won. said after the war: "The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by Heaven for Japan to end the war. The need for total victory over the morality of death has never been clearer. and allowed the Japanese to rebuild their culture along with their “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima. It took a country that values this world to bomb this system into extinction.

com/article. most notably Europeans.asp?ID=3885. near the end of World War II. Their vision not only has a long record of failure but devastating consequences. 2004. the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people. According to Professor R. were quite willing to respond to Saddam Hussein's violation of peace terms in a fashion similar to their earlier counterparts' response to Hitler's violation of the peace terms of the Versailles Treaty. Since 1949. communist China's Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of 35 million of its own citizens. During the late 1930s.” Capitalism Magazine. Quite interestingly. “The Appeasement Disease. Western appeasers. 17 . This was after a long string of German violations of the terms of the Versailles Treaty ending World War I. Appeasement didn't work. August 25. weapons inspections. Rummel's research in "Death by Government. After documents were signed. Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt thought they could appease Josef Stalin by giving away Eastern Europe and making other concessions that ultimately marked the beginning of the nearly half-century Cold War and Soviet/China expansionism. After devastating defeat in the first Gulf War." from 1917 until its collapse. History never exactly repeats itself. particularly U. when Hitler started his arms buildup in violation of the Versailles Treaty and before he fully developed his military capability. War-weary Westerners hoped that brutal tyrants would act in good faith.capmag. UK: Fisher President Bush's foreign-policy critics at home and abroad share characteristics and visions that have previously led to worldwide chaos and untold loss of lives. Failing to stand up to Stalin resulted in unspeakable atrocities. appeasement and caving in to the demands of vicious totalitarian leaders can produce good-faith behavior.N. It was seen as weakness. Western leftist appeasers exempted communist leaders from the harsh criticism directed toward Hitler. and it simply emboldened Hitler. Iraq agreed to coalition peace terms.J. Had Britain or France launched a military attack on Germany between 1934 and 1935. France and Britain hoped that allowing Adolf Hitler to annex Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia would satisfy his territorial ambitions. he would have been defeated and at least 50 million lives would have been spared. At the Yalta Conference. but the vision of earlier appeasers was part of the West's vision of how to deal with Saddam Hussein. even though communist crimes made Hitler's slaughter of 21 million appear almost amateurish. every effort was made by the Iraqis to frustrate implementation of the terms. http://www.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad Appeasement has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions throughout the twentieth century – numerous examples prove Walter Williams. enslavement and human suffering. These people believe that negotiation. bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. mostly its own citizens.

2002. Does any of this sound familiar? These are the same demands commentators are making on our military today in Afghanistan. in consultation with our squeamish European allies and our hostile Arab coalition. This is why. for fear of sinking into a "quagmire" -.asp?ID=1491. Our military was told that it could not eliminate the source of the enemy's power by invading North Vietnam.not to destroy his capabilities. that we have to avoid civilian casualties and coddle al-Qaeda prisoners to maintain the "moral high ground. self-effacing conflict. because they will make sure that any civilian deaths -. not to kill enemy soldiers or destroy Yasser Arafat's ability to fight.and they were afraid that the use of gunships would cause civilian casualties among the enemy.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary Offensive military posture is critical to success in the War on Terrorism – their nay saying of military policies is what causes failures Robert Tracinski.” Ayn Rand Institute. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. but merely to bring him to the bargaining our soldiers were ordered to fight a defensive war of attrition. In the "Black Hawk Down" scenario. which would have provided crucial support for our soldiers. non-lethal. It is no wonder that these same people fear that the war will end in failure. The reason? The politicians did not want to appear to be "escalating" our involvement." The only kind of war they think it is proper to wage is a restricted. but don't get involved in fighting on the ground. don't take any casualties. Sound familiar? This is the strategy we have helped foist on Israel in its current war with terrorists." Similarly. Or take the other bogeyman of American military failure: Vietnam. Win the war. the disaster was not caused by the mere downing of a helicopter. because that would be bad PR.are splashed over the front pages and presented as evidence of American barbarity. it would. On their terms. commentators in the press have warned us that we have to fight the War on Terrorism with an eye on world opinion. obsessing instead over a few failures? Note that these failures all have the same cause: political restrictions that deprived our soldiers of the tools they needed to win. UK: Fisher Why does the press systematically ignore America's history of military success. It was caused by the Clinton administration's refusal to authorize the use of armor and AC-130 unavoidable by-product of war -. March 16. “The Prophets of Defeatism. Instead. while we bombed the enemy -. Take Mogadishu. 18 . and above all. for example. the Israelis bomb empty Palestinian Authority offices. The press is especially certain about this last point. but merely to "pressure" him to return to the "peace process. http://www. don't cause any civilian deaths.capmag.

they conveyed the message that the United States was not serious about the elimination of the terrorist threat--a message that emboldened terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Rather. will one really defeat the enemy. it made perfect sense not to go beyond the bounds of the UN resolutions authorizing the use of force. 2002.” Capitalism Magazine. he must not be given time to recover. While it was seen as wise to end the Persian Gulf War after one hundred hours of ground combat so as to avoid dissipation of the coalition and to help engender a peace process in the Middle East. Why is this particular bit of advice important to remember? The answer is that in our recent past. causing him to launch vicious terrorist operations like the bombing of the USS Cole and the commission of the acts of September 11th. in other words. and the downfall of Saddam Hussein's government. Not Love Against Terrorism. Instead. In making this point. August 19. http://www. but after 11 years. it should be clear to us that a mortal enemy must not be suffered to remain powerful. UK: Fisher So how does Clausewitz help us in our current conflict with terrorism? He reminds us that in 19 .capmag. and a fair case may be made that in 1991. These attacks failed to impress terrorists in the slightest. and the death of three thousand people in one day. Clausewitz cites the Napoleonic example. the United States will have to conduct its war on terrorism in a Napoleonic manner--aiming for as complete a destruction of terrorist forces as possible. by daring to win all... “Carl von Clausewitz's Advice: Make War. Hindsight is certainly 20/20. and he also brings his own words to bear on the issue: If the enemy is thrown off balance. we must be able to utterly and completely defeat and destroy the enemy in order to force the enemy to do our will. must strike with all his strength. subsequent events have proven that it would have been better for the administration of President Bush the Elder to push to Baghdad and demand unconditional surrender from Iraq. As such. This entails ensuring that al-Qaeda no longer has a global reach. We also failed to heed Clausewitz's admonition during the Clinton Administration--settling for furious yet ineffective cruise missile strikes against terrorist targets after the commission of each horrendous act of terrorism. let alone destroy them. Blow after blow must be struck in the same direction: the victor. his strength and power must be dissipated and destroyed so that he may no longer pose a threat to American national security. we have not heeded Clausewitz's admonition. and fighting the next Persian Gulf War to total victory over Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime--a victory that would culminate with the end of the regime.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now Gulf War I proves the importance of fully eliminating a military threat when you have the chance – must act decisively in the War on Terror Pejman Yousefzadeh.

Abdul non-Islamic-warrior-breeding regime take its place.S. faced a death sentence for apostasy. they were also diverted to a host of "reconstruction" projects. but merely scattered and left with the moral fortitude to regroup and launch a brazen comeback. deployed ground forces--but instead of focusing exclusively on capturing or killing the enemy. however.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary Current policies fail due to moral weakness – a hardline policy is critical to rooting out Islamic totalitarianism and preventing a comeback of Taliban fighters Elan Journo. We had to destroy the Taliban and we had to ensure that a nonthreatening. declared that we had no right to "impose our beliefs" on the Afghans--and instead endorsed their desire for another regime founded on Ifslamic law. Our military was ordered to pursue Taliban fighters only if it simultaneously showed "compassion" to the Afghans. The result is that the enemy was not destroyed and crushed in spirit. A new Afghan government would be a non-threat to America's interests if it were based on a secular constitution that respects individual rights.asp?ID=4691. Ideologically. 2006. too. The U. the U. an Afghan convert to Christianity. military dropped bombs on Afghanistan--but instead of ruthlessly pounding key targets. Senior Writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. it was ordered to gingerly avoid hitting holy shrines and mosques (known to be Taliban hideouts) and to shower the country with food packages.S.S. June 6. But we did not think we had a moral right to do either. it has nothing to say in opposition to the doctrines of the Taliban (two members of the Taliban leadership are in the new government). UK: Fisher Victory in Afghanistan demanded two things. http://capmag. “Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan. Already this avowedly Islamic regime has jailed an Afghan magazine editor for "blasphemy". however. The new Afghan regime cannot be counted on to oppose the resurgence of Islamic totalitarianism. 20 . The Bush administration. recently. The U. It is only a matter of time before Afghanistan is once again a haven for anti-American warriors. Even with its hands tied.” Capitalism Magazine. military succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime--but Washington subverted that achievement. especially in the nuclear age – pacifism has allowed for the Nazis and the Imperial Japan to prosper Thomas Sowell. When disarmament advocate George Bernard Shaw was asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain. posturing on the edge of a volcano. the issue was about making a "statement" -. At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm "as an example to others. 21 . Students at leading British universities signed pledges to refuse to fight in the event of war. which could save us from continuing to repeat the idiocies of the past. Military potential only counts when there is the will to develop it and use it.that is. This is what they did not believe the West had. http://www. Roy. which are even more dangerous now in a nuclear age." economist Roy Harrod asked one of the pacifists: "You think our example will cause Hitler and Mussolini to disarm?" The reply was: "Oh. Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution. UK: Fisher Pacifists of the 20th century had a lot of blood on their hands for weakening the Western democracies in the face of rising belligerence and military might in aggressor nations like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Then as now. Labor Party members of Parliament voted repeatedly against military spending. And it was Western pacifists who led them to that belief." What a shame our schools and college neglect history. the playwright replied. have you lost all your idealism?" In other words.jewishworldreview.” Jewish World Review. September 24th. 2001. "Welcome them as tourists. and the fortitude to continue with a bloody war when it comes. In Britain during the 1930s. with World War II threatening to erupt at any time. while Hitler built up the most powerful military machine in Europe.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad Commitment to militarism is necessary to prevent war. “Pacifism and War. All of this encouraged the Nazis and the Japanese toward war against countries that they knew had greater military potential than their own. pacifism was a "statement" about one's ideals that paid little attention to actual consequences.

08. 2001. in Bangladesh. saner world than the one we have at the moment. we must remain engaged to its successful completion since this is not a war that we can afford to lose. Those concerned with issues of war and peace -– and that is all of us -. Department of Peace and Conflict Studies. in Iraq. It is not a war we chose and the engagement is frequently not on our terms. or the attack on railway facilities in Madrid resulting in the loss of more than 180 lives on March 11 of this year. Dhaka University. ttp://dhaka. including more than 20 Bangladeshis.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad Failure in the war on terror means major casualties worldwide – action in the face of threats is critical to preventing another World War II Khoda Hafez. terrorists consider it a triumph if they can produce major casualties such as occurred with the death of 3. The global war in which we are engaged is not a war about religious or civilizational domination. Like you.04_dhaka_university_peace_not_an_absence_of_war. In waging this war.usembassy.000 people from more than 80 nationalities on September 11. I am a parent. 22 . 2004. in Spain. and elsewhere. We know from the lead-up to World War II that good people cannot sit by idly while evil is being planned and perpetrated. But now that we are in it. UK: Fisher The war against terrorism is an effort to protect from attack both the hard and soft targets – in the United States. like many of you. I want my daughter to grow up in a safer. As I mentioned before. in Afghanistan.cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while this war is being waged. June 8th. That is why it is seen as a global war. in the former Soviet Union. in Saudi We cannot afford to be passive and we cannot afford to be merely reactive. But it is as real a war as the ones formerly fought on conventional battlefields between standing armies.

com/articles/hanson060204. lethality. http://www. in Classics. to arrest early insurrectionists like Sadr. by contrast. 2004. “Kill the Insurgents . Fresno. After World War II. More important. convinced neutrals to join us and enemies not yet conquered to remain in the shadows. Paul Bremer. neutrals and well-meaning moderates in Iraq often put their ideological preferences on hold as they wait to see who will. D. in fact. and to subdue cities like Tikrit or Falluja only earned us contempt--and not just from those who would kill us. German army that surrendered in France and Belgium provided the origins for the "stab in the back" mythology that fueled Hitler's rise to power. coupled with the message of freedom. which--through a multifaceted strategy of border fortification.victorhanson. gender equality. But. hoping their newly armored Humvees and fortified flak vests will deflect projectiles. 24-hour pulpit of global television that inflates a halfdozen inadvertent civilian casualties into Dresden and Hiroshima. Stanford University. we waged a brilliant three-week campaign.Stop Talking. 23 . Suicide bombing failed to bring Yasir Arafat what he could not obtain at Camp David only because of the skill and ingenuity of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). rather than a stern rebuke from L. Patton. trusting instead that wise and reasonable people can adjudicate the situation on the ground according to Enlightenment principles of diplomacy and reason. But our failure to shoot looters. Military audacity. George S. but because he was first reduced to a humiliated lord of a rubble pile--thanks to the IDF. but a sort of weird immorality that seeks to avoid ethical censure in the short term--the ever-present.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary Their argument ignored reality and emphasizes fantasy – utilization of arms is necessary to bringing an end to fighting. such complacency has left more moderate Iraqis to be targeted by ever more emboldened murderers. targeted air assassinations. For their part. After World War I. and the rule of law may indeed save the Iraqi people and improve our own security--but only when those who wish none of it learn that trying to stop it will get them killed. The promise of consensual government. His unfulfilled wish to take Prague meant a blank check for a late-arriving Red Army that would help ensure a half-century of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe. and iron resolve. ensuring peace in the long term – restraint invites violence Victor Davis Hanson. UK: Fisher Most of the time in war. diplomatic machinations don't create enduring realities--events on the battlefield do. snarling to head for Berlin and beyond in 1945. a Professor Emeritus at California University. unpredictability." when military audacity can establish a fait accompli on the ground that diplomats quibble over for decades. grasped the importance of "the unforgiving minute. and increased intelligence and vigilance-drastically curtailed the efficacy of the tactic. rather than simply patrol and react. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. imperviousness to cheap criticism.S. then mysteriously forgot the source of our success. But thugs like Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army and Saddam Hussein's remnant killers beg to differ. but not humiliated.” The New Republic. win. in the long term. They may eventually submit to a fair and honest brokered peace--but only when the alternative is an Abrams tank or Cobra gunship. The labyrinth of failed plans and bad-faith deals in the Balkans led nowhere until the U. we tend to deprecate the efficacy of arms. American troops have discovered that they are safer on the assault when they can fire first and kill killers. Ph.html. A year ago. Air Force secured in 79 days in 1999 the capitulation of Slobodan Milosevic--the chief foreign policy achievement of the Clinton administration. the shattered and shamed Wehrmacht in Berlin was unable to energize a Fourth Reich. The misplaced restraint of the past year is not true morality. In our current postmodern world. Arafat today is a marginalized figure not because of a belated European perception that he is corrupt and murderous. proactive attacks. June 2. the defeated. but from others who would have joined us as well.

html. the takeover of the Tehran Embassy. our momentum thus far has curtailed the Libyan weapons program. Fresno.Q. Ph. the safer Iraqis and Americans will be in the years to come. “Kill the Insurgents .victorhanson. and put Iran and Syria under scrutiny--a volcanic. and Najaf. http://www. Kufa. Khan. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.” The New Republic. the Cambodian holocaust. reeducation camps. The hard truth is that grand diplomacy and geopolitical calculus depend on the lethality of a few thousand American fighters in the streets of Karbala. D.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now Ending the War on Terror now is an awful idea – hardline is necessary to preventing a slide back to geopolitical uncertainty Victor Davis Hanson.Stop Talking. June 2. 2004. situation that can as easily deteriorate as improve. UK: Fisher By contrast. The more lethal they are today. brought revelations of nuclear mischief from Dr. the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. not a static. in the same way. Stanford University. If the humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975 helped create the landscape for the boat-people. and a decade-long demoralization at home. 24 . a Professor Emeritus at California University. hesitation and uncertainty would propel the sequence of events into reverse. in Classics. the Russiansponsored insurrection in Central America. A.

” City Journal. “The Fruits of Appeasement. Spring 2004. Demosthenes warned how complacency and self-delusion among an affluent and free Athenian people allowed a Macedonian thug like Philip II to end some four centuries of Greek liberty—and in a mere 20 years of creeping aggrandizement down the Greek peninsula. The age-old lure of appeasement—perhaps they will cease with this latest concession.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad Hardline militarism is critical to saving millions of lives – appeasement historically fails Victor Davis Hanson. the absorption of the Czech Sudetenland. 25 . and the near destruction of European civilization were the wages of "appeasement"—a term that early-1930s liberals proudly embraced as far more enlightened than the old idea of "deterrence" and "military readiness. UK: Fisher The twentieth century should have taught the citizens of liberal democracies the catastrophic consequences of placating tyrants. perhaps demonstrations of our future good intentions will win their approval—was never more evident than in the recent Spanish elections. who long ago promised the Western and Christian Iberians ruin for the Crusades and the Reconquista. NATO. D. Fifty million dead. the Anschluss. perhaps we provoked our enemies. Oprah. swept from power the pro-U. nor expect that peoples outside the purview of bourgeois liberalism share our commitment to reason. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. What eventually contained Stalinism was the Truman Doctrine. the Holocaust. not Jimmy Carter's accommodation or Richard Nixon's détente. China. reeling from the horrific terrorist attack of 3/11.. military deterrence and the willingness to use force against evil in its infancy usually end up. Most important. a Professor Emeritus at California University. Ph." So too did Western excuses for the Russians' violation of guarantees of free elections in postwar Eastern Europe. All this can be a hard lesson to relearn each generation. and nuclear deterrence—not the United Nations—and what destroyed its legacy was Ronald Reagan's assertiveness. center-right government on the grounds that the mass murders were more the fault of the United States for dragging Spain into the effort to remove fascists and implant democracy in Iraq than of the primordial al-Qaedist culprits. in the terrible arithmetic of war. Stanford University. Thereafter. in Classics. especially now that we contend with the sirens of the mall. and the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia did not win gratitude but rather Hitler's contempt for their weakness.S.victorhanson. and Southeast Asia only embolden the Soviet Our affluence and leisure are as antithetical to the use of force as rural life and relative poverty once were catalysts for muscular action. Fresno.html. British and French restraint over the occupation of the Rhineland. when an affluent European electorate. http://www. As long ago as the fourth century B. saving more lives than they cost. and enlightened self-interest. and latte. these historical lessons should have been clear to citizens of any liberal society: we must neither presume that comfort and security are our birthrights and are guaranteed without constant sacrifice and vigilance. tolerance.

self-important cultural condescension—all this and more explained poverty and despair.” From writers like Arundhati Roy and Michel Foucault (who anointed Khomeini “a kind of mystic saint” who would usher in a new “political spirituality” that would “transfigure” the world) and from old standbys like Frantz Fanon and Jean-Paul Sartre (“to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone. thus they could happily remain entirely critical. or miniskirted tourists in Cairo. Teheran. Stanford University. pampered Western intellectuals since Diderot have always dreamed up a “noble savage. sarcastic. Ph. and Third World people in countless insidious ways. Republican. UK: Fisher Rather than springing from realpolitik. Christian missionaries in Kabul. whiskey-drinking oilmen in Riyadh. or Beirut. and all the other dogmas whose fundamental tenet was that white male capitalists had systematically oppressed women. and cynical without any obligation to suggest something better. the West Bank. from gender. race. There was victim status for everybody. or fear of oil cutoffs. An Ayatollah Khomeini who turned back the clock on female emancipation in Iran. few Marxists could argue for a statecontrolled economy or mouth the old romance about a workers' paradise—not with scenes of East German families crammed into smoking clunkers lumbering over potholed roads. might eventually lead to a consensual. as in Taiwan or South Korea.html. there filtered down a vague notion that the United States and the West in general were responsible for Third World misery in ways that transcended the dull old class struggle. and class at home to colonialism. Spring 2004. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. But if the creed of the socialist republics was impossible to take seriously in either economic or political terms. Fresno. often corrupt task of bringing Iran from the tenth to the twentieth century. down the arduous. to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time”). But now this fuzzy romanticism had an updated. was the rich. women in Westernized dress in Teheran. Anyone could play in these “area studies” that cobbled together the barrio. like American pioneers of old on their way west.” who lived in harmony with nature precisely because of his distance from the corruption of Western civilization. both at home and abroad. Bomb multiculturalism. “The Fruits of Appeasement.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (1/2) Their kritik of terrorism ties-down the United States – preventing the action necessary to save lives Victor Davis Hanson. and white United States. To be sure. political edge: the bearded killer and wild-eyed savage were not merely better than we because they lived apart in a pre-modern landscape. Far from it. after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Though the abrupt collapse of communism was a dilemma for the Left. and who refashioned Iranian state policy to hunt down. [Continues…No Text Removed] 26 . and hegemony abroad. Endemic racism and the legacy of colonialism. capitalist profiteers in Islamabad. D. much of our appeasement of Middle Eastern terrorists derived from a new sort of anti-Americanism that thrived in the growing therapeutic society of the 1980s and 1990s. imperialism. a Professor Emeritus at California University. corporate. dangerous path that.victorhanson. Of course. who murdered nonMuslims. in Classics.” City Journal. If Marx receded from economics departments. and kill liberals nevertheless seemed to liberal Western eyes as preferable to the Shah—a Western-supported anti-communist. his spirit reemerged among our intelligentsia in the novel guises of post-structuralism. who was engaged in the messy. The fall of the Soviet Union enhanced these newer post-colonial and liberation fields of study by immunizing their promulgators from charges of fellow-traveling or being dupes of Russian expansionism. http://www. unworkable Marxist alternative to the West. Communism’s demise likewise freed these trendy ideologies from having to offer some wooden. No: they had a right to strike back and kill modernizing Westerners who had intruded into and disrupted their better world—whether Jews on Temple Mount. as witness the nihilist signs at recent protest marches proclaiming: “I Love Iraq. and the “freedom fighter” into some sloppy global union of the oppressed—a far hipper enterprise than rehashing Das Kapital or listening to a six-hour harangue from Fidel. the oppressive multinational corporation and the humiliation and erosion of indigenous culture brought on by globalization and a smug. it opened as many doors as it shut. such a collapse of doctrinaire statism did not discredit the gospel of forced egalitarianism and resentment against prosperous capitalists. after all. capitalist society like our own. sloth. The font of that collective oppression. new historicism. torture. minorities. whether in Damascus.

in which a Noam Chomsky could proclaim Khomeini’s gulag to be “independent nationalism. And if the initial wave of multiculturalist relativism among the elites—coupled with the age-old romantic forbearance for Third World roguery—explained tolerance for early unpunished attacks on Americans.” reasoned argument was futile. Who were we to gainsay Khomeini’s butchery and oppression? We had no way of understanding the nuances of his new liberationist and “nationalist” Islam. as well as his conspiracies with Third World criminals. This nonjudgmentalism—essentially a form of nihilism—deemed everything from Sudanese female circumcision to honor killings on the West Bank merely “different” rather than odious. without logic but with plenty of romance. nor do they possess the intellectual tools to make judgments about the relative value of different cultures.” when no universal standards were to be applied to those outside the West? Thanks to the doctrine of cultural relativism. as anything but a danger and a pathology to be remedied by deportation or incarceration. its spread to our popular culture only encouraged more. 27 . “oppressed” peoples either could not be judged by our biased and “constructed” values (“false universals. how could critical debate arise for those “committed to social change.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (2/2) [Continued…No Text Removed] Yet in the new world of utopian multiculturalism and knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Indeed. Now back in the hands of indigenous peoples. Western-hating thought. Instead.” in Edward Said’s infamous term) or were seen as more pristine than ourselves." Thus. the silly gospel of multiculturalism insisted that Westerners have neither earned the right to censure others. Anyone who has taught freshmen at a state university can sense the fuzzy thinking of our undergraduates: most come to us prepped in high schools not to make “value judgments” about “other” peoples who are often “victims” of American "oppression. they would more likely have excused him as a victim of globalization or of the biases of American foreign policy. Iran might offer the world an alternate path. misogynist. uncorrupted by the evils of Western capitalism. They would have deconstructed Atta's promotion of anti-Semitic. a different “discourse” about how to organize a society that emphasized native values (of some sort) over mere profit. neither Western intellectuals nor their students would have taken him to task for what he said or condemned him as hypocritical for his parasitical existence on Western society. before female-hating psychopath Mohamed Atta piloted a jet into the World Trade Center. So at precisely the time of these increasingly frequent terrorist attacks.

htm. A number of the problems we have faced in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom arose because we tried to moderate the amount of destruction we inflicted on the Iraqi military. Only the shedding of their blood defeats resolute enemies.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Killing Necessary Killing the enemy in the short term is critical to winning the war in the long-term Ralph Peters. 24-32. well-considered psychological operations.” Parameters. p. but betrayed. You must be willing to kill in the short term to save lives and foster peace in the long and all the populations in between that we are winning and will continue to win. our long-term strategy must include a wide range of efforts to do what we. The only result was the rise of an Iraqi Dolchstosslegende. and humane treatment of civilians and prisoners matter profoundly. Especially in our struggle with God-obsessed terrorists—the most implacable enemies our nation has ever faced—there is no economical solution. incisive attacks on command networks and control capabilities. 28 . It is not enough to materially defeat your enemy. all we can do is to impress our enemies. You cannot do that by bombing empty buildings. But. UK: Fisher It cannot be repeated often enough: Whatever else you aim to do in wartime. Unquestionably. “In Praise of Attrition. You must convince your enemy that he has been defeated. can to address the environmental conditions in which terrorism arises and thrives (often disappointingly little—it’s a self-help world). along with many other complex factors. our allies. The only way to do that is through killing.carlisle. as crucial portions of the population never really felt America’s power. But at a time when huckster contractors and “experts” who never served in uniform prophesize bloodless wars and sterile victories through technology. never lose your focus on killing the enemy. It is not a matter of whether attrition is good or bad. Combined with insufficient numbers of Coalition troops to blanket the country—especially the Sunni triangle—in the weeks immediately following the toppling of the regime. Summer 2004. the notion that they weren’t really defeated.” Of course. It’s necessary. for now. it’s essential that those who actually must fight our nation’s wars not succumb to the facile theories or shimmering vocabulary of those who wish to explain war to our soldiers from comfortable offices. This essay does not suppose that warfare is simple: “Just go out and kill ’em. Retired Army officer. http://www.

so is mine. http://www. UK: Fisher Now.html.” 1990-94. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. On the international level nuclear weapons are the horrifying alternative to such assertive valuing of life. but better than another World Ph. That is. in situations in which the bully can be overcome by violence and non-violence is hopeless. Now they are among the most economically powerful nations in the world. including my own. A. and so is that of the bully. but it is sometimes far from clear that I am actually doing good. I may preserve my own sense of moral purity by adhering to non-violence. but an assertive attempt to stop the bully from bullying. Dangerous. (One difference between aggressive and assertive use of military power is how you treat your opponents when you win. H. I think it is consistent for me to save the bee and to stand up to the bully. nonviolence can amount to a kind of self-righteous passivity. Pax Nucleus. [7] 29 .neither Germany nor Japan was destroyed -. World War II was ultimately that kind of moral struggle -. In such cases fighting is not an aggressive effort to destroy the bully.dogchurch.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Violence Solves Evil Violence is necessary to stop greater evils J.they were merely forced to surrender.D.) So. Futterman. Their potential for raising the violence of World Wars to universally unacceptable levels has prevented nations. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. And an expression of our human nature. After all. from starting one for nearly fifty years. if the bee's life is worth something.

" but what does this mean? I have seen the police photographing a corpse on a sidewalk. Weapons of mass destruction don’t scare them. a black store owner was robbed at gunpoint. "all life is precious" means that the life of a murderer is more precious than that of his victim. while most of us face a harsher reality. and even some who look forward to dying themselves if enough "others" die also. but somehow it is not "gun control" to jail armed criminals. when terrorist states such as Iraq and North Korea develop biologic. They lack the imagination to see that some people do not use violence as a last resort." But Korean merchants who had to defend their lives and stores were called "vigilantes. UK: Fisher Recently. He identified the robber. who threatened to kill him. They hold that though all violence is wrong. * When citizens. but the prospect of being attacked by major terrorists didn’t disturb them. * The murder of innocent people. Pacifists declare. Later he used an unregistered gun to shoot the robber. as do many poor people and minorities. They rarely work or live in high-crime areas. But the fear that it has also been made less effective appears not to trouble them. gun oil has a pleasant smell with which they are unfamiliar." There was no effort to understand them. though it still troubles pacifists. Gandhi advised the Jews not to resist the Nazis — perhaps the worst advice in history. [Continues…No Text Removed] blocking them does. it can be enjoyed by a fortunate few. Indeed. Pacifists narcissistically assume everyone is like them. 30 . these pacifists are forced by this bizarre belief to become active participants — but on the wrong side. who had been released from jail and tried to carry out his threat. That is. often with the question. Instead of being passive bystanders in humanity’s struggles. chemical and possibly nuclear weapons. but the armed defense did. * The military has been made "kinder and gentler" as well as smaller. which may be required if the first approach fails. Had he tried them on a more brutal foe. or not at all. But how can Boy Scouts infiltrate terrorist or criminal gangs? Being defended by minor criminals outraged the purists’ sensibilities. * Rules were enacted to prevent the CIA from hiring informants who had records of crimes or civil-rights violations. Yet they object less vehemently. And if our military is less effective. journalists repeatedly told us to "understand the rage. The store owner was given a year in jail. and the life of a coyote is more precious than that of a cat or dog. even babies. Pacifists stand aside in self-satisfied neutrality while predators roam free. "How did the kid get access to a gun?" The armed attack didn’t upset them. The word "peacemaker" has two basic meanings. They cannot imagine that there are people who enjoy killing. In practice. * Opponents of capital punishment are often supporters of euthanasia and abortion-on-demand up to the ninth month of pregnancy.45 revolver. when other methods fail. much less sympathize with them. while suggestions that we eliminate the terrorists bring forth strong objections." but let someone shoot a would-be rapist or murderer. particularly teen-agers. he would have wound up in a forgotten grave. but enjoy violence — revel in * After the 1992 Los Angeles riot. but the possibility of * Even the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon evoke only sadness. Every year coyotes kill many pets and occasionally attack a child. however. They need not dirty their hands with weapons. but doctors’ killing innocent fetuses or patients is laudable. “The Ugly Side of Pacifism. The first refers to one who tries to calm hostility. Many pacifists are zealous in protecting criminals’ rights. but they forget the rights of victims.Pacifism Bad (1/2) Pacifism fails – there are individuals that enjoy inflicting violence on others – the only way to save lives is with force David C. a third variety of pacifist has appeared. who will keep the peace? * Opponents of a missile-defense system object strenuously that our ability to stop incoming missiles will only make things worse. Stolinsky. Some time ago. results in efforts to "understand. Consider: * It is "gun control" to further restrict law-abiding citizens from buying guns. but we know of him only because he was fortunate enough to use his nonviolent methods against the British. open to reason. They depend on the police and military to keep them safe — and then look down with contempt on their protectors. while cutting their funding and hampering them with unrealistic rules. Both types of peacemaker are needed to keep peace in the world.” October 10. pacifists often protest. Like golf. 2001. Pacifism is a luxury. Sympathy was used up on the robber — none was left for the store owner. Pacifists must choose their opponents with care. http://www. defensive violence is actually worse that aggressive violence. The second refers to the Colt . The store owner applied for a gun permit but was denied. Pacifists often live in safe suburbs or gated communities. and two coyotes tearing apart a cat on a Los Angeles street. "What would Gandhi advise?" Gandhi was a great man.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good . so they cannot understand why anyone feels the need for self-defense.freerepublic. yet hunting or trapping them is illegal. and there is prompt condemnation. the state’s killing convicted murderers is wrong. "All life is precious. use a weapon to defend themselves from armed criminals.

" About what? How to identify body parts? * "There is another way. it cannot obliterate the memory of the other 18.000 or so Americans who will be murdered this year. today’s pacifism is merely apathy and cowardice in fancy clothes: * "Give peace a chance." What cycle? We did nothing after a hole was blown in the USS Cole and 17 sailors were killed. it doesn’t matter how many resolutions the sheep pass in favor of vegetarianism.Pacifism Bad (2/2) [Continued…No Text Removed] As has been said. We can no longer pretend that only others are at risk — others who live or work in "bad" parts of town. But this does not justify blaming the victims. 31 . or women’s rights. atheists and even Muslims who disagree with their totalitarian agenda. But what if the sheep were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs." Really? What about World War II? * "We aren’t perfect. they hate us because of these freedoms. Violent death. What good did our restraint do? * "Violence never settles anything. religious pluralism. can be "bad. so sheepdogs protect them.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good . All of us. Hindus. Confucians." What. Jews. The world is full of hungry wolves. They don’t envy our free elections. Men. the only thing that matters is whether the wolves are hungry. while we stand aside feeling superior? Is that peace? * "Let’s sit down and talk. women. Horrific as the Twin Towers atrocity was. Sheep are too stupid to know this." There are people who want to see us dead. Buddhists." Neither is anyone. and it does not excuse us from our duty. crime and terrorism are realities we have been forced to face. We have been forced to face the fact that all parts of town. Not just soldiers." To do what? Allow more thousands of innocents to be slaughtered. and children. free speech. they want to crash it. they spit on it. specifically? * "Stop the cycle of violence. They want us dead. because the growls disturbed their peaceful slumbers? Rather than a coherent philosophy of nonviolence and peacemaking. They don’t want to hijack our plane. They don’t want to take what we have. and of the world. Christians.

until a better methodology is discovered. a recent draft study for a major joint command spoke of the need for “discourses” between commanders at various levels and their staffs. that they are on a mission from God to destroy your civilization and who regard death as a promotion are not impressed by elegant maneuvers. The only solution is to kill them and keep on killing them: a war of attrition. for now. They do not heed laws or boundaries. We have heard no end of blather about network-centric warfare. no matter how long it takes. the key advantage of a superpower is super power. And effectiveness is what matters. and especially our literally. They make and observe no treaties. But we do have superior killing power. once our enemies have been located. They do not expect the approval of the United Nations Security Council. we do not fully appreciate the cruelty and determination of our enemies. not theirs.htm. you must accord them their rights under the laws of war and international conventions. We have many tools—military. They badly need an assignment to Fallujah. Of course.” Parameters. you can make the problem a great deal smaller by effective targeting. law enforcement. and so on—but we have less freedom of maneuver than our enemies. left-wing nonsense spouted about the prisoners at Guantanamo. Trust me. We have no realistic choice. better suited to both global and local wars of maneuver than we are. When military officers start speaking in academic gobbledygook. woman. 32 . Evaluating lessons learned in Iraq. our enemies are. We don’t need discourses. They have a world in which to hide. And to keep on killing him until it is unmistakably clear to the entire world who won. in a transition phase. diplomatic. If you want to see a superb—and cheap—example of “net-war. we shall hear no end of fatuous arguments to the effect that we can’t kill our way out of the problem. You must find them. UK: Fisher Our military. militarily and nationally. Retired Army But we’re still in recovery—almost through our Cold War hangover. We will learn our lesson. Even after 9/11. we must be willing to use that power wisely. in some respects. economic. Well. to the great profit of defense contractors.carlisle. we cannot enter any country (except. Consider our enemies in the War on Terror. because the terrorists will not quit. Indeed. If they surrender. The truth is that even if you can’t kill yourself out of the problem. has come a long way. and child in our country and call the killing good (the ultimate war of attrition). But. “In Praise of Attrition. we are forced to watch as Pakistani forces fumble efforts to surround and destroy concentrations of terrorists. and the will to close with the enemy and kill him. They do not face election cycles. painfully. honest answers. 24-32. We’re in a war of attrition with them. it means they have nothing to contribute to the effectiveness of our forces. Faced with implacable enemies who would kill every man. you are much better off killing them before they have a chance to surrender. Men who believe. then kill them. cultural. but still too vulnerable to the nonsense concocted by desk-bound theoreticians. Summer 2004.” look at al Qaeda. And their weapons are largely provided by our own societies. It isn’t a question of whether or not we want to fight a war of attrition against religion-fueled terrorists. and the world is full of targets for them. But a war of attrition fought on our terms. We need plain talk. The mere possession of technology does not ensure that it will be used effectively. p. but.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Violence Key to Solve Terrorism Violence is necessary to solve terrorism Ralph Peters. Ultimately. as we have learned so painfully from all the mindless. Iraq) without the permission of its government. http://www. killing every terrorist we can find is a good interim solution. We are. but remorselessly. temporarily. We have the technical capabilities to deploy globally.

the same old hell. D. It recognizes that if -. Stanford University. after all. in Classics. climate.html. or population -. and the Mahdi's dervishes in 19th-century Sudan usually petered out when they were faced with an overwhelming military force that was fighting for attractive ideas." This is the first thing we must remember whenever discussion turns to "revolutions in military affairs.victorhanson. One of these key truths is that culture largely determines how people fight. a Professor Emeritus at California University. no matter the America systematically eradicates al-Qaeda 7. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Another key truth is that overwhelming force wins.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Terrorism Commitment to using overwhelming military force is critical to ending terrorism Victor Davis Hanson.suggests that a powerful state can more than handle stateless terrorists. September 11 revealed the complacency and carelessness of a democratic and affluent United States. UK: Fisher War is eternal. Guerrillas. 33 . Saddam Hussein's Iraq still fields one of the largest armies.have the wherewithal to deny the terrorists access to much of this necessary support. Israel if hijackers with tiny budgets could overcome opponents who spend trillions on defense. modern weapons.for example -. It is part of the human condition. 2002. secular rationalism.000 miles away from its shores -. May 6. as Heraclitus wrote. Superpowers -such as imperial Rome and contemporary America -. but the underlying laws and lessons that have shown themselves over millennia of warfare remain true about wars today -. require money. but the relative absence of follow-up attacks -.Iraq were to democratize. Iran boasts of spirited and fiery warriors. Fresno. Much has been made of the latest epidemic of terror and suicide bombing -. This appraisal is simply a statement of fafact. Ph.whether its armies will be successful over the long term. consensual government.far more than its geography. establish a Western system of free speech and inquiry. The degree to which a society embraces vanquish them all.and wars tomorrow. “War Will Be War: No matter the era. it is neither triumphalist nor ethnocentric. and capitalism often determines -. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have some of the most sophisticated weapons in the world.not to mention the United States -. then Iraq too. like Taiwan or South Korea. and bases in countries with friendly governments. Israel today is surrounded by a half-billion Middle Eastern Muslims -.and has little to fear from their conventional militaries.” National Review Magazine. the ecorcheurs of the Hundred Years' War. it is. But history proves otherwise: Frightful terrorists such as the Jewish sicarii of Roman times. "the father of us all." Some things will change. and embrace capitalism. http://www. might well produce a military as good as Israel's.

UK: Fisher The first such reality is that war will not be outlawed or made obsolete. but never really alter its brutal essence. a Professor Emeritus at California University." no more Americans were killed overseas than in the period after its name was changed to the less bellicose "Department of Defense" -.victorhanson. 2002.their kritik risks the death of millions as they de-emphasize the importance of the military in keeping peace Victor Davis Hanson. Fresno.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – War Inevitable Despite Alternative War will never go away .reminding us that we can repackage and rename conflict through euphemism and good intentions. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. War cannot be eliminated entirely. in Classics. only avoided by deterrence." runs the ancient wisdom -. D. Ph. "He who wishes peace should prepare for war. it remains true today. May 6. no matter the weapons. This idea is a spasm of utopian thinking on the part of elites. the same old hell.” National Review Magazine. When America had a "Department of War. its only result is to get millions of less educated and less affluent innocents killed. Stanford University. “War Will Be War: No matter the era. 34 .

the same old hell. a Professor Emeritus at California University. No nation has ever survived once its citizenry ceased to believe that its culture was worth saving. and wealthier in In contrast. if we ever come to believe that we are too healthy.html. and confused about whether being Roman was better than. France. May 6. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. -. “War Will Be War: No matter the era.” National Review Magazine. far more populous. training. no matter the weapons. then all the most sophisticated weapons of the 21st century will not save us when our hour of peril comes. Ph. The more complex.C. Themistocles' Athens beat back hundreds of thousands of Persians. 2002. 35 .but far more unsure about what it meant to be a Roman. too sophisticated. If the United States continues to believe that its culture is not only different from. which stopped the Germans at Verdun. as September 11 reminds us. rather than lasting indictments of our civilization -.and could not marshal a far larger population to repulse a few thousand Macedonians. in Classics. being German or Persian. Rome was larger. and lethal our weapons become. yet little more than a century later Demosthenes addressed an Athens that had become far wealthier -.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Must Uphold American Values Commitment to the preservation of American values is critical to our safety – weakened faith in ourselves risks future terrorist attacks Victor Davis Hanson. Stanford University. whose effectiveness depends on the discipline. and spirit of their users.and if it believes that its own past pathologies were symptoms of the universal weaknesses of men. but better than. but more often a referendum on the spirit.we will remain as strong as we were during the wars of the 20th century. those of the rest of the world -. And. D. a quarter-century later let them romp through the Ardennes in six weeks. that hour most surely will come. 400 than in 146 B. or merely different from. Fresno. expensive. http://www.victorhanson. the more we must remember that they are still just tools.D. and too enlightened ever to risk our safety in something as primitive as war. UK: Fisher The second key reality is that war is not merely a material struggle.

But we have been flailing in unpredictable directions. We are at war with militant Islamists who lust for our annihilation. Our survival depends.Sc. we should target not terrorism. We are not winning the 2003 http://www. they are the responsibility of the regime that initiated force against us. America was guilt-ridden. It should have asserted that. though such casualties are regrettable. the 18th century's lone superpower. in civil engineering and an MBA and Ph. Why? The Bush Administration lacks moral confidence. in finance from the University of Texas at Austin. Instead. September 4. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. 36 .” The Ayn Rand Institute. Our Founding Fathers did not have even one hundredth of America's present military power.aynrand. Facing the prospect of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Moral Certainty Key to WOT Moral certainty is critical to an effective war on terrorism – lack of moral confidence breeds failure Dr. apologetic and appeasing. but on the courage to use our might--to act on what is morally proper--to act on our urgent need of ferocious self-defense. the ideology that motivates the terrorists. but they were armed with the conviction that political freedom is an ideal worth fighting for. because the war lacks a clear purpose. At every turn we blushingly pretended that we are fighting to liberate the oppressed Afghans or tyrannized Iraqis--anything but confess what we should proclaim loudly: that we value and seek to protect American lives. but militant Islam. UK: Fisher To defend American lives properly. a tactic.D. holds a B. and Elan Journo is a senior writer for ARI. the Administration quailed. not only on having a more powerful military. but we could be. Their moral certainty gave them the courage necessary to fight for their independence from England. “The Timid War on Terrorism. unsure of where to go next.

html. just as defeat and humiliation erode the will of the most zealous hawk—although it is hard to confess that most humans still think with the most primitive part of their brains. But bin Ladin’s October infomercial mentioned truces and respites. or sophisticated—ever to have to descend to the primeval swamp to destroy bin Ladin and his ilk to ensure our survival. President Bush’s so-called Axis of Evil in 2002—Iraq. that he is going to lose. the infamous Al Davis: “Just win. from which he recoils: real peace and successful reconstruction are in direct proportion to the degree that an enemy is humiliatingly defeated and so acknowledges it—the aim being that he will come to feel that he cannot go on being what he has been. Panama. Stanford University.” 37 . words of the owner of the Oakland Raiders. a Professor Emeritus at California University. the will to fight for victory remains crucial to battlefield success. if inelegant. Amid all the glitter of contemporary culture and technology. educated. not out of tender concern for the West. but because bin Ladin is beginning to feel. Modern Western man is faced with this awful dilemma. In contrast. military that had led to a bellum interruptum of http://www. Not finishing off a defeated Republican Guard in 1991 or sparing looters in April 2003 or breaking off the siege of Fallujah in April 2004 only ensures that more corpses will pile up later. and North Korea—all had in common unfinished business with the U.victorhanson. an odious thought for us postmodern children of the Enlightenment. like al-Sadr. we would do best to recall the realistic. and the Taliban were all defeated. baby. D. and only after that were their societies rebuilt—and thus Grenada. “Postmodern War. the Grenada communists. in Classics. Fresno. Ph. To that end. UK: Fisher Victory always sways the heart even of the most ardent pacifist. absolute victory may encompass everything from Hiroshima to bombing downtown Belgrade as the price for tranquillity and a democratic and humane postbellum Japan and the Balkans.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Peace/Societal Reconstruction Commitment to militarism and a willingness to kill is critical to defeating the enemy – only way to ensure peace in the long-term Victor Davis Hanson.S. February 8. Serbia. and Afghanistan now do not belong to the axis of anything. Perhaps for all the debate over how to fight irregular wars in an age of global terrorism. Milošević . Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.” City Journal. 2005. Noriega. who feel we should be exempt—as too wealthy. Iran.

blowing up Marines in their sleep. in Classics. one outcome. Taking on all at once Germany. Argentina.victorhanson. Instead. Rome. and Italy — diverse enemies all — did not require the weeding out of all the fascists and their supporters in Mexico. the end of the Taliban. and toppling buildings will not only not work but bring on a war so terrible that the very thought of the consequences from another 9/11 would be too horrific to contemplate. Eastern Europe. 2003. attacking warships. February 21. Japan. Stanford University. flattening embassies. 38 . those in jackboots and armbands worldwide quietly stowed all their emblems away as organized fascism died on the vine once the roots were torn out in Berlin.html. Senior Fellow at the Hoover one war. and the destruction of Saddam's clique will convince the Arab world that it is not wise or safe to practice jihad as it has been practiced since 1979. http://www. and Tokyo. Killing American diplomats. “From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy.” National Review Online. and the Arab world. Ph. UK: Fisher The jailing of al Qaeda. once their sanctuaries and capital shrivel up — as is happening as we speak. D. Fresno. So too will the terrorists. a Professor Emeritus at California University.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – A2 WOT Is Indefinite Decisive military actions against enemies will end terrorism – the war is only indefinite in a world in which we become weak Victor Davis Hanson.

before terrified fleeing soldiers are reborn as emboldened terrorists. indeed more a matter of days or weeks than of months or years. D. but if in October he shoots a round off near a terrorist suspect's head to save the lives of his men. and postbellum terrorism — have made the need to destroy a reeling enemy before the shooting stops more critical than ever before.” National Review Online. a colonel who blows apart an Iraqi Baathist in April might win a medal. Fresno. sociologists. a Professor Emeritus at California University. After all. “The Paradoxes of American Military Power: Strange new guidelines about the way we fight. and the UN converge.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Annihilation Good/Appeasement Bad Annihilation of the enemy is critical – failure risks terrorism and violence – history is on our side Victor Davis Hanson. This rule of postmodern war? Before the cameras. and attack six months later in the Bulge. http://www. Witness the German pause outside Dunkirk when a trapped British Expeditionary Army escaped to England largely intact. Yet a false sense of morality. well before our pass on storming Baghdad in 1991. the military must finish the destruction of enemy forces in the unforgiving minute. regroup.victorhanson. in Classics. Ph. and the sheer arrogance engendered by rapid victory sometimes have stopped the full exercise of American power that would finish the job. 2003. before embedded reporters leave and investigative journalists UK: Fisher Why? Because we are in a war that is not quite a war. Stanford University. 39 . public-relations worries over gruesome images televised into the world's living rooms. but has an array of baffling rules all its own that we are only slowly grasping. The unforgiving minute. And these windows of war per se constitute about the only time that Western forces are given transitory leeway to use their overwhelming military preponderance — without worries of censure — to finish off quite odious enemies. and humanitarians. he can expect a court martial. but the subsequent (and mostly unreported) butchery in Basra and Kurdistan most surely was — and was brought on by the cessation of American bombs that allowed thousands of Iraqi killers to flee and then regroup to kill. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Conflicts proper — the period in which belligerents freely attack one another in conventional fighting — are now often brief. it was true that the failure to destroy a doomed enemy could later prove near disastrous for a victorious force. The so-called "highway of death" of 1991 was not quite the massacre promulgated by the media. The inability to blast through the Sunni Triangle from the north in the first days of the war meant that Baathists surrendered rather than were killed or defeated — and now are shooting at soldiers of whom they would have been terrified a few months when the full array of American firepower might have been brought to bear. the auditors. and before victorious and unapologetic soldiers are asked to be peacekeepers.html. The failure to annihilate the doomed Taliban and al Qaeda in Tora Bora meant that many terrorists fled to Pakistan and are now shooting their way back into Afghanistan. wide-scale pacifism. Yet the conditions of the new warfare — instant and televised global media exposure. or the Allied laxity in closing completely the Falaise Gap in summer 1944 that allowed thousands of Germans to escape. Of course. November 17.

no order of battle. the fighting is then seen as finite and worth the terrible sacrifice — an assessment that is impossible when we are static targets of an insidious enemy that seems to have no home. a sense of advance.” National Review Online. the Internet. and took thousands of casualties monthly in Vietnam! Instead. we take out dozens of Baathists in return.victorhanson. In the pre-battle hysteria over Iraq. American captains from Sherman to Patton grasped that simple fact that Americans are an impulsive. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. we are far more restless in 2003 than in worlds of either 1864 or 1944. are necessary to accept losses. or are finally waging a terrible war against the killers in Tikrit. and 50 flavors of coffee. restless people. “The Paradoxes of American Military Power: Strange new guidelines about the way we fight. the world deprecated America as afraid to accept casualties." of course. a bully frightened by the "body-bag" syndrome. if Americans sense that for every suicide bombing we 2003. What a funny charge for a country that endured awful carnage from Gettysburg to Okinawa. And with 500 channels. then we conclude that there is a beginning and an end to the conflict. bored with stasis and apparent immobility. The key is to ascertain what constitutes such a vague and seemingly amoral concept as "worth it"? "National interest" and "a just cause.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Critical to Public Support Decisive. http://www. Stanford University. Ph. UK: Fisher Casualties. In turn. Fresno. or are bombing infiltrators on the Iraq-Syria border. offensive actions are critical to sustaining public support of the war Victor Davis Hanson. We could deal with losses when Americans were fighting their way to Baghdad. and no clear distinction from civilians. 40 . in Classics. and always finding new ways to target our enemies. always moving. a Professor Emeritus at California University. and knowledge that our soldiers are inflicting far more damage on their enemies than they are on us. at home with machines and motion. Just as important in short shooting wars is movement. the truth is that an affluent and often wildly free America more than any other Western country can still accept battle losses — if its citizenry feels that such sacrifices are worth it. D. but often even those nebulous terms are not immediately discernable either to troops in the field or to the citizenry at home.html. Under the conditions of contemporary warfare. Thus it is critical for our military to find ways in the chaotic climate of Iraq to reassure Americans that we are on the offensive. November 17. but less so when they are living in Baghdad.

“From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy. they all seek weapons of mass destruction to be used as intercontinental blackmail as a way of weakening Western resolve and curtailing an American presence abroad. and so do terrorists on the West Bank — and so does Saddam Hussein send bounties to the families of such killers. individualism. which can be cajoled. For another. Fascist states and radical Islamists. one war.html. in a post-Soviet Union world. or openly joined with in ad hoc efforts to destroy a hated West. For one. 41 .com/articles/hanson022103.” National Review Online. religious diversity. Fresno. and German Nazis saw commonalities in their efforts to spread right-wing nationalist rule. http://www. and secularism that undermines both Islamic fundamentalism in the cultural sense.victorhanson. blackmailed. February 21. or Iraq. in Classics. in fact. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Libya. gender equity. one outcome. their common ideological enemy is liberal democracy — specifically its global promotion of freedom. 2003. and politically makes it more difficult for tyrants to rule over complacent and ignorant populations. UK: Fisher Just as Italian fascists. Third. Japanese militarists. so Islamic radicals seek to end Western global influence in similar ways — either through the establishment of Islamic republics in the Gulf and other oil-producing countries or loose alliances of convenience with tyrannies like those in Syria. Stanford University. our various enemies share an eerie modus operandi as well: Al Qaeda terrorists blew themselves up killing Americans. exhibit affinities that go well beyond sporadic and murky ties between such governments and fundamentalist terrorist groups. capitalism. a Professor Emeritus at California University.UK6 The Truth Terrorists Bad Terrorists mirror the fascists of old – they’re committed to destroying the American way of life and killing millions with WMDs Victor Davis Hanson. Ph. D.

Arafat was offered unprecedented territorial concessions. August 25. having been handsomely rewarded. and power for the "downtrodden" Palestinians--money which the Palestinian leadership uses to fund still more attacks on Israel. “Israel's Deadly Appeasement Process Continues. figuring he could get more by terrorism. Graduate of Duke University. they convince Israel and the West. UK: Fisher Observe what the absurdly named "peace process" has consisted of. Then. in 2000. They then blame Israel's "occupation" of territories won in a war of self-defense (and crucial for Israel's security today) for the Palestinians' misery--and blame the Palestinians' misery for Palestinian terrorism. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and Edward Cline. loot." Yasser Arafat got recognition as the "legitimate representative" of the Palestinians.aynrand. led to a promise from President Bush for a Palestinian state--and endless calls for Israel to show "restraint" in the face of a terrorist onslaught. increased dramatically. In response to his long record of terrorizing Israel in the name of "Palestinian liberation. indoctrinate them with anti-Semitism.UK6 The Truth Appeasing Terrorists  More Terrorism Appeasing terrorism breeds more terrorism – Arafat proves Alex Epstein. he was given billions in cash and a vast arsenal of deadly weapons for "security forces" that he would use to oppress Palestinians and terrorize Israel. and sponsor terrorism against Israel. The PA and its Arab neighbors deliberately keep the Palestinians in misery. The resulting escalation of terrorism. the enemies of Israel have been able to undermine Israel's security and moral confidence in a way they never could by direct attack. 42 . 2005. BA contributing writer to ARI. is more land. Unsurprisingly.” Ayn Rand Institute. By relying on terror and unearned guilt. http://www. terrorism coupled with blaming Israel. he rejected the proposal and launched a second Intifada. Consider the recent history. Under the Oslo accords. The solution. along with Arab nations claiming that antiAmerican terrorism stems from sympathy for the mistreatment of Palestinians.

In pursuing our purpose of eradicating not just the Taliban but all state sponsorship of terrorism. and--most appalling of all--Iran and Syria. They feel far more kinship toward their Muslim "brothers" in Afghanistan and in other terrorist countries than toward Americans threatened by terrorism. Invited. and not because we needed their military support--but for the craven purpose of avoiding disapproval from the Islamic world. Excluded from this coalition was Israel. is it conceivable that he will carry out his administration's pledge to go after other governments that sponsor terrorism? A coalition is supposed to be a military benefit--a means of defeating the enemy more quickly with the added firepower and intelligence of genuine supporters. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. and in which we divert military resources to distributing food packages to the country we are attacking. But for the United States to subordinate its military goal to the goal of maintaining a coalition--as we are now doing--inverts the coalition's proper role and will lead to the slaughter of more innocent Americans. the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism. To appease our Islamic allies. November 13. “Disband the Coalition. 43 . the military dictatorship of Pakistan. what principled concern could they have for the victims of the Sept. which helped put the Taliban into power. Every day the terrorists remain in existence increases their capabilities and their chances of acquiring the biological and nuclear weapons they lust after.aynrand. because its inclusion would upset the Muslims. These demands are the acts of enemies--yet they come from our declared allies: members of our international coalition in the War on Terrorism. page=NewsArticle&id=5194.” Ayn Rand Institute. freedom is not. were the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. we are fighting a half-war: an unnecessarily protracted campaign in which we limit our strikes to avoid civilian casualties.UK6 The Truth Appeasing International Feelings  More Terrorism Appeasing anti-American nations of the world only risks worse terrorism in the future – eradication of terrorism is critical to preventing massive CBW attacks Alex Epstein. and makes a proper war against terrorism impossible. These allies adamantly oppose extending the war beyond Afghanistan. Why does the United States have wartime allies that oppose our war? Because these "allies" were chosen. UK: Fisher Our international coalition serves only as a coalition against American self-defense. though. If President Bush wants to maintain this coalition. The more we linger--the more we limit our attacks to accommodate our coalition's sensitivities--the greater bloodshed we can expect from terrorists in the future. 2001. Since these governments trample upon the rights of their own citizens. the world's staunchest opponent of terrorism. They insist that we avoid Afghan civilians in our strikes--inviting the opposing army to protect itself with human shields. They urge us to cease military action during the month of Ramadan--giving the killers further opportunity to plan their next attacks. BA Philosophy. The stark truth is that the Islamic states--even the "moderate" ones--are opposed to a serious military campaign against Islamic terrorism. 11 attacks? Islam is a crucial value to them. They tell us not to bombard the Taliban too severely--because its "moderate" factions need to become part of any new Afghan government. not because they shared our commitment to eliminating terrorism. time is of the essence. Graduate of Duke University.

Even this phenomenal success rate does not stop ordinary Israelis from being blown to bits in pizza restaurants. at bus stops and during religious celebrations. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute.aynrand. obstructionism from the United Nations and petulant posturing from Arab princes. The Saudis continue to pump money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The only effective way to stop terrorism is to eliminate its sponsors. The Department of Homeland Security is America's Maginot Line. They are doing it because they do not have the moral courage to take the offensive. UK: Fisher The only action the U.” Ayn Rand Institute. America is not going on the defensive because our leaders believe that a defensive stance will work. the administration is sending law enforcement agents to invade our privacy at home. France acquiesced. "unilateral" and "imperialist. if you want to know whether this defensive stance will stop terrorism. They can only try to stop attacks that have already been conceived and planned by terrorists who have already been funded. No archipelago of law-enforcement agencies can keep America safe.S. leaving his Western border lightly defended. This is the climax of a trend that has been building for the past month: the only action the U. holds the presidency of the U. The War on Terrorism is over. So when Hitler militarized the Rhineland in 1936.N. When Hitler employed his whole army to invade Poland in 1939. 44 . Rather than holding hearings on the nuclear weapons programs of Iraq. breaking the Treaty of Versailles with a token force that was ordered to retreat if attacked. The best we can expect from this kind of defense is the result achieved by Israeli army and intelligence forces. they have apparently concluded. America's War on Terrorism is over--but the terrorists' war on America is not. it was too late. FBI Director Robert Mueller has just told us his agency cannot stop every terrorist attack. But President Bush has just announced to Europe that he has no plans to invade Iraq. In the 1930s.UK6 The Truth Appeasement Bad Best defense is a good offense – policies of appeasement and defense empirically fail – demand for an offensive posture is critical to saving lives Robert Tracinski. a new attack is inevitable and we must get used to the threat of sudden mass death. armed.'s Security Council. the nations that sponsor terrorism have risen to unprecedented heights of importance and prestige. government is now taking in response to terrorism is purely defensive. By 1940. The massive armies Hitler had built during years of European inaction merely bypassed the Maginot Line. France did nothing. Faced with cowardly quavering from Europe. Far from being destroyed. To oppose such forces would be denounced as uncompromising. and Syria. identified threats and waste it investigating the movements of ordinary students and tourists. ask the very people who are in charge of our defense. the French constructed the ultimate monument to the folly of a purely defensive strategy: the Maginot Line. America. Iran and North Korea. an impressive chain of fixed fortifications along its border with Germany. He protested weakly to Russia about its plans to supply Iran with a reactor capable of generating fuel for nuclear weapons--but was forced to admit that the United States is building just such a plant for North Korea. as we began to do in Afghanistan. http://www. “America's Maginot Line. the patron of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. When Hitler annexed Austria and seized Czechoslovakia in 1938. with the most powerful military in the world. Rather than sending soldiers to invade hostile powers abroad. Indeed. The French defenses proved useless. The new efforts announced by the administration are likely to be less effective. Congress is holding hearings on the supposed failure of the FBI to prevent September page=NewsArticle&id=7360. trained and dispatched to the United States.S. 2002. not to rock the diplomatic boat. It ended when President Bush pushed to the top of his agenda the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. has chosen to retreat into a bunker of expanded police powers and "homeland security" programs. A series of indiscriminate dragnets--like the proposal to register and track all foreign visitors to the United States--will merely take the manpower needed to focus on real. the French army remained in its bunkers. government is now taking in response to terrorism is purely defensive. They thought this defensive line would eliminate the need for offensive action. June 10. The United States remains an "ally" of terrorist sponsor Pakistan as it threatens India with a nuclear first strike. they have given up. We must demand from our leaders the only real defense: a renewed offense." It is better. which manage to stop about 80 percent of attempted suicide bombers (successes that are still dependent on the intelligence gathered from Israeli military incursions). the director of the CIA is helping to rebuild Yasser Arafat's goon squads.

anytime we have showed restraint — using battleship salvos and cruise missiles when our Marines were killed. and to kill us to the applause of millions. in Classics.UK6 The Truth Appeasing International Feelings  More Terrorism Restraint and concern for international feelings makes us look weak in the eyes of terrorists Victor Davis Hanson. if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication. the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center. and in the aftermath allowed mass looting and continual killing before our most recent get-tough policy. 2003. We chose to worry about rebuilding before the current war ended. In Fresno.html. letting Saddam use his helicopters to gun down innocents — we have earned disdain. Stanford University.” National Review Online. a Professor Emeritus at California University. our embassies blown up. 45 . but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all. not admiration. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. and our diplomats murdered.000 sorties in the no-fly zones in return. http://www. D. UK: Fisher We had also better reexamine entirely the way we use force in the Middle East. Ph.victorhanson. We did not drive on to Baghdad in 1991 out of concern for the "coalition" — and got 350. In fact. and let thousands of Baathist killers fade away. December 05. allowing the killers on the Highway of Death to reach Basra in 1991. “A Real War: Fighting the worst fascists since Hitler.

46 . embassies. the terrorists planted more bombs. the United States had embraced a quarter-century of appeasement that had resulted in far more American deaths than all those lost during the present war against terrorists abroad — flaming ships. a Professor Emeritus at California University. and then staged a fiery exit for themselves. killed. Fresno. skyscrapers. but ridiculed as weakness — and. A shaken Spain elected a new government that promised to exit Iraq. The Saudi royals thought that they of all people could continue to blackmail the fundamentalists — until the suicide-murderers turned their explosives on their benefactors and began to blow up Arab Muslims as well. as is its historical wont. 2004. not fewer.” National Review Online.html. and people the wages of its mollifying. issued more demands. In return. Ph. in fact. “Western Cannibalism: Eating each other while our enemies smile. April 08. UK: Fisher Out of all the recent chaos emerges one lesson: Appeasement of fundamentalists is not appreciated as magnanimity. Stanford University. encourages further killing. General Musharraf once did all he could to appease Islamists — and got assassination plots as thanks. tolerance for looters and militias. And every time in Iraq we have tried to offer conciliation before complete military victory — low profiles. Following the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979. France. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.victorhanson. in Classics. triangulated with the Muslim world and then found its fundamentalist plotters all over Paris. D.UK6 The Truth Appeasing Terrorists  More Terrorism Appeasing fundamentalists causes them to regard us as weak – Spain and Iran prove that this only triggers worse violence – complete military victory is critical to saving lives Victor Davis allowance for vicious mullahs — we have seen more. http://www. planes.

So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend.aynrand. and emboldens our enemies. as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons. like most politicians and intellectuals. We face. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques. in which the United States is accused of not being "hard enough" on Israel--a free nation with laws that protect all citizens. the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies--"Muslim opinion" be damned. "We have become the most hated nation in the world. 47 . "Whatever one's views on the [Iraq] war. Ted Kennedy lamented. . Such a policy would make us safe. To listen to most of our foreign-policy commentators. Graduate of Duke University. "Condemn America. 2006." Muslim anger over America's support of Israel. and embolden the better Muslims to support our ideals and emulate our ways. Instead of destroying terrorist regimes that wage war against the West--including. trying to kill Americans. Consider the issue of treatment of POWs. ttp://www. is a major cause of anti-American terrorism. not with appeasement. February 6. a crisis of "Muslim opinion. by being more "evenhanded" between free Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority--and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim world. Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for--such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel--he has appeased those causes. The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies--and dispense justice accordingly. It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq and at Guantanamo--many of whom were captured on battlefields. In the case of our militant enemies. they say. BA Philosophy. ." Such measures have rewarded our enemy for waging physical and spiritual war against us. "thoughtful Americans need to consider . expose Islamic anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral. These people oppose us not because of any legitimate grievances against America. but with destruction." "Attack America via terrorist proxy. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next Sept." they have learned. but because they are steeped in a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion--one that views America's freedom. as for the rest. with electric drills and vats of acid--that are official policy and daily practice throughout the Middle East. we must kill or demoralize them--especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement. Every concession to angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause. promotes. most notably. win the "hearts and minds" of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam. has taken the opposite approach to "Muslim opinion": appeasement." In response to Abu Ghraib. Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited." writes a "New York Times" columnist. "and America will neither blame you nor destroy you.g. All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America is irrational and undeserved. we will drive even more to become terrorists. "and American leaders will praise your ideals and meet your demands. they seek a world in which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam. They do not seek respect for the rights of the individual (Muslim or non-Muslim).UK6 The Truth A2 WOT Causes Recruitment/Resentment Terrorism risks the killing of millions – past acquiescence to world opinion has emboldened terrorists – hardline approach is necessary Alex Epstein. and routinely tortures and executes peaceful dissenters. he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands--e." We must. these commentators say. while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. but redouble its efforts to buy your love. by shutting down page=NewsArticle&id=11771&news_iv_ctrl=1021. Jew and Arab alike--for Israel's supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Iran--he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some as "coalition partners. Yet "Muslim opinion" reveres the Palestinian Authority." terrorist states and movements have been taught. They should begin by declaring that militant groups and states that threaten anti-Western violence in response to free speech will be met. a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestinians of every basic freedom. Yet these same Muslims are silent about the summary convictions and torture--real torture. Or consider "Muslim opinion" over the United States' handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. prosperity. If we fail to win over "Muslim opinion. keeps them in unspeakable poverty. Ayn Rand Institute. we are told. UK: Fisher This is the latest example of the apologies and hand-wringing that occur anytime there is any widespread display of Muslim anger." we are told. 11. "Muslim Opinion" Be Damned. declaring Islam a "great religion" and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a promised Palestinian state. and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity. we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them.." Every attempt to appease "Muslim opinion" preserves. the biggest problem facing America today is the fact that many Muslims are mad at us. President Bush.

Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. They knew that there was more to Hitler than his avowed quest for the return of the Sudetenland or the Alsace-Lorraine. 2002. not Israel — make their people poor. have we not had a national discussion about the evils of profiling those from the Middle East in our airports and stations? Don't Muslims tell their kindred back home how much freer they are in America than in Iraq or Syria? [Continues…. but also shrug. For England. And while there was a certain logic to Hitler's diatribes that a moralistic England had no more right to distant India than did Germany to nearby Danzig. who packs a gun and whips up volatile crowds in Arabic. http://www." and even Mussolini's comically delivered. Can't the Jews and Arabs just get along? If Israel would just give back all of the West like those 70 years ago who so wanted a perpetual peace. we look to gestures of appeasement. We are more amused than shocked that madrassas have taught a generation to hate us. Arafat. reeling under recent economic depression and hardly recovered from the sheer horror of the First World War — carnage unlike any in the long history of warfare — the idea of forceful resistance was little short of insanity.victorhanson. and the United States. although perhaps mesmerized. “The 1930's. most of Western Europe. Filmstrips of German Panzers. Germans? Who was stirring up such animosity? We are in a similar dilemma — in our hesitation about Iraq. We want to see no real connection between madmen blowing themselves up to kill us in New York and the like-minded doing the same in Tel-Aviv. venerable culture in Germany and Japan had gone off the deep end. and our worries about mission creep in pursuing the killers. D. wouldn't there be peace? Didn't we just fight in the Gulf a mere decade ago? How do we know that Saddam Hussein really has such dreadful weapons? Shouldn't our allies get involved too? Do these undemocratic Muslim countries really dislike us all that much? Who can trust polls anyway? Why are these saber-rattlers trying to get us into a war? And so we Americans. people. Fresno. March 25. a Professor Emeritus at California University. UK: Fisher In some ways in our war against the terrorists we are like the democracies of the late 1930s. the best strategy for promoting long-term stability is decisive victory now Victor Davis Hanson. not democracy and freedom. pray for a return of sanity in the Middle East. All the while.html. and monuments. We put our trust in peace with a killer like Mr. and dangerous.” National Review Online. Stanford University. We chose to ignore horrific stories of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia — the embryo of 9/11. Does not the Islamic world appreciate the presence of General Zinni? Do we not give billions to Arab countries? Did we not save Kuwait and Muslims throughout the globe? Who in the Arab world could really think that the murderous Taliban were preferable to the present more enlightened government in Afghanistan? And although Middle Eastern males blew up our planes. thousands of Japanese shouting "Banzai!. Ph. and whose fuel was brutal force and autocracy. angry. fundamentalism. When mullahs in Iran speak of destroying Israel we wince. gender apartheid. Rather than preparing for what our enemies are preparing for us. Again: A hard rain is going to fall. no American statesman has the guts to tell the Arab leadership that statism.No Text Removed] 48 . but hateful rants overwhelmed the senses. in Classics. tribalism. How could one stop such madness? And might it just go away with proper diplomacy? And why did "militarists" in the West insist on rearming and thereby "provoking" war? And was not there some truth to German grievances and Japanese hurts? And did anyone really wish to risk millions of innocent Americans and British to kill equally innocent. most deep-down knew that such parlor-game banter simply masked a much larger dilemma — how to corral a very powerful dictatorship and its axis that wished dominance not coexistence.UK6 The Truth A2 Muslim Resentment (1/2) Resentment is inevitable – instead of trying to appease terrorists. our pressure on Israel. They sort of suspected that an entire. and autocracy — not America.

In that context. insiders. peacekeepers incinerated in their sleep." deal with Iraq. their hatred is a badge of honor. I am tired of the appeasers of the Middle East on our Right who fawn for oil and trade. you…. Thousands of al Qaeda killers have escaped — and thousands more are angry over the death of the comrades and kin and planning carnage for us as we sleep. not us. but I am proud that thugs like Khaddafi. not us. continual televised murders of Americans abroad. We can either step up and stop Islamic fundamentalism. and the really tawdry assortment of oil men. After 30 years of listening to nauseating chanting from Teheran to Islamabad to Nablus. and prepare for a long and hard war against murderers and terrorists — or we will have more and more of what happened on 9/11. and all the time sanctimonious fingerpointing from Middle Eastern academics and journalists who are as bold abroad in insulting us as they are timid and obsequious under dictators at home in keeping silent. cars. the third day fury against the sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait. and those pacifists and multiculturalists on the Left who either do not know. Tojo. but deadly leave of their senses — Napoleon's France for most of a decade. The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon. The efforts of countries like Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons might under the present pressures grow dormant. not both sides. killers of al-this and Islamic-that. and ships. and weapons hucksters. No mas. the southern states in 1861. History teaches us that certain nations. I don't know about the rest of America. the fourth day some grievance from 1953. Polls everywhere in the Middle East reveal not mere anguish. a small number of around 200 million?) that the murder of 3. and millions of others who do not vote. The truth is that a large minority of the Middle Eastern world wishes a war with America that it cannot win — and much of the rest is apparently either indifferent or amused. shredded diplomats. oppress women. Saudi Arabia. hearing the childish rants about "The Mother of All Battles" and "The Great Satan. gender. and are not tolerant of religious. or sweet-talked — only defeated. hope for the best. 752. that two of three believed no Arabs were involved. and Iran. Germany in 1939. the misspelled banners of hatred. oil-boycotts. what America really is. Arafat and his bombers.UK6 The Truth A2 Muslim Resentment (2/2) [Continued…. not us — just as it always is when unelected maniacs take control and hijack an entire country and culture. the thousands of paint-by-the-numbers posters of psychopaths from Khomeini to bin Laden." and witnessing presidents from Carter to Bush burned in effigy. And when they do. one that will pass — or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen in 60 years. our towers toppled. Either we shall say "no more. the fifth another from A.D. Syria. win. The problem is them and their unelected and unfree regimes. No. Mussolini. suicide bombers. and accept this animosity — just as our forefathers once did when faced by similar autocrats and their captive peoples who threatened us in 1941. and Libya. and Middle Eastern dictators or we can step back and watch it all continue to grow. bodies dumped on the tarmac of airports. and that even higher poll numbers reflected real antipathy for the West. I've about had it. say. one day the salvation of Kuwait. lectures from unelected obese sheiks with long names and gold chains. Only a few of us Americans really take the Islamic world at its word — that one in three is reported to think (representing. shrill turbaned nuts spouting hatred on C-SPAN broadcasts. hooded Klansmen in Hamas and Hezbollah. murders at the Olympics. or ethnic diversity don't like me for being an American.No Text Removed] Like the dashed hopes of the 1930s such faith is not only misplaced. Japan in 1931.000 Americans was justified. I'd rather think of all the innocent dead on 9/ 11 than give a moment more of attention to Mr. televised threats that sound as hideous as they are empty. So we should stop apologizing. I don't listen any more to the apologies and prevarications of our whiney university Arabists. murderers like Saddam Hussein. not us. Arab terrorists. you. The problem is you. and I would have it no other way. not us — just as it was Hitler. A nuclear Pakistan is a tottering military dictatorship away from Armageddon. and Russia after World War II. embassy takeovers. medieval sheiks in the Gulf. but they will not cease. Nazi-inspired anti-Semitism. and certain religions at peculiar periods in their history take a momentary. then we should remember that wars usually end when one. apologized to. 49 . our planes blown up. criminals in Syria. our citizens butchered. hijacked planes. Public pronouncements in Iran are not any less hateful than what emanated from Berlin in 1936. inquisitionists like the mullahs in Iran. Bribed autocracies in Jordan and Egypt are allies only in the sense that their unelected leaders promise to jail their nuts and fundamentalists who otherwise might turn on them as well as on us. but real enmity toward Americans. bought and paid for PR suits. our equivocators in the state department.C. If 9/11 was the beginning of a war. we see much of a whipped-up Arab world entering this similar period of dangerous unreality. demented mullahs and whip-bearing imams in Pakistan. prepare for the worst. or do not like. and Stalin. the next sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait. not us — you. but also dangerous. certain peoples. do not speak freely. the ritual torching of the American flag. madmen in sunglasses in Iraq. they cannot be bribed. D. I would find it repugnant if they did.

not far from Argentina but thousands of miles from Britain. Why then did they attack in 1982 but not -. in a grand gesture of noblesse oblige. a weaker force attacked a stronger force. which Americans had built and bled for.and civilization along with was considered a safe bet in 1982. at one point a memorandum would have stopped 1882? First of all. “Another War Brought on Pacifism.which is to say the fashionable attitudes among the media. that the islands rightly belonged to them. April 19. just as the Palestinians cheered the campaign of terrorism launched against Israel. even though those supposedly innocent civilians had cheered on the attacks against the Falkland Islands. As Churchill put it. http://www. She dispatched a naval force that stormed the Falkland Islands and recaptured them. as well as accommodating the advancing might of the Communist world. would be a welcome distraction. Had that potential been mobilized earlier. while it could have been suicidal in 1882. The Argentines had claimed. back in the early 20th century. given the state of "world opinion" -. an ultimatum to Hitler would have made clear that it would be suicidal for him to proceed. to the applause of "world opinion. and a good little war with an easy victory against a virtually defenseless settlement of Britons. those who shape public opinion at home and abroad had still not gotten over the fashionable attitudes from the Carter administration years that the West should retreat gracefully before the emerging forces of the Third World.” Capitalism Magazine. Although this happened during the Reagan administration in the United States. the military potential of the West was greater than that of the nations which launched aggression. the pacifists. Back in the 19th century. Just as the Palestinians launched terrorist attacks on Israel. which the Argentines called the Malvinas. the United States had given away the Panama Canal. Moreover. Here too.capmag.asp?ID=1542. She understood the double standard that would have condemned any punitive military action against "innocent civilians" in Argentina. Thatcher did not send troops into Argentina.war brought on by pacifism. 50 . In 1882. 2002. not just a military recapture of the islands by the British. as any 19th century British Prime Minister would have done. Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution. the Western democracies wrung their hands and tried to appease Hitler. but which President Jimmy Carter turned over to Panama.would prevent the stronger force from retaliating to its fullest extent. The unprepared West came agonizingly close to losing that war -. as he continued building up his military machine and picking off countries one by one. and the United Nations -. it was too late to prevent World War II. so the Argentine military leaders attacked and took over the small British settlement on the Falkland Islands -. secure in the knowledge that "world opinion" -. perhaps demolishing Buenos Aires and hanging those who had launched the aggression. Even such a staunch ally as the United States cautioned Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher against retaking these insignificant little islands." Margaret Thatcher wasn't buying any of this. Much the same set of guilt-ridden and defeatist attitudes among the Western democracies had set the stage for Hitler's aggressions that brought on World War II. Prime Minister Winston Churchill said that never was there a war that would have been easier to prevent than the one that had just devastated great regions of the world. But even tough Mrs.UK6 The Truth A2 World Opinion Means We Shouldn’t Act Abiding by world opinion has historically produced disastrous consequences – we should act against threats Thomas Sowell. By contrast. the military junta ruling Argentina in 1982 was having internal problems. such an attack could mean British troops landing in Argentina itself. invading a British possession would bring certain Instead. had already been in British hands for almost a century and a half. In both cases. At the end of that historic carnage. The Falkland Islands. After all. in 1982 "world opinion" deplored any attempt by Britain even to recapture this little outpost of imperialism in the South Atlantic.and especially vocal pacifists -. UK: Fisher It is ironic that the current Middle East conflict is taking place on the 20th anniversary of the Falkland Islands war because both involved the same key factor -.say -. all that time. By the time it became clear that he was not going to stop until he got stopped. as well as solidifying popular support for the regime.

Retired Army officer. unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond. Until the people of Iraq are secure. On the contrary. We pretend otherwise. It’s about killing them. it’s not about PSYOP or jobs or deploying dental teams. Everybody loves a winner. Some fanatics will flock to the standard of terror. Summer 2004. Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups metastasized because they were viewed in the Muslim world as standing up to the West successfully and handing the Great Satan America embarrassing defeats with impunity. Far worse than fighting such a war of attrition aggressively is to pretend you’re not in one while your enemy keeps on killing you. only encourages the terrorists and remaining Baathist gangsters. no gestures of humanity. UK: Fisher And we shall hear that killing terrorists only creates more terrorists. We’re doing remarkably well. 24-32. Success breeds success. But no grand http://www. no matter what we do. “In Praise of Attrition. the best thing we can do for them is to kill terrorists and insurgents. no offers of and no compromises will persuade the terrorists to halt their efforts to disrupt the development of a democratic.UK6 The Truth A2 WOT Fuels Terrorism The destruction of terrorists is critical to prevent future acts of terrorism Ralph Peters. But it’s far easier for Islamic societies to purge themselves of terrorists if the terrorists are on the losing end of the global struggle than if they’re allowed to become triumphant heroes to every jobless. This is sophomoric nonsense. ruleof-law Iraq. p. which benefits from our reconstruction and development efforts. with both preemptive and retaliatory action. With hardcore terrorists. 51 . given the restrictions under which our forces operate. The surest way to swell the ranks of terror is to follow the approach we did in the decade before 9/11 and do nothing of substance. Even regarding the general population. Even the occupation of Iraq is a war of attrition. The clichés exist because they’re true. anything less than relentless pursuit.” Parameters. they are not truly free. The terrorists know that.

Chamberlain sought to "remove the causes of strife or war. What Chamberlain did not understand was that all his concessions simply led to new demands from Hitler -. where each side gives a little and everything gets worked out in the end. the British prime minister approached Hitler with the attitude of someone negotiating a labor contract. But there are others who are old enough to know better. trying to assuage aggressors' feelings and look at the world from their point of view has had an even more catastrophic track record. which led to skyrocketing crime rates. What Winston Churchill understood at the time. It is astonishing to see the 1960s phrase "root causes" resurrected at this late date and in this context. Moreover. A typical sample of this kind of thinking can be found in a speech to the British Parliament by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938: "It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality. UK: Fisher ALTHOUGH most Americans seem to understand the gravity of the situation that terrorism has put us in -and the need for some serious military response. We should understand the "alienation" and "sense of grievance" against us by various people in the Middle East.jewishworldreview. while on the edge of a volcano. and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles.and contempt for him by Hitler.” Jewish World Review. 2001. A former ambassador from the weak-kneed Carter administration says that we should look at the "root causes" behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." He wanted "a general settlement of the grievances of the world without war. these soaring crime rates came right after a period when crime rates were lower than they had been in decades. which is not always the same as our own. Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution. On the international scene.UK6 The Truth A2 Must Identify Root Causes Attempting to identify the “root causes” of terrorism or other crimes fail – history shows that triggers inaction. which allows for violence Thomas Sowell. was that Hitler was driven by what Churchill called "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them. “Pacifism and War. which sought the "root causes of crime" during that decade. even if that means dangers to the lives of us all -." Like our former ambassador from the Carter era.there are still those who insist on posturing. September 24th. who are still repeating the pacifist platitudes of the 1930s that contributed so much to bringing on World War II. creating soft policies toward criminals. In the forefront are college students who demand a "peaceful" response to an act of war." In other words.asp. and Chamberlain did not. 52 ." That was also what drove the men who drove the planes into the World Trade Center. It was precisely this kind of thinking.

Muslims from the Middle East are not per se the enemy. a Professor Emeritus at California University. in Classics. Ph. whether illustrated in bin Laden's crackpot communiqués. one outcome. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.victorhanson. February 21. After all. one war. or why so many Arabs seem to seek out Detroit rather than Baghdad.html. “From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy. Stanford University. or creating oil slicks — is another telltale symptom of our enemies. or Saddam Hussein's ugly nouveau minarets and holy books written with his own blood.” National Review Online. Fresno. toppling towers. as is the perversion of http://www. gassing civilians. the rantings of Hezbollah and Hamas to extend theocracy and kill infidels. without the bogeymen of Zionism and the Great Satan they would have to explain to their own dispossessed why Cairo is poorer than Tel Aviv. D. UK: Fisher Nihilism — whether torching oil fields. desecrating shrines. 53 .UK6 The Truth A2 You Say All Muslims Are Terrorists Our argument is only applicable to the Muslims who contort Islam to fit their own agenda Victor Davis Hanson. but rather those renegade Muslims who use the cover of Islam to rally support for their self-serving politics. why heart surgery is done in London and not Damascus. crashing airplanes. 2003.

nationalreview. Although the Left has largely declared the concepts of "good" and "evil" to be passé. of course. They believe that the human race (save conservative Republicans) is evolving toward a higher and more noble plane of social existence.” National Review Online. But rather than adjust their policy to reflect reality. unilateral utopianism is suicidal. now an attorney. and wait for reality to reflect their policy. Utopianism is dead in the minds of most people. “Down with the Peace Movement: The trouble with the antiwar warriors. We also know that unless the Saddam Hussein's and Kim Jong-il's of the world are Utopians too. because as veterans of the 20th century. carry their signs. at the forefront of the evolutionary curve.asp Many members of the peace movement also hold tightly to a loosely defined utopianism. the peace activist believes that the heart of man is intrinsically "good. Served in the enlisted and officer ranks of the United States Marine Corps from 1990 to 1995. 2003.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad Attempts at pacifism fail – evil exists in the world – attempts at utopianism are suicidal Adam G. Mersereau. http://www. then to champion utopianism in America or Europe is useless. we cannot deny that "good" and "evil" are entangled within the hearts of men and many of his ideologies. which was the bloodiest century ever. while the CroMagnon in the White House and his Cabinet of Neanderthals stubbornly resist progress. the peace activists will march in The activists themselves are. and that peace is little more than a welcome respite between wars. Utopianism is folly. January 15." and that it would be "evil" if we do not give Saddam Hussein every chance to let his goodness shine through. 54 .

military action in the War on Terrorism. including Iraq. Pacifism is inherently a negative doctrine--it merely says that military action is always bad. or to appease them by capitulating to the aggressor's demands. "You can bomb the world to pieces. wider. http://www.aynrand. “Peacenik Warmongers.” Ayn Rand page=NewsArticle&id=7458. The goal of these rallies." If dropping bombs won't work.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad Pacifism the worst of all worlds – causes millions of deaths. appeasement of enemies. is to promote peace." they chant. and there is no alternative Alex Epstein. BA Philosophy. 55 . this leaves the government only two means of dealing with our enemies: to ignore their acts of aggression. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "anti-war" groups are staging "peace rallies" that attract tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of participants. This movement calls itself the "anti-war" movement. what should the United States do to obtain a peaceful relationship with the numerous hostile regimes." In practice. UK: Fisher Pacifism necessarily invites escalating acts of war against anyone who practices it." says the prominent "anti-war" group Not in Our Name) and agonized soul-searching ("Why do they hate us?"). that seek to harm us with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? The "peace advocates" offer no answer. Across America and throughout the world. and more costly wars--leading to thousands and perhaps millions of unnecessary deaths. 2002. As one San Francisco protestor put the point: "I don't think it's right for our government to kill people. There is an increasingly vocal movement that seeks to engage America in ever longer. "but you can't bomb it into peace. the protesters proclaim. who gather to voice their opposition to an invasion of Iraq and to any other U. December 9. The most one can coax out of them are vague platitudes (we should "make common cause with the people of the world. The absence of a peacenik peace plan is no accident. Graduate of Duke University.

But instead of using this 56 . but strict pacifists reject this as unethical. UK: Fisher Pacifism is a noble ideal. They are unrealistic. http://www. but at least they are honest.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad Pacifism produces indifference to violence – means inaction in the face of atrocities David C.” October 10.freerepublic. idealistic approach. Rather than motivating them to action. many who call themselves "pacifists" are merely indifferent — they stand aside. Pacifists used to come in two varieties. smugly looking down on humanity’s struggles. The first holds that all violence is wrong. 2001. Stolinsky. their false pacifism is merely an excuse for inaction. Overcoming violent criminals often requires force. the word means "making peace." Real pacifists are sensitive to human suffering and strive to mediate between hostile factions. “The Ugly Side of Pacifism.

freerepublic.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad – A2 We Allow Violence In Extreme Circumstances Their brand of pacifism prevents action in the face of violence – even in extreme circumstances. But these exceptions always seem to lie in the past. 57 . http://www. pointing out that no Hitler was on the horizon. despite the growth of the Soviet empire. UK: Fisher The second variety of pacifist allows some exceptions — especially horrible evil may be opposed with force if absolutely necessary. pointing out that no Genghis Khan was at the gates. “The Ugly Side of Pacifism. Stolinsky. pointing out that the Soviet empire is no” October 10. despite the rise of Hitler. Pacifists in the 1930s opposed rearmament. 2001. despite the rise of global terrorism. That is. the exceptions are never relevant to the current problem — they aren’t really exceptions at all. they won’t do anything David C. Pacifists today oppose rearmament. Pacifists in the 1980s opposed rearmament.

” City Journal. Fresno. by such means as the rather crude Soviet Union propaganda efforts in the cold war or by appealing to deep-seated Western D. in Classics.victorhanson. rather than preparedness and deterrence. a Professor Emeritus at California University. UK: Fisher Thus a weaker enemy can hope to persuade or frighten a majority of its adversary’s citizens to reject the war party.html. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Ph. February 8. on the logic that the movie showed how irregulars in block-to-block fighting might force conventional American troops to go home by shattering their leaders’ morale.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad Their argument is what terrorists and dictators want you to think – it emboldens those individuals to think that Americans are scared of casualties – militaristic approach key Victor Davis Hanson. is critical to maintaining their present tranquillity. and to come to its terms or simply quit. More recently. “Postmodern War. while Saddam Hussein stockpiled morale-boosting DVD copies of Black Hawk Down. Stanford University. terrorists have grasped that the enormous wealth and privilege of Western society in the postwar half century have convinced many Americans and Europeans that avoiding war altogether. http://www. 58 . 2005. Usama bin Ladin’s own fatwas invoke America’s purported inability to take casualties.

They don't negotiate back. the world passively sold out Czechoslovakia to him. Futterman. Further. they merely use your forbearance to buy time and opportunity to get at you. http://www. Ph. In short.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad Pacifism makes wars bigger and longer – hardline militarism would’ve prevented the rise of Hitler J. pacifism can sometimes help to make wars bigger and worse than they have to be. but not for nations. In other words. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. Instead of engaging in a minor military expedition which would have forced Hitler to back down. while Chamberlain "peace in our time. But is it moral to use force? Those of us who might contemplate calling the police in order to stop a murder must believe that occasionally it is. a demonic will to unconsciousness. what do you do? Running away may work for individuals. A. Remember that Hitler could have been stopped easily by a show of force when he threatened to annex the Sudetenland. and set some limits. H.html. I think a reflexive pacifism is no more entitled to a presumption of moral innocence than nuclear weapons work. because you can't reason with bullies. and that pacifism applied in the wrong way at the wrong time contributed to the development of the nuclear weapons that pacifists now find so abhorrent. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. They exhibit a kind of willful mindlessness. and ultimately to lose political power.dogchurch.D.” 1990-94. or to get around you — like Hitler did. I maintain that sometimes it may be immoral to do anything else. And if they exceed your limits. if your opponent is that crazy. paving the way for a much more prolonged and bloody conflict later — a conflict that resulted in the development of the first atomic bombs." You assert your position. Negotiation is also unworkable. if deterrence is not enough. to lose face. 59 . you use force. That force was not brought to bear in a timely manner is due largely to the pacifist sentiment in Europe and America at the time. UK: Fisher Of course. so I will neglect that option.

" leaving a world populated only by blue-eyed blondes.dogchurch. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. non-violent confrontation on the part of the Poles would probably have enabled the Nazis to carry out their agenda in Poland more easily. Ph. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. H.html. and how much extra time would have been given to Nazi scientists trying to invent atomic bombs to go on those V-2 rockets? The evil of Nazism may well have expended itself. http://www. if the world had used non-violence alone against the Nazis. There were some successful acts of non-violent confrontation against the Nazis. The other reason these acts succeeded was that overwhelming violence of the Allies had stretched the Nazi forces too thin to suppress massive action by a whole populace. Futterman. the Indians successfully used non-violent resistance to persuade the British to end the Raj. the Nazis would have been perfectly happy to use the event as an excuse for liquidating more how many millions more would have died. Rather than awaken the Nazis' moral sense. The Nazis. UK: Fisher That said. and eventually deprived the Nazis of the time they needed to find other ways to carry out their "final solution. however. For example. [4] Remember. non-violence resistance alone would have been very slow to work against the Nazis. [5] Now this resistance worked partly because the Nazis considered the Danes to be "Aryans" like themselves.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad – Non-Violence Fails Non-violence fails more often than not J. led by the British-educated Gandhi. were human beings like themselves. That many Danes followed their king's example helped camouflage many Jews until they could escape to Sweden in fishing boats. the results may have been much worse those of the war. who with their "Master Race" ideology admitted only so-called "Aryans" to the category of human. And while it slowly ground away at the evil in the Nazi soul. provide an example counter to that of the British. but perhaps after a real "thousand-year Reich. A.[6] 60 . because the British eventually acknowledged that the Indians." In other words. that non-violent resistance is a sophisticated technique that works only when used by the "right" people at the "right" time against the "right" opponents.” 1990-94. once they had consolidated their power. Had the Poles tried the same thing. He did so in response to the Nazi practice of ordering Jews to wear yellow-starred armbands so that the Nazis could more easily isolate them from their surrounding society. In other words.D. I admit that I admire non-violent resistance. like King Christian of Denmark's public declaration that he would wear the yellow star if it were introduced in his country.

UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad Pacifism equates defendant to aggressor. If the pacifist were also consistent in his use of clichés." then abstract their common element. Freelance Writer in Los Angeles." which names the heart of the matter: total passivity and surrender when faced with any kind of threat." This same thought process (or lack of it) is behind the pacifists' opposition to war . Pacifism used to be known as "nonresistance. We'll be sinking to their level!" If you understand the pacifists' basic error. and force used in retaliation against the aggressor in self-defense. No.specifically. Of course. Over the past few weeks. If you spend any amount of time thinking about the issue (which most pacifists do not).capmag. the woman has "sunk to the rapist's level. for example. the opposition to a country fighting back when war has been initiated against it. Were a pacifist totally consistent in his philosophy. and force which is used in selfdefense. it's not morally wrong to fight back against someone who's attacking you. in the case of our current situation.” Capitalism Magazine. http://www. October 13. I'm sure you've heard at least out of the question and must be opposed. his mind knows only the abstraction "war. Which side initiated the war is of no interest to him. To the pacifist. you never hear the position stated this way: today's pacifists almost always make their case exclusively in terms of what they're against.after all. throwing monkey-wrenches into people's convictions at a time when this country needs every ounce of moral certainty it can muster. rapist to rape victim – destroys ability to make normative judgments about violence that are critical to safety Kevin Delaney. you can see very clearly what's wrong with this picture: the failure to differentiate between the force of an aggressor.any kind of force . “Debunking the Clichés of Pacifism." etc. UK: Fisher The philosophy of pacifism can be expressed in a single principle: "The use of force is morally wrong. but clearly necessary a woman fighting off a rapist. we'll just be doing to them what they did to us. Full-fledged pacifists are relatively rare." This means that ALL force . if you value your life.). you'll very quickly be able to think of a number of situations in which the use of force is clearly not only not morally wrong." She has "resorted to violence. 61 .asp?ID=1157. yet their clichés are nevertheless having an effect on many minds. attacker and victim are moral equals. it's absolutely essential that you do. such as "world peace. she's certainly committing an act of force. and you'll arrive at the ominous error at the root of the pacifist philosophy: pacifism makes no distinction between force which is initiated. 2001. he'd say that in fighting the rapist off." and that he's against Take a few moments to come up with several such "exceptions. something to the effect of: "If we bomb our enemies." and is now "just like him. he'd have to say that the woman who fights off the rapist is wrong to do so . rarely what they're for (except in the most general sense.

What those pacifists and professors are not silent about. which are the greatest rebukes to the beliefs of the pacifists and the professors and anyone else whose ideas make possible and then excuse dictatorship.S.capmag.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad .S. has oppressed the Arab UK: Fisher Righteous in their indignation against the use of American military force. represents the greatest threat to those Mid-East dictatorships that do and. http://www. They who tolerate Mid-Eastern Arab tyrannies are not silent in their intolerance of America. but also the reason they -. thus.are attacking America now. October 12. stands for individual rights. poverty and oppression. About all that oppression they are silent. “Pacifists and Professors of Oppression. represents the greatest hope to the Arab peoples. nevertheless.a nation they hate with the religious fervor of an Islamic terrorist -. but because the U. they look the other way when those who even mildly publicly criticize Arafat have their tongues cut out or worse. Assistant Editor for Capitalism Magazine. They who speak intolerantly of American racism are. the pacifists and professors.the pacifists and the professors -. therefore.asp?ID=1154. is their opposition to America's right to selfdefense. capitalism and the pursuit of happiness. not because the U. nonetheless. The pacifists and the professors cannot accept that America -.S. is racist or imperialist. 2001. though. but because the U. morally superior.S. Avowed defenders of the Palestinians.” Capitalism Magazine. America was attacked. willingly accept the preemptive annihilation of an entire city in Syria by that nation's despotic morally right and. willing to tolerate the slave trade thriving in Sudan. America is now being attacked by many in the universities.Their Argument = Dictator Propaganda Their argument equates to support for oppressive dictatorships Steven Brockerman. not because the U. 62 . they are willing to grimly evade not only the reason America was attacked on September 11. thus.

THE ARROGANCE While campaigning for the presidency. and simply refuse to disturb the current state of peace. In the mind of the peace activist. instead. and are not controlled by.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad Peace movements ultimately fail – even if the US turns more peaceful. There could be war — and likely will be war — regardless of our course of action. but the peace movement is fantastically more Therefore.S. chemical. Peace activists believe that America's economy and culture are such dominant forces in the lives of people throughout the world that the actions and policies of other nations can be interpreted only as mere reactions to the actions and policies of the United States government. Many would eagerly fight and risk death in an armed revolution if they could obtain the resources and momentum to launch one for themselves. Of course. The peace activist then reaches the conclusion that the United States can make a unilateral decision for peace. tax dollars into the faltering North Korean economy? Perhaps it is slightly arrogant. America is not just the sole superpower. there will be no reaction by others. The best we can say is that they are clinically naïve. and war is tragic.and biological-weapons program? Is it arrogant to suggest that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power if he continues to defy and deceive the international community? Likewise. they are more helpful to America's enemies than to America. Mersereau. and on whose turf? 63 . Peacenik foreign policy is really very simple: Without an action by the United States. it is unthinkable that quaint little dictators — such as Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il — might deign to manipulate America as much or more than America tries to manipulate them. Naïveté allows the peace movement to thrive. the choice between war and peace is not ours alone. The group that most openly celebrates the diversity of mankind does not understand that many people in the world hold diverse beliefs and subscribe to ideologies that are entirely independent of American influence. and so every world event is simply an equal (and sometimes opposite) reaction to a prior American action. simply by choosing to lay down its arms. The peace movement is founded upon a subtle ethnocentrism that escapes detection even by the multicultural Left where most peace activists are bred. It is unthinkable that a nation would resort to building nuclear weapons if they did not first feel threatened by the world's only super-bully. They are as insufferable as a college freshman who believes he and his political-science professor can end poverty if only people would listen.asp Peace activists may be well intentioned.nationalreview. is it arrogant to expect the North Koreans to abide by the Agreed Framework. He is now widely accused of forsaking the less-arrogant approach and of choosing. it is the center of gravity for all world events. but at their worst. the U.S. candidate Bush said that his administration would conduct its foreign policy with less arrogance than past administrations had displayed.N. but it is animated by arrogance. “Down with the Peace Movement: The trouble with the antiwar warriors. now an attorney. State Department. Served in the enlisted and officer ranks of the United States Marine Corps from 1990 to 1995. under which the U. there will be no war. If the United States would ignore open and notorious breaches of U. If America does not start a war.S. to rattle his saber at any dictator he thinks he can rattle. other enemies won’t Adam G. directives and treaties. Little do they know that a majority of the Iraqis who stroll past their peace marches in Baghdad support an American invasion. 2003. http://www. January 15. promised to inject millions of U. The only questions are: on whose terms. It is as if the peace activists believe they have discovered for the first time those self-evident and thus ancient truths that human life is sacred. But is it really arrogant for the president to insist that a violent and unpredictable dictator with ambitions to control the world's oil supply — who is also a friend of al Qaeda — should be denied a secret nuclear. This is the arrogant ethnocentrism of the peace movement. Under this view. It is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il might have diabolical plans and evil aspirations that were not created by. then peace would prevail by default. they believe America has the unbounded ability to manipulate foreign governments through economic and cultural means.” National Review Online.

it does so by rallying the majority of the population toward whom it is directed to stop the direct perpetrators of injustice by force -. These two men were sending white America the same message concerning justice and racial equality. 64 . In fact. Futterman. Jr.html. It took both statements to achieve the progress made thus far. non-violent resistance harnesses (or co-opts). the prisons. Ph.D.dogchurch. Martin Luther King.” 1990-94.UK6 The Truth Non-Violence Permutation Must back up non-violence with the threat of violence – action of MLK and Malcolm X prove this solves best J. http://www. If whites failed to respond to the message stated gently. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. In other words. The nonviolence of Dr. was complemented by the willingness to use "any means necessary" of Malcolm X. non-violence is sometimes even helped by the threat of violence to achieve its objectives. UK: Fisher Even when non-violence does succeed. whites would be given the opportunity to respond to it stated violently. H.force that necessarily includes the threat of force of law in the form of the police. and the polls -. A. rather than eliminates violence. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

UK6 The Truth ***Imperialism/Multiculturalism*** 65 .

We do not send out proconsuls to reside over client states. but publicly and proudly. and the British Parliament alike were eager for empire and reflected the energy of their people. Imperial powers order and subjects obey. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution." and "subject states. We are considered haughty by Berlin not because we send a Germanicus with four legions across the Rhine. American bases are predicated on contractual obligations — costly to us and profitable to their hosts. Stanford University. Bush to Caesar — and worse — and invocations all sorts of pretentious poli-sci jargon like "hegemon. Russia. UK: Fisher It is popular now to talk of the American "empire. Ph. Puerto Ricans are free to vote themselves independence anytime they wish. and never finished the job in either Korea or Vietnam. Most Americans are far more interested in carving up the Nevada desert for monster homes than in getting their hands on Karachi or the Amazon basin. America went to war late and reluctantly in World Wars I and II. Ottomans. Bush snubs Mr." But if we really are imperial. Boasting that you hate Americans — or calling our supposed imperator "moron" or "Hitler" — won't get you censured by our Senate or earn a tongue-lashing from our president. Take away all our troops from Germany and polls would show relief. Britain worried about France and Spain at sea and the Germanic peoples by land. Empires usually have contenders that check their power and through rivalry drive their ambitions. The Ottomans never could bully too well the Venetians or the Spanish. “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online. and self-absorption are far stronger in the American character than desire for overseas adventurism. among Americans. and the British wanted land and treasure and grabbed all they could get when they could.victorhanson. not anger. http://www. and really have no desire to return. not them. We were likely to sigh in relief when we were kicked out of the Philippines. — but only after we ensure them the traffic of oil and security for outstanding accounts. Schroeder by not phoning him as frequently as the German press would like. and the South Americans all say worse things about us than we do about them. Instead. D. promises — we would be more likely to count the money saved than the influence lost. Our critics may slur us for "overreaching. stop us from becoming what we could. a Professor Emeritus at California University. parochialism. France and Russia go along in the U. but rather the American electorate itself — whose reluctant worries are chronicled weekly by polls that are eyed with fear by our politicians. We do not see any profits in Korea.000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can flood our shores and that shaggy students can protest outside our embassy in Seoul. 66 . not them.html." "imperium." but our elites in the military and government worry that they have to coax a reluctant populace. The Athenian ekklesia. in Classics. We. Fresno. Pakistan gets debt relief that ruined dotcoms could only dream of. Jordan reels in more aid than our own bankrupt municipalities. Should the Greeks tell us to leave Crete — promises. but instead accept the risk of losing almost 40. But in our case. it's usually one-way: the Europeans. the Arabs.N. The United States hasn't annexed anyone's soil since the Spanish-American War — a checkered period in American history that still makes us. political support — and money — for their allegiance. Isolationism. Rome found its limits when it butted up against Germany and Parthia. out as villains in our own history books. not constrain a blood-drunk rabble. but is more likely to get you ten minutes on CNN. but because Mr." along with neologisms like "hyperpower" and "overdogs." In Europe particularly there are comparisons of Mr. which in turn impose taxes on coerced subjects to pay for the legions. Romans. Athenians. November 27. the Roman senate. we offer the Turks strategic guarantees. Athens worried about Sparta and Persia. In contrast. not privately and in hurt. we rule over a very funny sort of empire.UK6 The Truth Not Imperialist The US is nothing like past imperial nations – their comparisons are bankrupt Victor Davis Hanson. or the European Union. In contrast. the restraint on American power is not China. If acrimony and invective arise.

Pericles. and Alice Walker — said about 9/11 would either nauseate or bewilder most Americans. not liked. Fresno. Sirs. and found itself nearly broke after only the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War. Even before World War I. American suburbanites. or generals are lucky if they can melt away in anonymity to the Virginia suburbs without a a debased currency. November 27.UK6 The Truth Not Imperialist The US has no imperial aims Victor Davis Hanson. CIA operatives. Gore Vidal. and retirements — moneys that support. The story of the Roman Empire is one of shrinking legions. The eerie thing is not that we have 13 massive $5 billion carriers. And most of our military outlays go to training. but that we could easily produce and maintain 20 more. Masters. Virgil. in Classics. and come home laden with spoils. the British anointed their returning proconsuls as Rangers. and the Queen could boast that the sun never set on British shores. and Lords. Proconsuls were given entire provinces. Susan Sontag. educate. our ex-president Carter from his peace center advises us to disarm. 67 . and foster a rhetoric of superiority. Pericles could showcase his Parthenon from the tribute of empire. shine in battle. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. America spends less of its GNP on defense than it did during the last five decades. How odd then that what America's literary pantheon — Norman Mailer. a Professor Emeritus at California University. and help people rather than simply stockpile weapons and hone killers. Roman imperialists had names like Magnus and Africanus. http://www. Rome wanted the prestige of Pax Romana and Mare Nostrum. inner-city residents.victorhanson. the Sultan thought Europe should submit to Allah. Our imperial aims? We are happy enough if the Japanese can get their oil from Libya safely and their Toyotas to Los Angeles without fear. retired American diplomats. Athens raised the Aegean tribute often. media exposé. or if China can be coaxed into sending us more cheap Reeboks and in turn fewer pirated CDs. salaries. Governors. or lawsuit. the Raj had drained England.html The desire of a young Roman quaestor or the British Victorians was to go abroad. They wanted to be feared. and rural townspeople all will fret because a French opportunist or a Saudi autocrat says that we are acting inappropriately. Empires create a culture of pride and pomp. Ph. “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online. In contrast. Grandees. D. In contrast. and a chronically bankrupt imperial treasury. and Kipling all talked and wrote of the grandeur of imperial domain. Stanford University. 2002. Most empires chafe at the cost of their rule and complain that the expense is near-suicidal.

That explains why Le Monde or a Spanish deputy minister may libel us. UK:Fisher In that regard. unfree Arabs. D. brown. wealthy white people who want your copper. “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online.html. European socialists. even as millions of semi-literate and oppressed southeast Asians are dying to get here. America is also a revolutionary. Thus far the rest of the globe — whether Islamic fundamentalists. rather than a stuffy imperial society. a Professor Emeritus at California University. but rather baggy jeans and backwards baseball caps. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Ph. 2002. and white middle-class Americans alike have to offer. Star Wars. Pepsi. and Beverly Hillbillies reruns — does not reflect the tastes and values of either an Oxbridge elite or a landed Roman aristocracy. nations realize that there is no alternative to US ideology Victor Davis Hanson. We so-called imperialists don't wear pith helmets. bananas. Stanford University. or Chinese Communists — has not yet formulated an ideology antithetical to the kinetic American strain of Western culture. in Classics. yellow. Its crass culture abroad — rap music. http://www. 68 .victorhanson. November 27. Fresno.UK6 The Truth Not Imperialist – A2 We Force Our Culture Unto Others Others adopt US culture because it reflects the diversity of American society – and. Big Macs. It is one thing to mobilize against grasping. or rubber — quite another when your own youth want what black.

November 27. Critiques of the United States based on class. Ph. D. the poorer want freedom and material things first — and cynicism. and nihilism second. Add that all up. of what we read about the evil of American imperialism is written by post-heroic and bored elites. much less stop.victorhanson. then. In contrast. but whose rarified tastes are apparently unshared and endangered. And real knowledge of past empires that might allow judicious analogies is beyond the grasp of popular pundits.UK6 The Truth Not Imperialist – Prefer our evidence Their authors are coffeehouse hacks – they ignore the actions of the individuals outside the US Victor Davis Hanson. whose freedom and security are a given. Stanford University. nationality. the American cultural juggernaut. UK: Fisher Much. in Classics. intellectuals. skepticism. or taste have all failed to explicate. http://www. “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online. and coffeehouse hacks. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Fresno. irony. a Professor Emeritus at California University. So we should not listen to what a few say. Neither Freud nor Marx is of much help. 69 . and our exasperated critics are left with the same old empty jargon of legions and gunboats.html. but rather look at what many do. Forecasts of bankrupting defense expenditures and imperial overstretch are the stuff of the faculty lounge. 2002.

if it is nice enough.UK6 The Truth Imperialism Good – A2 Should Appease States Trying to appease other nations is an empty gesture – keeping states in line is inevitable and critical Stephen Peter Rosen. The dominant member can never do everything that subordinates desire. is create and enforce the rules of a hierarchical interstate order. PhD from Harvard University in 1979 and is currently the Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs in the Department of Government. a theme to which students of American hegemony constantly return. But such rituals will only reduce. and so is blamed for what it does not do as much as for what it does. This is why empires never rest easy. 70 . so the United States does well to consult the United Nations and NATO councils before it acts. It is a naive and perhaps uniquely American notion that those states inferior in power to the United States ought not resent their own subordinate status. Acting in a humble manner is a ritual worth much respect. Washington can build a "benign" imperium in which all love it.” The National Interest. This does not mean that the United States should dispense with tact. Ritual plays a role in ameliorating tensions in a social hierarchy by creating and confirming expectations of how members of the hierarchy are treated.2 Humility is always a virtue. UK: Fisher Because the problems of running an empire are different from the problems of interstate primacy. Human evolutionary history has produced a species that both creates hierarchies and harbors the desire among subordinates to challenge its dominant member. If you Can Keep It. if it is to wield imperial power. Those challenges never disappear. not eliminate. but the dominant male atop any social hierarchy. that. the resentment toward the United States that springs from the fact that it can do what it must in any case. human or otherwise. Spring 2003. “An Empire. never managed to rule simply by being nice. Harvard University. LN Academic. but rituals do not fundamentally change reality or the attitudes of those subordinate in power. there is more to imperial statecraft than knowing how to conduct a "humble" foreign policy. And what it must do.

Saudi Arabia. would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. If the logic of American empire is unappealing. the United States could give up the imperial mission. it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive. PhD from Harvard University in 1979 and is currently the Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs in the Department of Government. Iraq and perhaps Algeria. or pretensions to it.UK6 The Truth Imperialism Good . in the most probable post-imperial world. Indonesia and others. South Korea. Spring 2003. Iran. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. 71 . forces from the Middle East. UK: Fisher Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems. Current friends would feel less secure and. Taiwan. Malaysia. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. without significant exception. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile. and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Harvard University. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. or anyone else.” The National Interest. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect. but they would not be small.S.Proliferation Imperialism is critical to preventing wild-fire proliferation – status quo less dangerous than world of alternative Stephen Peter Rosen. LN Academic. Europe and mainland Asia. will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. It may be that all other peoples. If you Can Keep It. “An Empire. now.

UK: Fisher Multiculturalism is an evil ideology driven by evil intentions. http://www. residing in Calgary. Freelance Writer. 2006.asp?ID=4714.capmag. post-modern philosophy professors—begins by promoting “cultural relativism. at the Objectivist Graduate Center of the Ayn Rand Institute as an auditing student. Western. no culture is better or worse than any other. science.” [2] 72 . [1] Multiculturalism—a creation of leftist. “Multiculturalism Breeds Terrorism. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Logically. and each individual’s right to life. mystical cultures such as voodoo medicine.” which holds that all cultures are of equal value. As essentialized by Peter Schwartz. this serves to de-value Western values. by equating them with the most irrational and destructive practices of primitive.” Capitalism Magazine. and it’s imperative that defenders of individualism understand its essential nature. June 24. genital mutilation. “Multiculturalism is the debased attempt to obliterate values by claiming that they are indistinguishable from non-values. and even cannibalism. full time. nihilistic. and studied philosophy and writing.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – Destroys Western Culture Multiculturalism destroys critical values of the West Glenn Woiceshyn. the subjugation of women by productiveness. such as reason.

and studied philosophy and writing. such as hair styles of different cultures. practical values with irrational. at the Objectivist Graduate Center of the Ayn Rand Institute as an auditing student. in her seminal essay entitled “Global Balkanization. birth defect. such as forcing companies to hire people on the basis of race—not ability. no persuasion is possible among them. pride. and hatred. to nonchosen or insignificant characteristics. http://www. Freelance Writer. significant values. conceptual values. etc. which is racism. 2006. not chosen ideas and values. full time. if one culture appears to be ahead in terms of wealth creation. suspicion. success. which involves diluting rational. The next step in constructing multiculturalism involved shrinking the concept of culture from chosen. romantic art. “Multiculturalism Breeds Terrorism. In fact. The next step consisted of promoting “diversity” as a value. technology and the enjoyment of life.” Andrew Coyne tried to redefine “diversity” to mean the different ideas that flow from free and thinking individuals. UK: Fisher Defenders of multiculturalism argue that deeming one culture superior to another leads to racism. residing in Calgary. Ayn Rand. but then “diversity” is not the defining characteristic. This served to promote a tribal mentality whereby individuals are encouraged to think of themselves as inescapable members of a tribe (or sub-tribe) defined by unchosen. “There is no surer way to infect mankind with hatred— as will soon become clear. only mutual fear. Racism is essentially different from the evaluation of a cultural practice according to the objective standard of survival and the enjoyment of life. individual liberty.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad . perceptual-level characteristics—not chosen.asp?ID=4714. If a man believes that his own character in some unknown. and that the characters of all strangers are determined in the same way—then no communication. which they allege to be trying to prevent. destructive ones. unless all do equally. or with ridiculous courses such as “black science” and “feminist algebra. such as wisdom. conceptual. The final step in constructing multiculturalism involved blending cultural relativism with “egalitarianism.” [3] 73 .” which holds that no one (or no tribe) should benefit from a value. etc. Hence. gender. Another example is the dilution of school curricula with useless cultural trivia. ethnic/religious/linguistic heritage.. blind. There is no value for such individuals to diversify rational ideas with Nazism or Wahhabism. June 24. etc. The logical result of multiculturalism is to create a world of primitive. multiculturalism is a racist doctrine.. such as wealth. This helps explain why militant Muslims in the East are murdering innocent people while claiming to be victims of Western oppression. tribalistic mentalities that form countless sub-tribes based on unchosen identities and battle each other for power and unearned wealth until all values (and lives) are destroyed—which is the ultimate goal of nihilism.” wrote.” Capitalism Magazine. such as skin color.Extinction Multiculturalism triggers violence that results in extinction Glenn Woiceshyn. no understanding. then this would imply “oppression” because all cultures have equal value and thus deserve equal results.capmag. virulent hatred—than by splitting it into ethnic groups or tribes. ineffable way. prosperity. But racism involves judging a person’s character according to race.

2001. that the Constitution of the United States guarantees more freedom than any Islamic state. Almost no one wants to migrate to any of the other major civilizations. critical thought and political stability. it is unnecessary because Western superiority doesn't need advocates. Nonetheless. The examples could be multiplied ad infinitum. technology. science. industry. business. art. that Italian opera is much better than Chinese opera. Historian. that European doctors can cure many more diseases than Buddhist shamans. It speaks for itself. No one with any knowledge of these fields could seriously think otherwise. For a start. 74 . For instance. Moreover. military strength. of course. liberty. the rest of the world is still voting with its feet. and it has slipped badly on social indices in recent decades. Friday. sport.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – West is Best The West is the Best – advances in numerous fields of human technology and the fact more and more people want our culture solidify this Keith Windschuttle. It is hard to think of one major area of human activity where the West comes second. but people wait in countless queues to leave them for the West. drug abuse and standards of public education. Commentary: West superior without apology. UK: Fisher To compare Western civilization with the others is a thankless task. it is plain to anyone familiar with music. and equality. medicine or politics. To state this is tasteless. even though almost everyone knows it is true. The contest is not even close. literature. to do so is insensitive because the comparison provides a reminder that non-Western cultures are inferior. UPI. LN. is far from perfect. wealth. November 30. music. human rights. especially in family breakdown. The West is best in health. The West.

Even liberals who would abhor Berlusconi's glorification of the Occident are forced to admit that the elimination of the death penalty is largely a Western phenomenon. Take something as concrete as capital punishment -. leftists appear to forget that many of the values they hold dear are shared more by the Occident than by any other part of the world. November.i. New Zealand. Urban Mozaik. secularism and the importance of the individual. 75 . the only region as a group to do away with it is the West -.Western Europe itself and the so-called neo-Europes abroad. 2001.nov_issue/ One American abolitionist site wonders aloud why the US continues to execute its citizens when the "countries with which we identify socially" -.have ceased to do so. http://urbanmozaik. Is The West The Best? After The Attacks: Taking A Closer Look At Both Sides of The World. and Latin America. Australia. those in Latin America and Europe -.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best The ideals of the liberals are mainly Western creations Emily Monroy.a practice that leftists and liberals almost universally oppose. Though a smattering of nations around the globe have abolished the death penalty. Never mind lofty ideals like freedom.html. UK: Fisher In their haste to distance themselves from what they see as the imperialistic oppressor. like Canada.

multiculturalism cannot apply a critical lens to non-western cultures. But what distinguished the early anti-slavery movements was that they said. The Podium: Boundless Webzine." And so you see the case against slavery and the case for democracy are the same. UK: Fisher Activists on our college campuses and our college professors and the deans have suddenly realized that the great works of non-western cultures reflect the ideology and even the prejudice of those cultures. A Minority Point of View. And this is why the American founders understood from the very beginning the contradiction between the practice of slavery and principle of the Declaration of Independence. "No. in fact. it is a moral equality that should be respected politically. of racism. In both. of imperialism. there is the same principle that no one has the right to govern us without our consent. as you know. "Okay. you have a double standard in which western civilization is essentially seen critically. You have what can be called a double standard of multi-culturalism. To cherish them.html. and they’re uniquely western because they make unique claim to the western notion of equality. That no man has the right to be governed without his consent. 1999. we’re gonna’ teach you about non-western cultures. Why? Because the non-western cultures are thought to be victims. but the only movements against these crimes are Western Dinesh D’Souza." But in fact. http://boundless. the movement for the liberation of women—these emancipation movements are uniquely western. Originally that view was thought to apply only to the next world. It was thought to apply only in a spiritual equality. this equality is not just a spiritual equality in the next. Christianity posits that all men are created equal in the eyes of universal. The Civil War was really nothing more than an acting out of that contradiction. is politically impossible.… The Real Enemy of Slavery The historical irony is that the movement against these universal evils—the movement against slavery.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – Double Standard Multiculturalism sets a double standard – the West is blamed for a multitude of crimes. and we’re gonna’ denounce them for being even more racist and bigoted and retrograde than the west." This option. Many is better than one. To exalt them. Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. And so in reality. They are victims of colonialism. sexism. To use them as inspirational role models to build the self-esteem of students on the campus. and non-western cultures are essentially seen uncritically. While pretending to be interested in all cultures and pretending to apply a kind of uniform lens of curiosity about all—they say. "Why have mono-culturalism when you can have multiculturalism. and this is a real multicultural dilemma in our schools and universities. And the whole idea behind multi-culturalism is to celebrate those cultures. Western civilization is defined by a series of crimes—racism. The teachers can’t say. 76 . And the western notion of equality originated essentially in Christianity. and so on—even though all those crimes are.

Objective History.. with each perspective given equal validity and weight -. Journalist living in New York. realities. 77 .com/article. anarchy and Stone Age squalor. Every culture has positive characteristics which should be accentuated.e. essential characteristics and contexts. whether of race. science.regardless of its logic. rule of law. are relative to the particular group. so as to raise as culturally and morally "equal" the anti-life essence of Indian cultures. excusing or celebrating their anti-life essence: faith. supernaturalism."1 Applied consistently. UK: Fisher But multiculturalists fundamentally believe that no single reality exists and that all knowledge. that each individual's identity is determined by. These methods allow multiculturalists to undercut Western civilization's essential values that are timeless and superior for all humans.asp?id=196. sex.capmag. And in "balancing" the history of Columbus. multiculturalists drop objective standards. they emphasize Western civilization's commonplace "negatives" while downplaying or condemning its life-improving essence: reason.” Capitalism Magazine. History must be accordingly "balanced" to conform to the different "perspectives." i. this method would require teachers to "balance" history by accentuating Hitler's "positive characteristics. Furthermore." such as his treating his dogs kindly. As one multicultural manual for teachers advises: "Avoid dwelling on the negatives which may be associated with a cultural or ethnic group. freedom. capitalism and industry-technology. instead of "dwelling" on the anti-life "negatives" that were his essence. Thereafter they emphasize Indian cultures' commonplace "positives" while downplaying. 1998.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad Multiculturalism ignores the life-improving achievements developed by the West while at the same time emphasizing the ‘positive qualities’ of dictators Joseph Kellard. September 25. http://www. class. “Christopher Columbus: Multiculturalism vs. individualism. tribalism. All of this poses as being objective. brutishness. of each group. including all values and standards.

the individual's moral and intellectual character is the product. the particular members of a given race are interchangeable. not of his own choices. the University of Michigan's vice president insists. http://www. The core of racism is the notion that the individual is meaningless and that membership in the collective--the race--is the source of his identity and value. What could be more repulsively racist than that? This is exactly the premise held by the South's slave-owners and by the Nazis' Storm Troopers." "Hispanic page=NewsArticle&id=7915&news_iv_ctrl=1076. According to its proponents. The Racism of "Diversity. on personal merit-and no other basis." etc. Unlike the valid policy of racial integration. They imply that people have worthwhile views to express because of their ethnicity. and others." These circumlocutions translate simply into this: one's race determines the content of one's mind." which is simply an insidious form of racism." as the MIT Faculty Newsletter puts it. To the racist. "diversity" propagates all the evils inherent in racism." What is needed now is for him.” Orange County Register. to go further in challenging "diversity.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – Racist The multicultural idea of diversity mirrors the Nazis ideas of what diversity entails Peter Schwartz is editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand and is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute.aynrand. and that "diversity" enables us to encounter "black ideas. Texas A&M president Robert Gates should be praised for announcing that race will no longer be a factor when applications are considered. we need "diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life. because "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students. minority and majority alike. their repudiation of the entire policy of "diversity. We supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of minorities. December 19. but of the genes he shares with all others of his race." They ought to declare their categorical opposition to racism--and. Admissions should be based on race. Whether a given race receives special rewards or special punishments is immaterial. and that students "should be admitted as individuals. therefore. 78 . 2003. To the racist. They too believed that an individual's thoughts and actions are determined by his racial heritage. UK: Fisher The notion of "diversity" entails exactly the same premises as racism--that one's ideas are determined by one's race and that the source of an individual's identity is his ethnic heritage.

your accomplishments--is to be dismissed. 79 .” Orange County Register.aynrand.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – Racist Multiculturalism values people only by their bloodline – same premise as racism Peter Schwartz is editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand and is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute. UK: Fisher The value of a racially integrated student body or work force lies entirely in the individualism it implies. It implies that the students or workers were chosen page=NewsArticle&id=7915&news_iv_ctrl=1076. The Racism of "Diversity. because it is the very essence of racism. They sneer at the principle of "colorblindness. with skin color ignored in favor of the standard of individual merit. while that which is outside your control--the accident of skin color--is to define your life. We need to identify "diversity" for what it is: a malignant policy that harms everyone. your character. http://www. 2003." They want decisions on college or job applicants to be made exactly as the vilest of racists make them: by bloodline. But that is not what "diversity" advocates want. December 19. They insist that whatever is a result of your own choices--your ideas.

UK: Fisher Everyone has finally awakened to the deadly threat posed by terrorism. the poor things. It refers to the most benevolent kind of "empire" that could be imagined: an empire of common ideals and attitudes. ostensibly a society that tolerates many different cultural influences--except. "cultural genocide. The long-term answer--the only means by which we can eventually secure world peace--is cultural imperialism. art and entertainment produced in civilized countries. http://www. "Cultural imperialism" is not exactly the right term. any influence coming from the West. “An Empire of Ideals.aynrand. 80 . an empire spread purely by voluntary persuasion. and some are even willing to admit that the source of this threat is Islamic fundamentalism.” The Ayn Rand Institute.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – A2 West Is Best Is Imperialist The idea that the West is Best is not imperialist – other cultures realize that the West is far superior Robert Tracinski. October 8. 2001. The real phenomenon that the phrase "cultural imperialism" refers to is the voluntary adoption of ideas. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. But almost no one is prepared to name the long-term answer to that threat. That is a smear-tag created by the academic left. an empire whose "conquest" consists of bringing the benefits of civilization to backward regions. The same purpose is served by another leftist smear-tag. The inventors of these smears are the same people who clamor for a "multicultural" page=NewsArticle&id=7392&news_iv_ctrl=1076." which sounds like mass-murder but actually refers to people in the Third World choosing to adopt Western manners and attitudes. which hates everything good about Western culture and tries to dismiss that culture's worldwide popularity by blaming it on some kind of coercive conspiracy. of course. Western "cultural imperialism" is the march of progress across the globe.

individual rights and the pursuit of happiness. On the one side. was Berlusconi's factual description of the values held by the West versus those held by the Islamic world. On the other side.” The Ayn Rand Institute.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best Values of the Western are superior to the values espoused by Middle East Dictatorships Robert Tracinski. All of these countries are overrun--or are on the verge of being overrun--by religious fanatics who ruthlessly suppress any manifestation of the pursuit of happiness in this world. “An Empire of Ideals. from baring one's ankles to watching television. there are the centuries-old scourges of theocracy.aynrand. superstition. 81 . drilled and made valuable by Western technology. This is the "imperialism" that terrifies Islamic fundamentalists. These countries are wracked with the chronic poverty bred by dictatorship--with the exception of the page=NewsArticle&id=7392&news_iv_ctrl=1076. poverty. They should be terrified--because they know that in a fair competition. their values cannot win. who pocket money from oil reserves discovered. there are the Western values of intellectual freedom. dictatorship and mass-murder. We broadcast to these oppressed people the Western message of liberty. October 8. UK: Fisher What no one challenged. prosperity. prosperity and happiness--in forms as low-brow as Baywatch or as sophisticated as the Declaration of Independence. 2001. http://www. science. Is one of these alternatives superior to the other? You bet your life it is. Nearly every country in the Middle East is a dictatorship. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. however.

” The Ayn Rand Institute. we can only stop the re-emergence of new Islamic fanatics by disinfecting the cultural miasma in which they breed. But that battle is only a first step. UK: Fisher We must begin a campaign of education designed to export Western values to the barbarous East--and that campaign must be led by our intellectuals. the light of benevolent Western ideals. rockets and guns against the governments that support terrorism--has now become a necessity. “An Empire of Ideals. books and movies--and by the intransigently pro-Western statements of our political and intellectual leaders. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. This war must be fought with televisions. radios. not denounced by them.aynrand. In the long run. it is necessary to reverse academia’s anti-West tendencies – critical to survival Robert page=NewsArticle&id=7392&news_iv_ctrl=1076. A physical war against terrorist states--a war fought with bombs.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – Intellectuals Must Advocate Western Values As intellectuals. October 8. we must begin with the conviction that our culture deserves to win. is the best disinfectant. This is a battle between opposite and irreconcilable cultures. and if we want to survive. 2001. http://www. And light. 82 .


The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best
Western values are objectively better than the values of the rest of the world Edwin A. Locke, Ph.D., Edwin A. Locke, Professor of management (emeritus) at the University of Maryland at
College Park, Senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, “The Greatness of Western Civilization,” December 10, 1997,, UK: Fisher In this age of diversity-worship, it is considered virtually axiomatic that all cultures are equal. Western culture, claim the intellectuals, is in no way superior to that of African tribalists or Eskimo seal hunters. There are no objective standards, they say, that can be used to evaluate the moral stature of different groups. They assert that to deny the equality of all cultures is to be guilty of the most heinous of intellectual sins: "ethnocentrism." This is to flout the sacred principle of cultural relativism. I disagree with the relativists-absolutely. There are three fundamental respects in which Western culture is objectively the best. These are the core values or core achievements of Western civilization, and what made America great. Reason. The Greeks were the first to identify philosophically that knowledge is gained through reason and logic as opposed to mysticism (faith, revelation, dogma). It would take two millennia, including a Dark Ages and a Renaissance, before the full implications of Greek thought would be realized. The rule of reason reached its zenith in the West in the 18th century--the Age of Enlightenment. "For the first time in modern history," writes one philosopher, "an authentic respect for reason became the mark of an entire culture. " America is a product of the Enlightenment. Individual Rights. An indispensable achievement leading to the Enlightenment was the recognition of the concept of individual rights. John Locke demonstrated that individuals do not exist to serve governments, but rather that governments exist to protect individuals. The individual, said Locke, has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. The result was the United States of America. (Disastrous errors were made in the West -- for example, slavery, which originated elsewhere, and Nazism--but these were too incongruent with Western values to last and were corrected, by the West, in the name of its core principles of reason and rights.) Science and Technology. The triumph of reason and rights made possible the full development and application of science and technology and ultimately modern industrial society. Reason and rights freed man's mind from the tyranny of religious dogma and freed man's productive capacity from the tyranny of state control. Scientific and technological progress followed in several interdependent steps. Men began to understand the laws of nature. They invented an endless succession of new products. And they engaged in large-scale production, that is, the creation of wealth, which in turn financed and motivated further invention and production. As a result, horse-and-buggies were replaced by automobiles, wagon tracks by steel rails, candles by electricity. At last, after millennia of struggle, man became the master of his environment. The result of the core achievements of Western civilization has been an increase in freedom, wealth, health, comfort, and life expectancy unprecedented in the history of the world. The achievements were greatest in the country where the principles of reason and rights were implemented most consistently--the United States of America. In contrast, it was precisely in those Eastern and African countries which did not embrace reason, rights, and technology where people suffered (and still suffer) most from both natural and man-made disasters (famine, poverty, illness, dictatorship) and where life-expectancy was (and is) lowest. It is said that primitives live "in harmony with nature," but in reality they are simply victims of the vicissitudes of nature--if some dictator does not kill them first. The greatness of the West is not an "ethnocentric" prejudice; it is an objective fact. This assessment is based on the only proper standard for judging a government or a society: the degree to which its core values are pro- or anti-life. Pro-life cultures acknowledge and respect man's nature as a rational being who must discover and create the conditions which his survival and happiness require--which means that they advocate reason, rights, freedom, and technological progress.



The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best
Western values are better than the values espoused by other cultures – must advocate them Dr. Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, Member of the Board of Directors of
the Ayn Rand Institute, “On Columbus Day, Celebrate Western Civilization, Not Multiculturalism,” The Ayn Rand Institute, October 3, 2001, page=NewsArticle&id=5441&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher Columbus should be honored, for in so doing, we honor Western Civilization. But the critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of Western Civilization and to glorify the primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures of American Indians. They decry the glorification of the West as "cultural imperialism" and "Eurocentrism." We should, they claim, replace our reverence for Western Civilization with multiculturalism, which regards all cultures (including vicious tyrannies) as morally equal. In fact, they aren't. Some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western Civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western Civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honor Western Civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.



The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Racist
Multiculturalism is a thin guise for racism Dr. Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, Member of the Board of Directors of
the Ayn Rand Institute, “On Columbus Day, Celebrate Western Civilization, Not Multiculturalism,” The Ayn Rand Institute, October 3, 2001, page=NewsArticle&id=5441&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher Underlying the political collectivism of the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist view of human nature. They claim that one's identity is primarily ethnic: if one thinks his ancestors were good, he will supposedly feel good about himself; if he thinks his ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel self-loathing. But it doesn't work; the achievements or failures of one's ancestors are monumentally irrelevant to one's actual worth as a person. Only the lack of a sense of self leads one to look to others to provide what passes for a sense of identity. Neither the deeds nor misdeeds of others are his own; he can take neither credit nor blame for what someone else chose to do. There are no racial achievements or racial failures, only individual achievements and individual failures. One cannot inherit moral worth or moral vice. "Self-esteem through others" is a selfcontradiction. Thus the sham of "preserving one's heritage" as a rational life goal. Thus the cruel hoax of "multicultural education" as an antidote to racism: it will continue to create more racism. Individualism is the only alternative to the racism of political correctness. We must recognize that everyone is a sovereign entity, with the power of choice and independent judgment. That is the ultimate value of Western Civilization, and it should be proudly proclaimed.



The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Destroys Autonomy
Multiculturalism forces people to cling to groups – collapsing autonomy Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, and Gary Hull, Ph.D. in Philosophy from
the Claremont Graduate School, “Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism,” Capitalism Magazine, November 1, 1999,, UK: Fisher Is ethnic diversity an "absolute essential" of a college education? UCLA's Chancellor Charles Young thinks so. Ethnic diversity is clearly the purpose of affirmative action, which Young is defending against a longoverdue assault. But far from being essential to a college education, such diversity is a sure road to its destruction. "Ethnic diversity" is merely racism in a politically correct disguise. Many people have a very superficial view of racism. They see it as merely the belief that one race is superior to another. It is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and fundamentally wrong) view of human nature. Racism is the notion that one's race determines one's identity. It is the belief that one's convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one's mind but by one's anatomy or "blood." This view causes people to be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership. In turn, it leads them to condemn or praise others on the same basis. In fact, one can gain an authentic sense of pride only from one's own achievements, not from inherited characteristics. The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual's confidence in his own mind. Such an individual then anxiously seeks a sense of identity by clinging to some group, abandoning his autonomy and his rights, allowing his ethnic group to tell him what to believe. Because he thinks of himself as a racial entity, he feels "himself" only among others of the same race. He becomes a separatist, choosing his friends — and enemies — based on ethnicity. This separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations.


and Gary Hull.asp?id=3425. No wonder people don't treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist. if not impossible. in Philosophy from Boston Ph. If that were true — if "racial identity" determined one's values and thinking methods — there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races. UK: Fisher The diversity movement claims that its goal is to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences. One cannot preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. Berliner. which means we're being asked to institutionalize separatism. as though they were different species.capmag. for human identity in general. Ph.D. November 1.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – Racist The logic of multiculturalism equates to the logic of racists Michael S. 87 . Advocates of "diversity" are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses. No wonder racism is increasing: colorblindness is now considered evil. To the multiculturalist. "Racial identity" erects an unbridgeable gulf between people. But the "differences" they have in mind are racial differences. they aren't.” Capitalism Magazine. One cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. which means we're being urged to glorify race. One cannot espouse multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings. 1999.D. This is a complete sham. with nothing fundamental in common. race is what counts — for values. colored by race and gender. http://www. for thinking. in Philosophy from the Claremont Graduate School. Advocates of "diversity" claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. One cannot teach collective identity and expect students to have self-esteem. “Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism.

com/article.D.e. Ph. But why should a campus population "reflect" the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. What they want is abject conformity.D. Ph. that the human intellect is efficacious. Racism. guides today's intellectuals. UK: Fisher Advocates of "diversity" claim that because the real world is diverse. The only way to eradicate racism on campus is to scrap racist programs and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. in Philosophy from the Claremont Graduate School. the diversity of ideas.Conformity Advocates of multiculturalism do nothing more than force people to conform to a set of ideals Michael S. not to a nation based on freedom and independence.” Capitalism Magazine. Berliner. in Philosophy from Boston University. http://www. the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning. But such diversity — far from being sought after — is virtually forbidden on campus. November 1.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad . Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individual's mind is competent.asp?id=3425. 88 . that we possess free will. not to be a demographic mirror of society. the campus should reflect that fact.. and Gary Hull.capmag. The educationally significant diversity that exists in "the real world" is intellectual diversity. not any meaningful sense of diversity. “Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism. that individuals are to be judged as individuals — and that deriving one's identity from one's race is a corruption — a corruption appropriate to Nazi Germany. i. 1999. In fact. The existence of "political correctness" blasts the academics' pretense at valuing real diversity.

http://www. While western values are superior to all others. There's an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living. wealth and comfort for the ordinary person. 89 . Capitalism Magazine. Jewish. superior or inferior to ours? Western values are superior to all others. one need not be a westerner to hold Western values. Are these cultural values morally equivalent. Under Islamic law. It's the idea that individuals have certain inalienable rights and individuals do not exist to serve government but governments exist to protect these inalienable rights. The Absurdities Underlying Multiculturalism. there are numerous limits placed on women such as prohibitions on driving. employment and education. is it morally equivalent? In most of the Middle East. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one culture cannot be judged superior to another and to do so is eurocentrism. Why? The indispensable achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights. A person can be Chinese. as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East countries. It took until the 17th century for that idea to arrive on the scene and mostly through the works of English philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume. a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Northern Sudan. For them different cultural values are morally equivalent.capmag. African or Arab and hold Western values. It's no accident that western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented Doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. 2003. That's unbridled nonsense. in some countries. Japanese.asp?id=3275 The multiculturists are right in saying that in a just society people of all races and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. November 5. Ask your multiculturalist friends: Is forcible female genital mutilation. women adulterers face death by stoning and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed. life expectancy.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best The West is Best – practices of non-Western nations are abhorrent and must be rejected – prize Western culture Walter Williams.

capmag. sexual. diversity is an increasingly popular catchword for all kinds of conformity -. What's called for and practiced by college administrators. "Diversity" as Doublespeak for Ideological Conformity. employees. managers and executives on what's politically correct thinking. http://www. Diversity also implies a willingness to permit others who disagree with you to go their separate ways. Instead.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – Indoctrination Diversity indoctrinates individuals into believing in specific categories Walter Williams. 2002. 90 . ideological or political. UK: Fisher Diversity implies toleration of differences among people no matter what that difference might be. diversity implies decentralized decision-making power that in turn requires limited government.asp?ID=1410. and form institutions and groups among like-minded friends and associates. or all cultures and their values are morally equivalent. Doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. Part of that lesson is non-judgmentalism. faculty members. February 13. In the political arena. It calls for re-education programs where diversity managers indoctrinate students.conformity in ideas. freedom from conformity and a doctrine of live-and-let-live. courts and administrative agencies is anything but a defense of individual rights. actions and speech. Capitalism Magazine. including those differences that are racial. I'm waiting for one of those multicultural/diversity idiots to tell us about the moral equivalency between Western and Taliban treatment of where one is taught that one lifestyle is just as worthy as another.

UK6 The Truth ***A2 The Other*** 91 .

not the State. or the injurer. or suppose that we are contemplating an action that might put us in such a position. especially if the injustice we complain of is precisely that the Other failed to recognize us as a person. the ethics of Otherness demands that we try to understand how our decision will affect the two parties. but the victim. Transcendent Justice-. but the oppressed. not the strong. Rev. 1131. the oppressor.Part II. 92 . We can only do this if we try to see the problem from the Other's perspective and understand her pain and her predicament in all of its uniqueness. justice requires one to speak in the language of the Other by trying to see things from the Other's point of view. oppressor equal to oppressed – destroying the possibility of ethical decision making Jack M. L.yale. http://www. and declined to consider our uniqueness and authenticity. For example. suppose that we are the State. Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law. Suppose. Under this view. the stronger party. The duty we owe to the Other is the duty to see how our actions may affect or have affected the Other. to fulfill this duty we must put away our own preconceptions and vocabulary and try to see things from her point of view.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other Derrida’s ethics of relating to the other requires viewing rapists as equal to victim. however. but the individual. Balkin. not the which has treated her as less than human? Must a concentration camp survivor address her former captor in the language of his worldview of Aryan supremacy? We might wonder whether this is what justice really requires. but the weak. Similarly. that we are not the 92 Mich. Does justice require that we speak in the language of the person we believe is injuring or oppressing us? Must a rape victim attempt to understand her violation from the rapist's point of view? Does justice demand that she attempt to speak to the rapist in his own language . or when we are in the position of a judge who is attempting to arbitrate between competing claims. (78) This conception of justice seems most attractive when we are the injurer or the stronger party in a relationship. if we are a judge in a case attempting to arbitrate between the parties. It seems only just that we should try to understand how we have injured or oppressed the Other (or might be in a position to injure or oppress). refused to speak in our language.htm Derrida's ethics of Otherness has a second component: It employs a different sense of individuality and uniqueness. 1994. and this will require us to see the matter from their perspective. Transcendental Deconstruction.

" In their analysis of the relation between violence and representation. male and female academics across the U.S. this process of "inscribing" often means not only that we "represent" certain historic others because they are/were ''oppressed"." By attributing "lack. speaks with power but identifies with powerlessness. What these intellectuals are doing is robbing the terms of oppression of their critical and oppositional import. Even though the Maoist is usually contemptuous of Freudian psychoanalysis because it is "bourgeois. meaning that she needed to be on time for classes. the Maoist is reproducing with prowess. p. Contrary to Orientalist disdain for contemporary native cultures of the non-West. which has increasingly become the assured means to authority and power. frequently say they were "raped" when they report experiences of professional frustration and conflict. identification. it often means that there is interest in representation only when what is represented can in some way be seen as lacking. and (2) the discursive power relations structuring the Maoist's mode of inquiry and valorization. Whether sincere or delusional. while the narrator of that discourse.No Text Removed] 93 . victimization. such cases of self-dramatization all take the route of self-subalternization. often with the intention of spotlighting the speaker's own sense of alterity and political righteousness. The oppressed. a professor of English complained about being "victimized" by the structured time at an Ivy League institution." As in the case of Orientalism. in some cases. and so forth are drawn upon indiscriminately. and thus depriving the oppressed of even the vocabulary of protest and rightful demand. the Maoist does not have to be racially "white" either. the Maoist sometimes turns all people from non-Western cultures into a generalized "subaltern" that is then used to flog an equally generalized "West. With the material origins of her own discourse always concealed. A comfortably wealthy white American intellectual I know claimed that he was a "third world intellectual. subalternity. the Maoist thus speaks as if her charges were a form of immaculate conception. Armstrong and Tennenhouse write: "[The] idea of violence as representation is not an easy one for most academics to accept. Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies. which are usually as elaborate as those in the West." What the Maoist demonstrates is a circuit of productivity that draws its capital from others' deprivation while refusing to acknowledge its own presence as endowed. a graduate student of upper-class background from one of the world's poorest countries told his American friends that he was of poor peasant stock in order to authenticate his identity as a radical "third world" representative. We see this in the way terms such as "oppression. UK: Fisher In the "cultural studies" of the American academy in the 1990s." citing as one of his credentials his marriage to a Western European woman of part-Jewish heritage." "victimization. The phrase "white guilt" refers to a type of discourse which continues to position power and lack against each other. which does not necessarily belong only to those who are white." and "subalternity" are now being used. like Jane Eyre. whose voices we seldom hear." 21 Because the representation of "the other" as such ignores (1) the class and intellectual hierarchies within these other cultures. [Continues…. 12 – 15." the Maoist justifies the "speaking for someone else" that Armstrong and Tennenhouse call "violence as representation. which is now no longer distinguishable from those of us who have had our consciousnesses "raised. In a mixture of admiration and moralism. Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Irvine.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other (1/2) Their attempt at empathizing with the Other ultimately fails – it ignores larger structures of domination imposed on the Other and serves to widen the gap between the individual and the Other Rey Chow. the second time of their language. 1993." 22 At present. It implies that whenever we speak for someone else we are inscribing her with our own (implicitly masculine) idea of order. it produces a way of talking in which notions of lack. This is how even those who come from privilege more often than not speak from/of/as its "lack. the Maoist turns precisely the "disdained'' other into the object of his/her study and." her investment in oppression and victimization fully partakes of the Freudian and Lacanian notions of "lack. are robbed twice—the first time of their economic chances.

who conform behaviorally in every respect with the elitism of their social origins (e. through pursuit of fame. it seems to me. Rather. How do we intervene in the productivity of this overdetermined circuit? 94 . or through a contemptuous arrogance toward fellow students) but who nonetheless proclaim dedication to "vindicating the subalterns. nor that they cannot marry rich.No Text Removed] The difficulty facing us. pursue fame." My point is not that they should be blamed for the accident of their birth. Even though these descendents of the Maoist may be quick to point out the exploitativeness of Benjamin Disraeli's "The East is a career." 23 they remain blind to their own exploitativeness as they make "the East" their career. through powerful matrimonial alliances.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other (2/2) [Continued…. is no longer simply the "first world" Orientalist who mourns the rusting away of his treasures.. but also students from privileged backgrounds Western and non-Western. it is that they choose to see in others' powerlessness an idealized image of themselves and refuse to hear in the dissonance between the content and manner of their speech their own complicity with violence.g. or even be arrogant.

we need to analyze the probable or actual effects of the words on the discursive and material context. “The Problem of Speaking for Others. as Foucault recommends. words. merely because of the structure of the speaking practice. as the knowledgeable subject. the effects of her discourse is to reinforce racist. Looking merely at the content of a set of claims without looking at effects of the claims cannot produce an adequate or even meaningful evaluation of them. language. This effect occurs because the speaker is positioned as authoritative and empowered.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO 1NC The affirmative’s action of speaking for Others serves to ultimately reinscribe a hierarchy of civilizations – triggering racism and imperialism. partly because the notion of a content separate from effects does not hold up. emerges in interaction between words and hearers within a very specific historical situation. and so on. location. One cannot simply look at the location of the speaker or her credentials to speak. In order to evaluate attempts to speak for others in particular instances. 5-32. to an object and victim that must be championed from afar. one must also look at where the speech goes and what it does there. No. p. 95 . For example. in a situation where a well-meaning First World person is speaking for a person or group in the Third World. thus disempowered. as an event. Here is my central point. imperialist conceptions and perhaps also to further silence the lesser-privileged group's own ability to speak and be heard.” Cultural Critique. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. UK: Fisher 4. Though the speaker may be trying to materially improve the situation of some lesserprivileged group. nor can one look merely at the propositional content of the speech. which includes speaker. Winter 1991-92. we have to pay careful attention to the discursive arrangement in order to understand the full meaning of any given discursive event. which ultimately overwhelms their attempts at improving the condition of the Other Linda Alcoff. while the group in the Third World is reduced. Given this. the very discursive arrangement may reinscribe the "hierarchy of civilizations" view where the United States lands squarely at the top. hearers. 14 This shows us why it is so important to reconceptualize discourse. 20. or its meaning. The content of the claim.

No. then speaking with and to can lessen these dangers.” Cultural Critique. 20. Thus. If the dangers of speaking for others result from the possibility of misrepresentation. But Spivak is also critical of speaking for others that engages in dangerous representations. In the end Spivak prefers a "speaking to. who in their very retreat help to consolidate a particular conception of experience (as transparent and self-knowing). authentic conception of the self and of experience. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. and a generally imperialist speaking ritual." in which the intellectual neither abnegates his or her discursive role nor presumes an authenticity of the oppressed but still allows for the possibility that the oppressed will produce a "countersentence" that can then suggest a new historical narrative. “The Problem of Speaking for Others. Winter 1991-92. p. expanding one's own authority and privilege. According to Spivak. UK: Fisher A final response to the problem that I will consider occurs in Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's rich essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Spivak's essay. 96 . She criticizes the "self-abnegating intellectual" pose that Foucault and Deleuze adopt when they reject speaking for others on the grounds that it assumes the oppressed can transparently represent their own true interests. Foucault and Deleuze's position serves only to conceal the actual authorizing power of the retreating intellectuals. the central issue is an essentialist. 5-32.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO 1NC Alternative Speaking for others needs to be rejected – speaking to and listening with Others is the best choice Linda Alcoff. We should strive to create wherever possible the conditions for dialogue and the practice of speaking with and to rather than speaking for others. to promote "listening to" as opposed to speaking for essentializes the oppressed as nonideologically constructed subjects. This response is the one with which I have the most agreement.

Winter 199192. In her important paper. 67).' the discussing subjects. UK: Fisher These examples demonstrate some of the current practices and discussions around speaking for others in our society. naked and speechless. speaking for others has come under increasing criticism.2 In anthropology there is also much discussion going on about whether it is possible to adequately or justifiably speak for others. There is a strong. No.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Destroys Progressive Politics Their act of speaking for others destroys the possibility of progressive politics by silencing the Other and representing the Other as weak Linda Alcoff. even ethnographies written by progressive anthropologists are a priori regressive because of the structural features of anthropological discursive practice. Trinh T. and politically illegitimate. in which 'them' is silenced.” Cultural Critique. . current within feminism which holds that speaking for others is arrogant. As a type of discursive practice. 'Them' always stands on the other side of the hill. . when accompanied or introduced by an 'us' . albeit contested. "Dyke Methods. p. 5-32. 97 . “The Problem of Speaking for Others. ." Joyce Trebilcot offers a philosophical articulation of this view. unethical. Minh-ha explains the grounds for skepticism when she says that anthropology is "mainly a conversation of 'us' with 'us' about 'them. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. She renounces for herself the practice of speaking for others within a lesbian feminist community and argues further that she "will not try to get other wimmin to accept my beliefs in place of their own" on the grounds that to do so would be to practice a kind of discursive coercion and even a violence (1). vain. . 'them' is only admitted among 'us. .3 Given this analysis. . 20." (65.' of the white man with the white man about the primitivenature man. In feminist magazines such as Sojourner it is common to find articles and letters in which the author states that she can only speak for herself. and in some communities it is being rejected.

5-32. “The Problem of Speaking for Others. One is still interpreting the other's situation and wishes (unless perhaps one simply reads a written text they have supplied). the power to confer such authorization. it is still an act of representing the Other which ignores the imbalance of power between the speaker and Other Linda Alcoff. and it is safe to say that most political representatives have not been strictly guided by the need to get such authorization either. Elected representatives do have a kind of authorization to speak for others. such as when I asked my partner to speak on my behalf in the hospital delivery room. and so one is still creating for them a self in the presence of others. the procurement of such authorization does not render null and void all attendant problems with speaking for others. or when my student authorized me to speak on her behalf in a meeting with the chancellor. p. I would answer both yes and no.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other . UK: Fisher There is another sense of representation that may seem also vitally connected here: political representation. 98 . There are many examples of this sort of authorizing. Moreover. No. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. and to have power over the designated representative. though it may prove instructive when we attempt to formulate responses to the problem. and one might wonder whether such authorization dissolves the problems associated with speaking for others and therefore should perhaps serve as a model solution for the problem. for example. Elected representatives have a special kind of authorization to speak for their constituents. The point here is that the model of political representation cannot be used in all instances of speaking for others. as in. Winter 1991-92. electoral politics. However.” Cultural Critique. 20. Intellectual work has certainly not been guided by the mandate to get permission from those whom one is speaking for and about. and we may even expand this to include less formal instances in which someone is authorized by the person(s) spoken for to speak on their behalf. is rarely present in the instances where one is being spoken for.A2 Given Permission to Speak For Others/Others Can’t Speak for Themselves Even if the Other supposedly wants to be spoken for.

No. Winter 1991-92. I will take it as a given that such representations are in every case mediated and the product of interpretation (which is connected to the claim that a speaker's location has epistemic salience). This act of representation cannot be understood as founded on an act of discovery wherein I discover their true selves and then simply relate my discovery. situation. 20. 5-32.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Link: Speaking About the Other Speaking about the other links to our argument – they are representing the Other as they wish Linda Alcoff. goals.” Cultural Critique. I am engaging in the act of representing the other's needs. the entire edifice of the "crisis of representation" must be connected as well. I am participating in the construction of their subject-positions. UK: Fisher If "speaking about" is also involved here. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. And it is precisely because of the mediated character of all representations that some persons have rejected on political as well as epistemic grounds the legitimacy of speaking for others. 99 . “The Problem of Speaking for Others. I am representing them as such and such. In both the practice of speaking for as well as the practice of speaking about others. however. or in post-structuralist terms. and in fact. who they are. p.

whereas the style in which African-American writers made the same claim marked their speech as dismissable in the eyes of the same milieu. 100 . Not only what is emphasized. when a man speaks he is usually taken seriously (unless he talks "the dumb way. and how it is understood will be affected by the location of both speaker and hearer. how what is said gets heard depends on who says it. when prestigious European philosophers say that all writing is political it is taken up as a new and original "truth" (judith Wilson calls this "the intellectual equivalent of the 'cover record. No. or grounded in ressentiment. This claim requires us to shift the ontology of meaning from its location in a text or utterance to a larger space. in other words. since a single text can engender diverse meanings given diverse contexts." as Andy Warhol accused Bruce Springsteen of doing. compelling argument. For example. Thus. UK: Fisher Rituals of speaking are constitutive of meaning. 20.” Cultural Critique. or it is simply ignored.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Link: Reading Text The presentation of words written by the Other are subject to our impacts – words are viewed as differently dependent upon where they’re coming from Linda Alcoff. or a significant idea. The discursive style in which some European post-structuralists have made the claim that all writing is political marks it as important and likely to be true for a certain (powerful) milieu. “The Problem of Speaking for Others. if he is from an oppressed group). Winter 1991-92."')9 The rituals of speaking that involve the location of speaker and listeners affect whether a claim is taken as a true. When writers from oppressed races and nationalities have insisted that all writing is political the claim has been dismissed as foolish. a space that includes the text or utterance but that also includes the discursive context. the meaning of the words spoken as well as the meaning of the event. in many situations when a woman speaks the presumption is against her. well-reasoned. And an important implication of this claim is that meaning must be understood as plural and shifting. p. which will in turn affect its perceived significance (for specific hearers). noticed. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. or. but the truth-value or epistemic status will also be affected. 5-32. and who says it will affect the style and language in which it is stated.

UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other – A2 “You’re Nihilist” We don’t run from politics – we’re not an act of discursive violence. 20. Winter 1991-92. though Linda Alcoff. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique. opting for the retreat response is not always a thinly veiled excuse to avoid political work and indulge one's own desires. 5-32. 101 . UK: Fisher However. p. No. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. Sometimes it is the result of a desire to engage in political work without engaging in what might be called discursive imperialism.


The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – A2 “No Alt”
We are not advocating blanket rejection of speaking for the Other – our links outline why their speech act is bad Linda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching
Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher In rejecting a general retreat from speaking for, I am not advocating a return to an un-self-conscious appropriation of the other, but rather that anyone who speaks for others should only do so out of a concrete analysis of the particular power relations and discursive effects involved. I want to develop this point through elucidating four sets of interrogatory practices that are meant to help evaluate possible and actual instances of speaking for. In list form they may appear to resemble an algorithm, as if we could plug. in an instance of speaking for and factor out an analysis and evaluation. However, they are meant only to suggest a list of the questions that should be asked concerning any such discursive practice. These are by no means original: they have been learned and practiced by many activists and theorists.



The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Hierarchies Link
Asking for rewards – such as the ballot – for speaking for Others serves to reinscribe hierarchies Linda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching
Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher In conclusion, I would stress that the practice of speaking for others is often born of a desire for mastery, to privilege oneself as the one who more correctly understands the truth about another's situation or as one who can champion a just cause and thus achieve glory and praise. And the effect of the practice of speaking for others is often, though not always, erasure and a reinscription of sexual, national, and other kinds of hierarchies. I hope that this analysis will contribute to rather than diminish the important discussion going on today about how to develop strategies for a more equitable, just distribution of the ability to speak and be heard. But this development should not be taken as an absolute dis-authorization of all practices of speaking for. It is not always the case that when others unlike me speak for me I have ended up worse off, or that when we speak for others they end up worse off. Sometimes, as Loyce Stewart has argued, we do need a "messenger" to advocate for our needs.



The Truth

***Nuclear Weapons/Fear Good***


) I continue to support the nuclear weapons business with my effort for many reasons. They reason that if the reliability of everyone's nuclear arsenals declines. "Adolf Hitler is probably the last of the great adventurer-conquerors in the tradition of Alexander.html. I do it because the fear of nuclear holocaust is the only authority my own country or any other has respected so far when it comes to nationalistic urges to make unlimited war. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. everyone will be less likely to try using them. New York. and the Third Reich the last of the empires which set out on the path taken earlier by France. and of rockets which can be aimed to hit the moon. much riskier (in terms of the possibility of accidental detonation) but much more reliable than our own may eventually become without adequate "stockpile stewardship. (It's also a better reason to leave the weapons program than to stay. 1990). The curtain was rung down on that phase of history. But H.dogchurch. which I discuss throughout this piece." Now this contrasts with the argument of those who would "reinvent government" by putting up bureaucratic roadblocks to maintaining the reliability of the US nuclear arsenal through research and testing. A."[14] 105 . cruder. someone else would. The problem is that some "adventurer-conqueror" may arise and use everyone's doubt about their arsenals to risk massive conventional war instead. Rome and Macedonia. Ph. at least. but that answer was rejected at Nuremberg.Nationalism Existence of the H-Bomb checks future adventure-conquerors – decreasing reliance on nuclear weapons risks massive conventional wars J. As William L.D. An expansionist dictatorship might even risk nuclear war with weapons that are simpler. less powerful. http://www. of the ballistic missile. Shirer states in his preface to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Touchstone Books. Caesar. Futterman. UK: Fisher I could say that if I didn't do it. and Napoleon. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb.” 1990-94.UK6 The Truth Nuclear Weapons Good . by the sudden invention of the hydrogen bomb.

A. http://www.UK6 The Truth Nuclear Weapons Good Nations will inevitably seek the deadliest weapons – ingrained in human nature – existence of nuclear weapons checks development of worse weapons in the future J. because it is intrinsically ourselves. MAD.dogchurch.[8] The problem is not nuclear weapons. As long as war is the ultimate arbiter of international disputes. the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). and so on perhaps until we. and its successor. And then we will find something worse than that. it will be. Ph. Futterman. Nuclear weapons may actually be giving us a chance to learn to get along with each other before we get something really dangerous. And that means. a kind of world-historical warning shot. It is MAD. Unfortunately. H. and the realization that the next big war may kill us all. That is. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. BMD is a technical fix that does not address the real cause of the instability. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. The only thing that's ever made us pause in our societal "addiction" to war is nuclear weaponry.” 1990-94. But if war is humanity's heroin. (or Star Wars) was an attempt to move toward something more stable. that if something worse than nuclear weapons can be discovered and developed. the problem is war. and our history has been as dysfunctional as our families.D. provided it is managed as a research program rather than as a political football.html. UK: Fisher Some people argue that the goal of civilization is to raise our children so that wars don't happen. 106 . the treatment has potentially dangerous side effects. nations will arm themselves with ultimate weapons. as those who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis may recall. The Strategic Defense Initiative. prematurely punctuate the end of our universe with as big a bang as the one which began it. we've had civilization for six thousand will merely make it more stable than it is now. But even a successful BMD will not make the world stable against massively destructive war -. I am partly referring to the doctrine of deterrence by Mutual Assured Destruction. may in time succeed. nuclear weaponry is its methadone.

Celestine apparently abdicated the papacy out of fear that the worldliness that one must take on as Pope would jeopardize his salvation. Instead of acknowledging the difference between forcefully confronting a bully and being one. It's as if they want war to be the empowerment of the powerless. I sometimes consider those who engage in antiwar or anti-nuclear actions (including some scientists who eschew defense research for moral reasons) without ever doing any actual peace-making to be in the same category that Dante seems to have placed Pope Celestine V. but only for themselves..html. there is the notion that because I did research related to nuclear weapons. which just encourages the bully.D. The High Creator scourged them from Heaven for its perfect beauty. 107 . from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. They are mixed here with that despicable corps of angels who were neither for God nor Satan.These are the nearly soulless. Of him and his kind Dante says. http://www. making wars that only kill some of us. so that humanity can continue as before. whose lives concluded neither blame nor praise. Let me point out that even the anti-nuclear activists contribute to the nuclear weapons business. [21] ". In particular. and Hell will not receive them since the wicked might feel some glory over them.dogchurch.UK6 The Truth Nuclear Weapons Good – Pacifism Bad Attempts at pacifism fall short and only encourage aggressors J. I hand them back the guilt[20] some of them wish to hand me. UK: Fisher Still. because they make war on nuclear weapons instead of making peace. They are shooting the bearer of the bad news that we can't make global war safely anymore. I deserve a greater portion of guilt for what happens if they are used. H. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb.. I think that those who engage in peace protests without engaging in the enfranchisement of the disenfranchised. more than the cause of peace. Ph.” 1990-94. and the deterrence of the willfully destructive may be serving their own desire to be morally pure." In other words. they advocate passivity. A. Futterman.

nuclear weapons were first invented by good people who were confronting the evil of the Nazis (who were trying to develop their own atomic bomb) with the evil impulse in themselves. even in this outrageous manner.UK6 The Truth Nuclear Weapons Good Nuclear weapons are necessary for world peace. you. satisfies the criterion of Utilitarianism in that it spared the loss of American lives and the even worse devastation of Japan and loss of Japanese lives that would have resulted from a conventional invasion. and therefore a threat to themselves and humanity.html. Wong's photo taken after the Japanese conventional bombing of Nanking on August 29. Now the peace activists didn't invent this type of response. rather than less. A. if we are to defend our freedom. How can we use it for good?[31] 108 . And so the question of whether I am good or evil in my participation in the nuclear weapons business is already contained in the discussion of yezer tov and yezer ra. in order to preserve and enlarge the freedoms that I hold dear for myself and for all people. it is necessary (but not sufficient) for us to defend our turf. Or in the Christian idea that we are simultaneously sinners and saints. 1937. They rightly see nuclear war as a threat to the planet. [30] It was an evil response of good people to evil. I give my assent. I would have done the same thing. And by continuing to develop and/or maintain a stockpile of them we give our assent to this evil impulse. And if the old enemy is no longer visible on our horizon. Even the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. and so confront the threat of violence with anger. On the other hand. burned and screaming. I believe that Nazism had to be defeated at all costs.the greatest good for the greatest number -. [30] Ironically. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. UK: Fisher With the above statement as background I observe that many peace activists confront the evil impulse in the powers of war with the evil impulse in themselves. Such an attitude is self-defeating. such action merely makes war on war. above. S. remember that we used our entire stockpile of two bombs. In response to Stalinism. The question is not how to eliminate the evil impulse -. I am both.dogchurch. In the same spirit. and Stalinism had to be contained. Futterman. because acting from it creates more conflict. which hastened the defeat of the evil of Japanese Imperialism. http://www. eliminating evils. I am neither one nor the other -. and that it took two cities. And I suppose I would have supported it for that reason. I confront the evil of potential aggressors against America with my own evil impulse. all we need do is to become complacent for a new one to appear. (Otherwise we risk being attacked just for being vulnerable. (And if you think there we could have demonstrated the bomb over an unpopulated area. and it was the best that we humans could do at the time. what I had remembered as an image of Hiroshima turns out to be least in its outcome so far.the question is how to harness it.) [29] But the image of an orphaned baby. In associating with a nuclear weapons program.) Just as an individual needs his evil impulse to live. I give it because in response to the Nazis. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. Ph.D. to bring about the surrender. Such a response satisfies the criterion of Utilitarianism -. and ensuring protections of freedoms – their argument ignores the rational basis for the creation of nuclear weapons J. annihilates forever the argument that it was good.” I would also have done as my predecessors did. so does a nation. Rather than making peace.

dogchurch. Thus. for example. They might do well to remember how the Nazis used psychiatric and biological terms to dehumanize their chosen "undesirables. the difference will become moot if we and our adversaries engage only in deterrence without empowerment and enfranchisement.html. Ph. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. Moreover. many of the folks who compare people like me to Nazis dismiss or dehumanize us with language borrowed from psychiatry. each with its own rationalization. It is true that the path into group evil is taken in small steps. UK: Fisher [19] There are some who think I should compare myself to the engineers who designed the Nazi gas chambers H.” 1990-94. and I and my colleagues know it. A. http://www. On the other hand. But systematically eliminating a vulnerable population to achieve societal purity is different from raising the specter of deadly force against armed opponents who will respond to nothing else. I do not regard the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a war crime in the same sense as the Nazi's genocide of the Jews. Futterman.UK6 The Truth Nuclear Weapons Good Nuclear Weapons good – necessary to eliminate evils – their kritik is misplaced J." 109 .D.

we can in fact do evil -. building them. because I did research that contributed marginally to the design of nuclear weapons. Futterman. A. The naive solution is to remove this evil from our midst. Such a "deontologist" ethic assumes that because the consequences of using nuclear weapons are evil. our country. if threatening to use nuclear weapons prevents certain kinds of war. Ph. if not actually good. threatening to use them is evil. http://www. My soul in particular.that by trying to remove evil." Now the same people who oppose nuclear weapons work with deontologist ethics usually take a consequentialist position when it comes to race: whether or not a policy is racist is judged by its results. 110 .html. then it is necessary. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. deploying them. Hence the recurring debate on campus every time the University of California's contract to manage Los Alamos and Livermore Labs comes up for renewal. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. according to our "gut feel" for a given situation. I chart a course into the morality of our global society. The difference between the two positions is that deontologists consider it evil to threaten to do evil. and establishing plans to use them under certain circumstances.UK6 The Truth Nuclear Weapons Good – Consequences Key Must evaluate consequences in relation to nuclear weapons J. rather than its intent. to make such threats. My point is that neither deontology nor consequentialism can claim to be a universal source of moral imperative — we switch from one to another to suit our needs. I note that those who support nuclear weapons work usually employ a "consequentialist" ethic which states that. and that the people who work on them or support work on them are evil as well. Before I begin. these activities are also taken to be evil. Since threatening to use them consists of designing them. while consequentialists consider it good to make such threats if the result of the threats is good. and the human UK: Fisher But there is an unspoken ethical problem that underlies and distorts this reconsideration: namely.dogchurch. To develop it.D. testing them. [1] Neither deontology nor consequentialism is the source of moral imperative — we switch from one to another according to our "gut feel. regardless of what results from such threats.” 1990-94. H. stockpiling my thesis here. the notion that nuclear weapons are evil. The moral fallacy behind such attempts to dissociate ourselves as a society from nuclear weapons -.

" Thus I also continue engaging in nuclear weapons work to help fire that world-historical warning shot I mentioned above. 111 . medical scientists deliberately forced the smallpox virus into virtual extinction. World War I to create the League of Nations. preparing us for a future we cannot now imagine. I and my colleagues stand behind it (like Malcolm X stood behind Martin Luther King. As long as horror of nuclear exchange remains uppermost we can recognize that nothing is worth it. Perhaps horror alone will enable us to overcome the otherwise invincible attraction of war. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. For example.[16] Of course.) saying. it seems. UK: Fisher But the inhibitory effect of reliable nuclear weapons goes deeper than Shirer's deterrence of adventurerconquerors. Only catastrophe. this means that I regard the nature of humankind as mutable rather than fixed. when the peace movement tells the world that we need to treat each other more kindly. if we are to have a future at all. with or without nuclear weapons — a fact we had better learn before worse things than nuclear weapons are invented. unless genuine peace precludes it. It changes the way we think individually and culturally. "Or else. http://www. the moment we become blasé about the possibility of holocaust we are lost. Stevens states. Nor is halting technological change possible." We provide the peace movement with a needed sense of urgency that it might otherwise lack. If you're a philosopher. H. In other words. This is obviously not desirable because technological change serves humanity like biological diversity serves life in general -. forces people to take the wider view. Jungian psychiatrist Anthony J. because the demand for such change is so great — people want the new stuff so much that they actually buy it. is our only hope. the fear of nuclear annihilation of ourselves and all our values may be what we require in order to become peaceful enough to survive our future technological breakthroughs.UK6 The Truth Fear Good – The Futterman Card Fear and horror force people to take the path towards peace J. War becomes the impossible option. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. World War II to create the United Nations Organization and the European Economic Community. gives us ways to cope with new challenges to our existence. the experience of horror. Ph. [15] "History would indicate that people cannot rise above their narrow sectarian concerns without some overwhelming paroxysm. The fear of nuclear annihilation may be what we require in order to become peaceful enough to survive our future technological breakthroughs.” 1990-94. It took the War of Independence and the Civil War to forge the United States. A. Or what about fear? Can the horror which we all experience when we contemplate the possibility of nuclear extinction mobilize in us sufficient libidinal energy to resist the archetypes of war? Certainly. Perhaps horror.dogchurch. We must build a future more peaceful than our past. so will our weapons technologies. that as our beneficial technologies become more powerful. we could just try for a world-wide halt to scientific research and technological change.html. the consciousness of horror. namely.D. but that I think most people welcome change in their personalities and cultures with all the enthusiasm that they welcome death — thus.

given by New York University’s Center for War. JoAnn M.D. when few are apathetic but many are numbed by terror.htm. 12–16. But such testimonials are usually from activists who were neither paralyzed nor numb in the first place. UK: Fisher Numerous testimonials indicate that the shock therapy of a fear appeal may sometimes cut through paralysis. Peace. they tend toward numbing. “Scared stiff — or scared into action. startle the apathetic into fresh attention. in Communication from Stanford University in http://www. and torment the terrorized and the numb into starker terror and deeper numbness. forgetting or feeling so violated that they are hostile to the overall message.” Frances Peavey advised readers in 1981: “Do not stand up after the film is over and try to scare people with further horrifying facts. Ph. Sandman is a preeminent risk communication speaker and consultant in the United States and has also worked extensively abroad.psandman. a founding member of SEJ and elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.UK6 The Truth Fear Good Fear is okay in the context of a debate round – discussion helps alleviate the numbing caused by fear Dr. In 1985. January 1986.”(12) At that time Peavey still saw value in terrifying films. so long as the discussion afterward helped people deal with the feelings they aroused. 112 . This is a violent act and does not encourage peace. the value of the films themselves is much reduced.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. and the News Media. pp. whose fear was maintained at reasonable levels by their own activism. Winner of the 1986/1987 Olive Branch Award for Outstanding Coverage of the Nuclear Arms Issue. Our wager is that the fear speeches revitalize the committed into renewed action. and Dr. In a set of guidelines for “Helping People Deal With Terrifying Films. Peter M. Valenti. and who derived new energy and reinforcement from what people in the adjacent seats may well have found intolerable. When people are subjected to too much fear-provoking material.

regardless of fear. Meanwhile.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Messages of hope and empowerment. and the News Winner of the 1986/1987 Olive Branch Award for Outstanding Coverage of the Nuclear Arms Issue.D. believing the recommended plan of action will reduce the danger. Sandman is a preeminent risk communication speaker and consultant in the United States and has also worked extensively abroad. The nuclear-weapons-freeze campaign attracted millions of new activists in 1982 because it offered credible hope. And like fear. confidence in methods and solutions. UK: Fisher “The main obstacle to action. Sutton’s review of the fear-appeal literature finds inconsistent support for the notion that people can accept higher levels of fear if they feel the proposed solution will remedy the problem. and it serves the needs of those who do not wish to think about nuclear war to feel powerless to prevent it. Ph.htm. this means that antinuclear organizers must communicate a credible vision of a nuclear-free world. “is neither apathy nor terror but simply a feeling of helplessness. For example. The label “hope. subsumes a wide range of overlapping concepts: for example. but strong evidence that. and Dr. a founding member of SEJ and elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. pp. they must offer people things to do that seem achievable and worthwhile. To combat it.(21) 113 . I have perhaps overemphasized the small signs that antinuclear activities are at last beginning to influence the political process. http://www. Most social psychologists today see the relationship between hope and action as independent of fear or other feelings. Over the long term.” as we use it. It is well established (and hardly surprising) that hope is closely associated with willingness to act. January 1986. futility. Peace. a sense of personal control and efficacy.” writes Frank. some found other approaches and some returned to inactivity. Peter M. Valenti. and despair are words one hears even more often than fear from the barely active and the formerly active. “Scared stiff — or scared into action. however. given by New York University’s Center for War. a sense of moral responsibility. break this vicious circle.UK6 The Truth Fear Good The affirmative’s activism is critical to empowering individuals – allowing them to break any fear caused by nuclear weapons Dr.(20) Similarly. Activism appeals most to people who feel positive about both the proposed solution and their personal contribution to its achievement. 12–16. these emotions can easily lead to psychic numbing. Beck and Arthur Frankel conclude that three cognitions (not emotions) determine whether people will do something about a health risk: recognizing the danger as real. in Communication from Stanford University in 1971. By 1985 many of those millions could no longer ground their hope in the freeze. people are more inclined to act on solutions they see as more effective. optimism. Kenneth H. hopelessness. and having confidence in their ability to carry out the plan. Those who feel powerless to prevent nuclear war try not to think about it.”(19) Helplessness. JoAnn M. and a vision of the world one is aiming for.

UK6 The Truth ***Miscellaneous*** 114 .

Today. of sacrifice. To protect against what they called the "tyranny of the majority." America's Founding Fathers upheld the individual's right to "life." one Nazi writer declared. but should not be taken "too far." "There are to be no more private Germans. as practiced by the Nazis. UK: Fisher Most people avoid these stark implications by retreating to a compromise between self-sacrifice and selfinterest. liberty. and that all rational people benefit under such a system." The Fascists condemned this approach as hypocrisy. “Why It Can Happen Again. in the words of Italian Fascist Alfredo Rocco.UK6 The Truth A2 Zero Point of Holocaust Rational. "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state. 115 . They insisted. consistent system of sacrifice. that he has a moral right to his own interests. and to change them into a docile mass. 2003. most people do not want a page=NewsArticle&id=7888&news_iv_ctrl=1021. They took the morality of sacrifice to its logical conclusion.” Ayn Rand Institute. self-sacrifice is regarded as self-evidently good. his independence.aynrand. for which the older doctrines make little allowance. they say. no amount of this "virtue" can ever be condemned as "too much." We will not have learned the lessons of the Holocaust until we completely reject this sacrifice-worship and rediscover the morality of individualism. A central goal of the concentration camps. But once the principle is accepted. April 22. True. individual rights are good – only way to prevent future holocausts not trigger the “zero point” Robert Tracinski. Calls for sacrifice are proper. wrote survivor Bruno Bettelheim. on "the necessity." The implicit basis of American government was an ethics of individualism--the view that the individual is not subordinate to the collective." And the Nazis certainly practiced what Rocco preached. http://www. and ultimately his person." The goal of National Socialism was the relentless sacrifice of the individual: the sacrifice of his mind. A free country is based on precisely the opposite principle. and the pursuit of happiness. was "to break the prisoners as individuals. Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. even up to the total immolation of individuals. however.

But they overstayed their welcome and generated an insurgency that drove them out of Lebanon 18 years later. It is simply not part of their discourse. think that nationalism usually makes it terribly costly to invade and occupy countries in areas like the Middle East. who then face a major insurrection. which is the essence of nationalism.UK6 The Truth A2 Realism  Iraq/Vietnam Iraq and Vietnam were not realist John Mearsheimer. Nationalism can quickly turn liberators into occupiers. invaded Lehanon in 1982 and were at first greeted as liberators. President Bush and his neoconservative allies largely ignore nationalism. The Israelis. and they do not like Americans or Europeans running their lives. 116 . Realists. who some four decades ago made the realist case against escalation in Vietnam using arguments similar to those realists employed in the run-up to the Iraq War. Fall. Program on International Security Policy. Realists tend to believe that the most powerful political ideology on the face of the earth is nationalism. R. for example. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science. More important would be his observations on where we are now in Iraq. by contrast. 2005. University of Chicago. Ebscohost I think that Hans Morgenthau. Co-Director. would have opposed that war as well if he had been alive. People in the developing world believe fervently in self-determination.” The National Interest. not democracy. “Realism is Right.

which were reflected in their opposing views on the wisdom of invading and occupying Iraq. Fall. Ebscohost Realists are often accused of disliking democracy and even of being anti-democratic. especially by military means. 2005. however. and both kinds of states support terrorism when it suits their interests. This is a bogus charge. Realists.” The National Interest. that is no guarantee that peace will break out. 117 . Democracies as well as non-democracies like having nuclear deterrents. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science. R. are well aware of the difficulty of spreading democracy. Actually. Neoconservatives and realists have two very different theories of international politics. It seems clear that Iraq has turned into a debacle for the United States. Co-Director. They also understand that even if the enterprise is successful. Program on International Security Policy. Every realist I know would he thrilled to see Iraq turned into a thriving democracy.UK6 The Truth A2 Realists = Neocons Realists differ from Neocons – the Realists are right John Mearsheimer. which is powerful evidence—at least for me—that the realists were right and the neoconservatives were wrong. University of Chicago. the war itself has been a strong test of the two theories. “Realism is Right. We have been able to see which side's predictions were correct.

uses the level of force which a crisis of this kind demands. and promises a great deal more of the same in the future. Freelance Writer in Los Angeles. supports inconceivably heinous acts of destruction and murder against Americans. anyone who dies . http://www.guilty or innocent .UK6 The Truth A2 Civilian Casualties Bad Civilian casualties are the fault of the aggressor – the US is just defending itself Kevin retaliates to demolish said government is the victim of said government. The answer is simple. the guilty party.when the U. and may even be stalling our government and causing it to seek watered-down methods of warfare .not the country which acts to defend itself. The question of whether and how we should retaliate. The government which initiated force is the aggressor. the killer . is confounding many American minds. when doing so will likely result in the deaths of many innocent people. 2001.. October 13.S.asp?ID=1157.capmag.two things we absolutely cannot afford now.” Capitalism Magazine. the high probability of civilian deaths if the U.S. “Debunking the Clichés of Pacifism.S. UK: Fisher The pacifists' error is also behind the misplaced concern over foreign casualties which are certain to occur in any military act of retaliation . 118 .particularly. but it only becomes clear once you've identified the error underlying it: When a foreign government openly declares war on the U.

UK6 The Truth A2 Civilian Casualties Bad Government’s are obligated to protect the rights of their citizens –more important than trying to prevent civilian casualties and some civilian casualties are necessary in order to break an aggressor nation’s will to fight Don Watkins III. A government’s responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens." 119 . then the nation that was attacked should respond by retaliating against the aggressor nation in an effort to destroy that nation’s capacity and willingness to fight.capmag." writes Onkar Ghate. so an innocent nation shouldn’t sacrifice the lives of its citizens in order to avoid harming or killing the citizens of an belligerent nation. If a soldier harms a civilian.” This argument represents the worst sort of context-dropping and the crudest form of evasion. “are as innocent the soldiers of the country that was attacked. August 16. “Did this nation initiate force against that nation?” If the answer is yes. Any act of war that harms civilians is therefore he is initiating force. The moment it willingly sacrifices them for any reason whatever. http://www. “Killing ‘Innocents’ In War. the proper question is not. Just as an individual shouldn’t sacrifice his own life for fear of harming an innocent bystander in the course of defending himself.” they say. 2005. A war is a conflict between nations. not with those who defend themselves. "is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force. “Did this individual initiate force against that individual?” but rather. UK: Fisher A certain argument is common among libertarians who oppose American national defense and demand that. During a war. we retreat from the world in the hopes that this will quell the threat. an online magazine for Objectivists.” Capitalism Magazine. since neither has initiated force. it’s betraying that responsibility. It must be guided by a single principle: self-defense. “The civilians of the aggressor country. "The moral principle.asp?ID=4367. rather than go to war to defend ourselves. Publisher of Axiomatic Magazine. then. not individuals.

fleeing the country. either by helping to fight his for example. The citizen of an aggressor nation may very well be innocent (although usually he isn’t). The right to life. or recognizing the innocent nation’s right to defend itself. as the civilians of the aggressor nation have chosen to support the action of their government Don Watkins III. is the right to take those actions necessary to support one’s life – the responsibility for taking those actions is one’s own. The same is true for man’s right to liberty. 120 . This follows directly from the nature of rights. The libertarian premise is that both are equally innocent and so therefore the innocent solider must not “initiate force” by harming the civilian. he has to endure the consequences (just as he must endure the consequences if he won’t or can’t feed himself).capmag. August 16. UK: Fisher Rand’s point is that someone will always pay the price for an evil government. 2005. Force has been initiated – by the civilian’s nation. The right to liberty is the right to take those actions necessary to secure one’s liberty – the responsibility for taking those actions is one’s own. Publisher of Axiomatic Magazine. is a right to action. but he cannot ask the innocent nation (or its soldiers) to bear the painful consequences of the actions his government initiated – since he is responsible for his government. even if it costs him his life. an online magazine for Objectivists. The civilian. When a man’s government steps beyond its proper bounds. then. But this premise is false. must bear responsibility for that fact. If he doesn’t. That price will be paid either by the innocent nation’s citizens (its soldiers in particular) or the civilians of the aggressor nation. according to Ayn Rand. it is his responsibility to secure his liberty (either by working to change the government or by leaving the country). or can’t. http://www. not to the object of that action.asp?ID=4367.UK6 The Truth A2 Civilian Casualties Bad This is a moral choice – only way to prevent soldiers from being equated with aggressors. “Killing ‘Innocents’ In War. A right.” Capitalism Magazine. when it violates his liberty.

and has demonstrated the willingness. UK: Fisher Any dictatorship that has the capability. The government of Iran.” Ayn Rand Institute. 121 . which is the wellspring of world terrorism. in a battle between tyranny and freedom. for example.aynrand. is a physical threat to America and should be militarily subdued. Saddam Hussein is an enemy. page=NewsArticle&id=8016&news_iv_ctrl=1509. The justification for war is not some amoral calculation about geopolitical "balances of power. We all recognize the objective difference between criminals and the police. The same goal applies to other aggressor countries that are demonstrable threats to the safety of Americans. is a threat that deserves to be eliminated. The moral distinction between the initiator and the retaliator is obvious to everyone except our diplomats (and our intellectuals)." they declare amorally--leaving conflicts to be resolved through pragmatic horse-trading and arm-twisting. December 2. to attack America's interests. The fact that both parties carry weapons does not make it difficult to evaluate the one as a threat to our rights and the other as a protector of those rights. But making moral judgments is the basic requirement of an effective foreign policy. both sides are wrong. http://www. while the government of a free country is the police who uses force to defend its citizens against those criminals.UK6 The Truth Good/Evil Definitions Good Peter Schwartz is editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand and is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute. The outlaw-state of Iraq has no right to its "territorial integrity"--any more than did the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Nazis in Germany. The same applies to countries: dictatorships are criminal states. it is the proponents of the latter who are in the right. In a battle between gangsters. Passing moral judgment is the one act they seek to avoid. "Who are we to judge. “War and Morality. We need to identify the danger posed to the value of human life and human liberty by certain regimes. potential or actual. of every free country in the world." The only justification is a moral one--and the only nation entitled to invoke it is one that upholds freedom.

UK: Fisher The failure in Afghanistan is a result of Washington's foreign policy. Instead of trouncing the enemy for the sake of protecting American lives.UK6 The Truth National Self-Interest Good Acting in our self-interest is critical to winning the war – worrying about others causes failure Elan Journo. It failed to render their ideology--Islamic totalitarianism--a lost cause. 2006.” Capitalism Magazine. Ultimately. The half-hearted war in Afghanistan failed to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda. our leaders have sacrificed our self-defense for the sake of serving the whims of at best it demonstrated Washington's reluctance to fight ruthlessly to defend Americans. the "war on terror" has been waged in compliance with the prevailing moral premise that self-interest is evil and self-sacrifice a virtue. Instead. Senior Writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. 122 . June 6. Despite lip-service to the goal of protecting America's safety.asp?ID=4691. it cannot survive unless Washington abandons its self-sacrificial foreign policy in favor of one that proudly places America's interests as its exclusive moral concern. “Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan. http://capmag. How better to stoke the enthusiasm of jihadists? America cannot win this or any war by embracing selflessness as a virtue.

asymmetrical warfare our overwhelming conventional power means little — not when a cheap RPG and a few illiterate teenagers can take down a $2 million chopper piloted by captains with MA degrees. 123 . their Iraqi Baathist counterparts cannot be so much as frightened. in Classics. given our greater attention to human life. our enemies are poorer and have little to lose. Conventional wisdom says that in fourth-dimensional. Thus Israel ponders trading 300 incarcerated terrorists for the life of one Israeli businessman. slowly to get the message out that a very humane and civilized military is. Ph. If France publicly castigates the United States. http://www. If Syria sends in assassins to kill Americans. and disavowal of terrorism and other sordid tactics. Fresno. If munitions are found in the houses of killers. the worst sin of a Western military is quite simply to be predictable. then perhaps such houses can be cordoned off and. blown to smithereens. The fear is that a parasitic nonWest can import our weapons but not our costly military skills — and still obtain military parity of sorts.html. we are wealthy and have much to live for. then perhaps recently purchased French rockets in Baathist depots can be used as backdrops at press conferences. “The Paradoxes of American Military Power: Strange new guidelines about the way we fight. 2003. then perhaps electrical power from their proud city can be mysteriously diverted to Kurdistan and the south. Stanford University. D. Americans. American prisoners are raped and shot with impunity. while the latter of course could and probably will be. or condone killing. UK: Fisher Unpredictability. desire for peace. November then perhaps our pilots can become confused about where its border with Iraq actually begins and ends. well. In this new war. We cannot and should not change our values. quietly and with genuine nonchalance. If the citizens of Tikrit choose to murder. a Professor Emeritus at California University. But cultural fault lines do not mean that we cannot at times seem a little unhinged ourselves.victorhanson.UK6 The Truth Military Unpredictable Violence Good Unpredictable violence committed by our military is critical to leveling the playing field and deterring enemies Victor Davis Hanson. nor can we do much about the fact that we use technology and education to protect our soldiers while our enemies use fundamentalism and ignorance to expend theirs. sometimes quite crazy itself.” National Review Online. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. After all. The point is not to showcase our own unpredictability but rather. The world accepts that none of the former will be abjectly murdered in custody. of course with due notification. postmodern.

80 percent of Palestinians say they do not regard Israel as legitimate. August 25. “Israel's Deadly Appeasement Process Continues.” Ayn Rand Institute. 124 . primitive philosophy. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and Edward Cline. Israel will abate the hatred that drives so many Palestinians to terrorism. its rabidly anti-Semitic Palestinian supporters.aynrand. Contrary to their pronouncements to Western media that they seek peace with Israel via a "reasonable" landfor-peace "compromise. Western Civilization--from the Middle East. and other Arab regimes throughout the Middle East. more broadly. UK: Fisher The Gaza withdrawal is a deadly act of appeasement toward Israel's committed enemies. It will only increase their hope and ability to achieve their long-standing goal: the obliteration of Israel. BA Philosophy. they have attempted to destroy Israel in three previous wars. As for Israel’s other Arab neighbors. By addressing a longtime grievance of the Palestinians and their supporters--the presence of Israeli security forces and Jewish residents on the Gaza strip--we are told.UK6 The Truth Gaza Withdrawal/Israel Softline Bad Gaza Withdrawal/Israel Softline Bad – gives anti-Semites the upper hand – allowing for the eradication of Israel Alex Epstein. tribalist. contributing writer to ARI. Graduate of Duke University." the PA and its supporters have proven by their actions--and by repeated statements in Arabic--that they seek to destroy Israel. much of the Arab world seeks the eradication of Jews--and. the Gaza withdrawal is a deadly act of appeasement toward Israel's committed enemies: the Palestinian Authority (PA). 2005. http://www. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is being portrayed as a wise (albeit unpleasant) move by Ariel Sharon. Due to their racist. Why have those who seek Israel's annihilation turned from open warfare to the negotiating table? Because they have learned that this--combined with terrorism--is their most effective means of destroying In polls taken. In fact.

so wide-ranging and so long-term. They followed months of horror.capmag. Despite three and a half years of slaughter. the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. The Japanese accepted military occupation. that the bombings must be ranked among the most moral acts ever committed. Japan's war with Russia had ended in 1905 with a negotiated treaty. and countless American lives were saved. the promise of starvation-"this is what you have done to others. 1945 the American Air Force incinerated Hiroshima.UK6 The Truth Atomic Bomb Good Dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was critical to saving millions of lives – they were committed to fighting to the death John Lewis is a Consulting Editor for The Objective Standard. The invasion of Japan was cancelled. piles of corpses.000 people. This was truly a Morality of Death.asp?ID=4648. 2006.” Capitalism Magazine. The effects were so beneficent. Some Many Japanese leaders hoped to kill enough Americans during an invasion to convince them that the cost was too high. Volunteers lined up for kamikaze "Divine Wind" suicide missions. Now it has come for you. Japan's religious-political philosophy held the emperor as a god. but to prosper and live. surrender was not at hand in mid1945. when American airplanes firebombed civilians and reduced cities to rubble. To return an entire nation to morality. or die. How can death on such a scale be considered moral? The answer begins with Japanese culture. Give it up. screaming children scarred unmercifully. and to beat the truth of the defeat into them. and thrown in their faces. “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima. and renounced war permanently." This was the only way to show them the true nature of their philosophy. until hopeless prostration before American air attacks made the abject renunciation of all war the only alternative to suicide. The abstraction "war. The fireballs killed some 175. The bombings marked America's total victory over a militaristic culture that had murdered millions. 125 . and the next generation broke the treaty by attacking Manchuria in 1931 (which was not caused by the oil embargo of 1941). is not to suffer and die. The motivations for war were emboldened. Japan with an atomic bomb. and the morality of life.000 Americans had died on Okinawa alone. Hope of victory kept the Japanese cause alive. http://www. Over six million Japanese were still in Asia. The Japanese had to choose between the morality of death. and adopted suicide as a path to honor." the propaganda of their leaders. A relentless "Die for the Emperor" propaganda campaign had motivated many Japanese civilians to fight to the death. It had gripped Japanese society for three generations. which left Japan's militaristic culture intact." their desire to die for the emperor-all of it had to be given concrete form. The bombings have been called many things-but moral? The purpose of morality. Facing extermination. UK: Fisher On August 6. On August 9 Nagasaki was obliterated. It was after Japan attacked America that America waged war against Japan-a proper moral response to the violence Japan had initiated. the Japanese had to be shown the literal meaning of the war they had waged against others. This is what firebombing Japanese cities accomplished. It showed the Japanese that "this"-point to burning buildings. subordinated the individual to the state. wrote Ayn Rand. their twisted samurai "honor. April 29. elevated ritual over rational thought. World War II in the Pacific was launched by a nation that esteemed everything hostile to human life. a journal of culture and politics. embraced a constitutional government.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful