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 .

Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard College. South Africa. UK: Fisher The United States has always been a bellicose and expansive country. power. into those structures that gave institutional stability and permanence to the system: the military-industrial complex (mic). Yet prior to the Sandinista revolution in 1979 (which was eventually crushed by us proxy forces a decade later).html. War-weary America longed for demobilization.” Chronogram Magazine. two developments greatly transformed our militarism: the exigencies of global hegemony and the fact that militarism became a direct source of economic advantage. 2 . 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. the Soviet Union. Consider the case of Nicaragua. to the effect that capitalist societies could ameliorate chronic [economic] crises by infusions of government spending. and permanent military expenditure readily became the received wisdom. The Iron Triangle These factors crystallized into the Cold War. Joel Kovel. “The United States Military Machine. Since the forming of the American republic.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. 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. no less a figure than George Washington warned us against having a standing army. If you remember. the military establishment another. dominance over which became an essential element for world hegemony. the process was halted and the permanent warfare state started to take shape. The Great War had certified this wisdom. and. However. The world had been realigned and the United States had assumed a global imperial role. The final foundation stone for the new military order was the emergence of frightful weapons of mass destruction. Now. One of the lessons of that time was that propounded by the British economist John Maynard Keynes. The notion was especially compelling given that one other state. Russia. yet after a brief beginning in this direction. a country utterly incapable of being any kind of a threat to its giant northern neighbor. despite its the nuclear arms race.chronogram. 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. November 21. military interventions have occurred at the rate of about once a year. have been formed in just such a way. Previously the us had used militarism to secure economic advantage. A considerable number of contemporary states. such as Britain. built on violent conquest and expropriation of native peoples. and the state apparatus the third. This was greatly reinforced by the drastic realignment of capitalist power as a result of the war. America was essentially the only capitalist power in 1945 that did not lay in ruins and/or have its empire shattered. profits. which implied a permanent garrison to preserve the order of things. 2002. our country had invaded Nicaragua no fewer than 14 times in the pursuit of its imperial interests. http://www. But one of the special conditions of the formation of America. through the triangular relations of the mic—with the great armament industries comprising one leg. Policy planners like George Kennan lucidly realized that this meant safeguarding extreme inequalities in wealth. and Israel. domestically. was an inhibition against a military machine as such. and personnel could flow through the system and from the system. In part. after WWII a basic change set in.

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

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

frankly. the term “war of attrition” conjures the unimaginative slaughter of the Western Front.” is inherently negative is simply wrong. Theories don’t win wars.UK6 The Truth Violence Inevitable War is war – violence will always be there – the soldier’s job is to kill the enemy Ralph Peters. Summer 2004. 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. is secondary. “In Praise of Attrition. p. well-led soldiers in well-equipped armies do. 24-32. with massive casualties on both sides. 5 . the best an Army gutted by Vietnam and its long hangover could hope to do. that precision weapons and technology in general had irrevocably changed the nature of warfare. however important it may appear at the moment. And to kill the enemy is to attrit the enemy.carlisle. The notion that killing even the enemy is a bad thing in war has been exacerbated by the defense industry’s claims. But the nature of warfare never changes—only its superficial manifestations.” The belief that attrition. And they do so by killing effectively. when journalists wanted to denigrate our military’s occupation efforts in Iraq. UK: Fisher There is no better example of our unthinking embrace of an error than our rejection of the term “war of http://www. Yet we heard a great deal of nonsense about “maneuver warfare” as the solution to all our woes. All wars in which bullets—or arrows—fly are wars of attrition. especially in the 1980s. Retired Army officer. Of course. Well-trained. as an objective or a result. The US Army also did great harm to its own intellectual and practical grasp of war by trolling for theories. the term bubbled up again and again.htm. Last year. A soldier’s job is to kill the enemy. seconded by glib military careerists. All else.

Ph.victorhanson. 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. “Postmodern War. The current depressing debate about preemption. Should we lose the stock exchange or the White House. After all. on the logic that every terrorist must sleep. 2005. a Professor Emeritus at California University.html.” City Journal. and al-Qaida ties originated in the subsequent inability of the United States to project a sense of absolute victory in the postbellum occupation. when Saddam’s statue fell. and three weeks later. http://www. in Classics. there would be almost no calls for restraint against states that harbored or aided the perpetrators. but do not alter or affect the substance of conflict. But what about the far more likely scenario of guerrilla wars and counterinsurgency? In such lesser conflicts. postmodern man is hardwired to survive. coerce an opponent to alter his behavior. the human desire for victory still trumps most other considerations. and thus really will use his full arsenal when faced with the alternative of extinction. modern social theory. Technology. 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. In our present context. on the eve of the invasion over 65 percent of Americans supported the war.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. support was nearing 70 percent. as looting led to terrorist reprisals. an insurgency. 6 . and use an ATM card somewhere. the ease and luxury of the West—these are simply the delivery systems that change with the ages. 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. D. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Like ancient man. WMD. February 8. and televised beheadings. Stanford University. Fresno. allies. or prevent annihilation. all our concern about American combat casualties would vanish should there be another mass murder similar to 9/11.

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

“Peacenik Warmongers. The suicidal stance of peaceniks is no innocent error or mere overflow of youthful idealism. by making our enemies more aggressive. Yet such a world is the goal of the "anti-war" movement. 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. December 9. potential aggressors--that it will benefit by attacking the United States. It is an obvious evasion of history and logic for the advocates of pacifism to label themselves "anti-war. And if we fail to use our military against state sponsors of terrorism today." since the policies they advocate necessarily invite escalating acts of war against anyone who practices them. 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. 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. with far less cost than will be required to defeat terrorism today. because we experienced those consequences on September 11. we could have thwarted Islamic terrorism at the beginning. they are not helping to prevent war. or by offering diplomatic handouts to terrorist states in hopes that they would want to be our friends. Military inaction sends the message to an aggressor--and to other. must shift from this dangerous trend Alex Epstein.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad Hardline militarism is the best alignment – pacifism has emboldened and strengthened enemies. After years of American politicians acting like peaceniks.” Ayn Rand Institute. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. Had we annihilated the Iranian regime 23 years ago. and more powerful. BA Philosophy. they are acting to make war more frequent and page=NewsArticle&id=7458. To whatever extent "anti-war" protesters influence policy. http://www. The only way to deal with militant enemies is to show them unequivocally that aggression against the United States will lead to their destruction. 8 . Graduate of Duke University. Those of us who are committed to facing the facts should condemn these peaceniks for what they really are: warmongers for our enemies. more plentiful. The only means of imparting this lesson is overwhelming military force-enough to defeat and incapacitate the enemy. 2002. 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. Pacifism practically dictated the American response to terrorism for more than 23 years. In response to that and later terrorist atrocities.aynrand. 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. UK: Fisher We do not need to predict or deduce the consequences of pacifism with regard to terrorism and the nations that sponsor it. Islamic terrorism had proliferated from a few gangs of thugs to a worldwide scourge--making possible the attacks of September 11.

” Ayn Rand Institute. 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. rewarding the good and punishing the evil. it merely rewards and emboldens the aggressors.aynrand. with the same results. the Taliban. our loyal ally in a treacherous region.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. Why should they end terrorism. “The Road Map to Hell. UK: Fisher There is a reason we keep getting the same failed peace plan. time and time again. Peace requires. but to continue the war on terrorism--to continue it throughout Gaza and the West Nothing else is possible. not to surrender to terrorism. Justice demands that one judge rationally the character and conduct of those one deals with. This is the only road to peace: to abandon diplomacy and destroy 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. 9 . 2003. It is also why America should not pressure Israel. to negotiate with its terrorist enemies. once we accept the vicious policy of negotiating with terrorists. when it proves. We should be pressuring Israel. to be an effective means of extorting concessions? This is why it would have been absurd for America to negotiate with al Qaeda. not the accommodation of the terrorists' demands. and to take it to the planners and suppliers of terrorism in Lebanon and Syria. June 2. 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. Yet for decades the Palestinians have consistently adopted brute force and mass murder as their primary means of pursuing their "diplomatic" goals. or Saddam Hussein. http://www. All attempts to negotiate an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict have merely illustrated the destructive consequences of sacrificing justice to diplomacy. 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.

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

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

for fear of killing German civilians. troops. then our nuclear deterrent becomes a hollow threat. Sparing our civilians and soldiers from mass death is precisely the purpose for which we maintain our nuclear arsenal. September 14. But war is supposed to be horrific--so horrific that our enemies cannot endure it and will not dare to repeat it. if we are to attack all of the nations that have harbored terrorists.S. http://www." This evades the fact that Tuesday's attacks are the result of decades of turning the other cheek to evil. however. If any terrorist nation chooses to resist our page=NewsArticle&id=7386&news_iv_ctrl=1509. 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 us.” Ayn Rand Institute. a policy that merely emboldened the terrorists. By this standard. a full-scale war will be horrific. with the same justification. 2001. Here the liberals will make their most dishonest objection: that the use of such massive force will merely escalate a "cycle of violence. Nuclear weapons were first employed to secure the surrender of Japan." Even worse.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. If we are not willing to use it now. the allies could not have fought Hitler. it has been asked. liberals will balk at the prospect of civilian casualties in enemy countries. UK: Fisher But. Yes. sparing the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.aynrand. 12 . This is the real "cycle of violence. We must be prepared to use nuclear weapons. 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. It is obvious that such a pacifist philosophy would require a total surrender to evil. we must be prepared to use these horrific weapons once again. “What a Real War Looks Like.

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

are you a warmonger?" No.” Capitalism Magazine. April 8.R. I am not going to wait for you to finish construction. We would have avoided Soviet adventurism and trillions of dollars fighting a cold war. After World War II.S.S. During the 1930s. but here's the way I look at it. 60 million lives lost in World War II might have been spared. UK: Fisher Fighting terrorism as well as rogue dictators requires a policy of pre-emption. If you hate my guts and have designs to hurt me. Had Britain and France had the guts to do that. 14 . “Fighting Terrorism and the Case for Pre-emption. we should give axis-of-evil member North Korea notice to destroy its nuclear weapons or we'll do it for them. that if it started making nuclear weapons we'd bomb its facilities. when we held a monopoly on nuclear weapons. there should have been a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany. I'm not. http://www. "Williams.asp? we should have told the U. Today.capmag. 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. 2004. You might ask.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. and I see you building a cannon aimed at my house.

http://www. by the political leadership and the dominant voices in the culture. Surrender is a decision. and the actions of its soldiers worthy of contempt. and would have left the motivations for the next war Under the shock of defeat. . a journal of culture and politics. President Truman demonstrated his willingness to bomb the Japanese out of existence if they did not surrender. The method was brutally violent. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. women no longer bear children for the Reich. . a stunned silence results.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. a sense of morality had returned to Japan. He does not accept terms. To achieve this. . met by civilians who had not confronted defeat. We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces . and only a brutal action could demonstrate its nature. the Americans were in no mind to compromise. Had the United States negotiated in 1945. There are no alternatives. We will not deviate from them. for everyone if necessary. Such recognition of reality is the first step towards a return to morality. under the same leaders who had taken them to war. Forced to confront the reality of what they had done. and the permanent renunciation of aggression. We might have fought the Japanese Empire again. UK: Fisher Yes." The approach worked brilliantly. Japanese troops would have returned to a homeland free of foreign control. 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. The imperial cause was recognized as bankrupt. 15 . April 29. . After the war. but with derision. 2006. “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima. or death. the victor must be intransigent. the Japanese chose wisely. 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. Fortunately. he demands prostrate surrender. Surrender is an admission of impotence. The Potsdam Declaration of July 26. the collapse of all hope for victory. It would have left the Japanese unable to reject military aggression the next time it was offered as an elixir of glory. Japan was beaten in July of 1945-but had not surrendered.” Capitalism Magazine. After the bombs. 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 .asp?ID=4648. . twenty years later. We shall brook no delay . Military officers no longer plan for victory. . an aggressor's ability to fight effectively is destroyed. as it had to be-because the war unleashed by Japan was brutally violent.capmag. many returning Japanese troops were welcomed by their countrymen not as heroes. to recognize the fact of defeat. A negotiated peace would have failed to discredit the ideology of war. Following are our terms. A defeat is a fact.

and allowed the Japanese to rebuild their culture along with their cities. “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima." He wanted to look like a peaceful man-which became a sensible position only after the Americans had won. the armed forces would be abolished. It took a country that values this world to bomb this system into extinction. 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. April 29. but the Japanese people will rise to the occasion during the next several decades to reform themselves into a truly splendid people . Some did just that. wrote before the surrender: "I think it is better for our country to suffer a total defeat than to win total victory . There is no room on earth for this system. and that only total defeat could force them to re-think their place in the world and offer their children something better. . to stand guard while a replacement is crafted. president of the Technological Research Mobilization Office. said after the war: "The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by Heaven for Japan to end the war. http://www. The need for total victory over the morality of death has never been clearer. and then to greet new friends on proper terms. Americans should be immensely proud of the bomb. UK: Fisher There can be no higher moral action by a nation than to destroy an aggressive dictatorship. in the case of Japan's total defeat. The facts are otherwise. we would now be fighting Japanese suicide Let them thank heaven-the United States-for the bomb. . . chief cabinet secretary of Japan. Hisatsune Sakomizu. Let those who today march for peace in Germany and Japan admit that their grandparents once marched as passionately for war.asp?ID=4648.” Capitalism Magazine. while North Koreawhere the American army did not impose its will-would be peaceful and prosperous. It ended a war that had enslaved a continent to a religious-military ideology of slavery and death. to permanently discredit the enemy's ideology. the great humiliation [the bomb] is nothing but an admonition administered by Heaven to our country. 16 .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. This destroyed the foundations of the war. 2006.capmag. . as prosperous inhabitants of the earth. Okura Kimmochi. its ideas and its advocates. Were it true that total victory today creates new attackers tomorrow. a journal of culture and politics." 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 it simply emboldened Hitler.asp?ID=3885. During the late 1930s. http://www. Appeasement didn't work. War-weary Westerners hoped that brutal tyrants would act in good faith. France and Britain hoped that allowing Adolf Hitler to annex Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia would satisfy his territorial ambitions. 2004. most notably Europeans. when Hitler started his arms buildup in violation of the Versailles Treaty and before he fully developed his military capability.N. After documents were signed. appeasement and caving in to the demands of vicious totalitarian leaders can produce good-faith behavior. These people believe that negotiation. Quite interestingly. Had Britain or France launched a military attack on Germany between 1934 and 1935. “The Appeasement Disease. 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. enslavement and human suffering. Western leftist appeasers exempted communist leaders from the harsh criticism directed toward Hitler. every effort was made by the Iraqis to frustrate implementation of the terms. particularly U. 17 ." from 1917 until its collapse. August 25. the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people. weapons inspections.” Capitalism Magazine. he would have been defeated and at least 50 million lives would have been spared. According to Professor R. near the end of World War II. 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. After devastating defeat in the first Gulf War. mostly its own citizens. Iraq agreed to coalition peace terms. This was after a long string of German violations of the terms of the Versailles Treaty ending World War I. 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. Western appeasers. At the Yalta Their vision not only has a long record of failure but devastating consequences. communist China's Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of 35 million of its own citizens. even though communist crimes made Hitler's slaughter of 21 million appear almost amateurish. but the vision of earlier appeasers was part of the West's vision of how to deal with Saddam Hussein. Rummel's research in "Death by Government. Since 1949. 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. Failing to stand up to Stalin resulted in unspeakable atrocities. It was seen as weakness.J.capmag. History never exactly repeats itself.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.

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

” Capitalism Magazine. his strength and power must be dissipated and destroyed so that he may no longer pose a threat to American national security. These attacks failed to impress terrorists in the Rather. Why is this particular bit of advice important to remember? The answer is that in our recent past. and the death of three thousand people in one day.capmag.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. will one really defeat the enemy.. and the downfall of Saddam Hussein's government. As such. UK: Fisher So how does Clausewitz help us in our current conflict with terrorism? He reminds us that in war. 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. 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. In making this point. August 19. Not Love Against Terrorism. we have not heeded Clausewitz's admonition. 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. “Carl von Clausewitz's Advice: Make War. 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. he must not be given time to recover. 2002. Instead. by daring to win all. in other words. but after 11 years. must strike with all his strength. 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.asp?ID=1812. Clausewitz cites the Napoleonic example. Hindsight is certainly 20/20. causing him to launch vicious terrorist operations like the bombing of the USS Cole and the commission of the acts of September 11th. and a fair case may be made that in 1991. it made perfect sense not to go beyond the bounds of the UN resolutions authorizing the use of force. 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. 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. This entails ensuring that al-Qaeda no longer has a global reach. http://www.. let alone destroy them. 19 . Blow after blow must be struck in the same direction: the victor. it should be clear to us that a mortal enemy must not be suffered to remain powerful.

non-Islamic-warrior-breeding regime take its place. The new Afghan regime cannot be counted on to oppose the resurgence of Islamic totalitarianism. Abdul Rahman.asp?ID=4691. the U. it was ordered to gingerly avoid hitting holy shrines and mosques (known to be Taliban hideouts) and to shower the country with food packages. http://capmag. “Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan. UK: Fisher Victory in Afghanistan demanded two things. they were also diverted to a host of "reconstruction" projects.S. June 6. faced a death sentence for apostasy. Already this avowedly Islamic regime has jailed an Afghan magazine editor for "blasphemy". Senior Writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. however. The U. 20 . But we did not think we had a moral right to do either.S. military succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime--but Washington subverted that achievement. 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. however. an Afghan convert to Christianity.S. The Bush but merely scattered and left with the moral fortitude to regroup and launch a brazen comeback. 2006. Even with its hands tied. It is only a matter of time before Afghanistan is once again a haven for anti-American warriors. The result is that the enemy was not destroyed and crushed in spirit. Ideologically. recently. it has nothing to say in opposition to the doctrines of the Taliban (two members of the Taliban leadership are in the new government).” Capitalism Magazine. Our military was ordered to pursue Taliban fighters only if it simultaneously showed "compassion" to the Afghans. We had to destroy the Taliban and we had to ensure that a nonthreatening.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. deployed ground forces--but instead of focusing exclusively on capturing or killing the enemy. 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. too. military dropped bombs on Afghanistan--but instead of ruthlessly pounding key targets. The U.

which are even more dangerous now in a nuclear age. posturing on the edge of a volcano. Roy. Military potential only counts when there is the will to develop it and use it. Labor Party members of Parliament voted repeatedly against military spending." economist Roy Harrod asked one of the pacifists: "You think our example will cause Hitler and Mussolini to disarm?" The reply was: "Oh.that is. September 24th. “Pacifism and War. the issue was about making a "statement" -. When disarmament advocate George Bernard Shaw was asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain. while Hitler built up the most powerful military machine in Europe. Then as now. and the fortitude to continue with a bloody war when it comes.jewishworldreview. 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. At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm "as an example to others. All of this encouraged the Nazis and the Japanese toward war against countries that they knew had greater military potential than their own.” Jewish World Review. "Welcome them as tourists.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad Commitment to militarism is necessary to prevent war. Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution. In Britain during the 1930s.asp. pacifism was a "statement" about one's ideals that paid little attention to actual 2001. have you lost all your idealism?" In other words. especially in the nuclear age – pacifism has allowed for the Nazis and the Imperial Japan to prosper Thomas Sowell. the playwright replied. And it was Western pacifists who led them to that belief. 21 . with World War II threatening to erupt at any time. http://www. This is what they did not believe the West had. Students at leading British universities signed pledges to refuse to fight in the event of war." What a shame our schools and college neglect history. which could save us from continuing to repeat the idiocies of the past.

Those concerned with issues of war and peace -– and that is all of us -. in Spain. Department of Peace and Conflict Studies. June 8th. We know from the lead-up to World War II that good people cannot sit by idly while evil is being planned and perpetrated. terrorists consider it a triumph if they can produce major casualties such as occurred with the death of 3. like many of you. in Bangladesh. in Afghanistan. or the attack on railway facilities in Madrid resulting in the loss of more than 180 lives on March 11 of this year. Like you. I am a parent. saner world than the one we have at the moment. It is not a war we chose and the engagement is frequently not on our terms. In waging this war.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. Dhaka We cannot afford to be passive and we cannot afford to be merely reactive. ttp://dhaka. The global war in which we are engaged is not a war about religious or civilizational domination. UK: Fisher The war against terrorism is an effort to protect from attack both the hard and soft targets – in the United States. in Iraq.000 people from more than 80 nationalities on September 11. But it is as real a war as the ones formerly fought on conventional battlefields between standing armies. in Saudi Arabia. in the former Soviet Union. That is why it is seen as a global war. As I mentioned before. 2004.08.cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while this war is being waged. 2001.04_dhaka_university_peace_not_an_absence_of_war. 22 .usembassy. we must remain engaged to its successful completion since this is not a war that we can afford to lose. and elsewhere. including more than 20 Bangladeshis. But now that we are in it. I want my daughter to grow up in a safer.

Military audacity. lethality. convinced neutrals to join us and enemies not yet conquered to remain in the shadows. 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. diplomatic machinations don't create enduring realities--events on the battlefield do. After World War I. unpredictability. 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. June 2. 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). 24-hour pulpit of global television that inflates a halfdozen inadvertent civilian casualties into Dresden and Hiroshima. coupled with the message of freedom. Ph." when military audacity can establish a fait accompli on the ground that diplomats quibble over for decades. 23 . grasped the importance of "the unforgiving minute. http://www. the shattered and shamed Wehrmacht in Berlin was unable to energize a Fourth Reich. in fact. The promise of consensual government. trusting instead that wise and reasonable people can adjudicate the situation on the ground according to Enlightenment principles of diplomacy and reason. which--through a multifaceted strategy of border fortification. But. but from others who would have joined us as well. the defeated.html. by contrast. But thugs like Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army and Saddam Hussein's remnant killers beg to differ. More important. American troops have discovered that they are safer on the assault when they can fire first and kill killers. but a sort of weird immorality that seeks to avoid ethical censure in the short term--the ever-present. They may eventually submit to a fair and honest brokered peace--but only when the alternative is an Abrams tank or Cobra gunship. then mysteriously forgot the source of our success. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. such complacency has left more moderate Iraqis to be targeted by ever more emboldened murderers. 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 misplaced restraint of the past year is not true morality. we waged a brilliant three-week campaign. “Kill the Insurgents . in the long term. After World War II. but because he was first reduced to a humiliated lord of a rubble pile--thanks to the IDF.” The New Republic.S.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. D. a Professor Emeritus at California University. rather than simply patrol and react. to arrest early insurrectionists like Sadr. 2004. imperviousness to cheap we tend to deprecate the efficacy of arms. in Classics. The labyrinth of failed plans and bad-faith deals in the Balkans led nowhere until the U. In our current postmodern world. targeted air assassinations. UK: Fisher Most of the time in war. George S. For their part. ensuring peace in the long term – restraint invites violence Victor Davis Hanson.Stop Talking. proactive attacks. gender equality. Patton. and to subdue cities like Tikrit or Falluja only earned us contempt--and not just from those who would kill us. Air Force secured in 79 days in 1999 the capitulation of Slobodan Milosevic--the chief foreign policy achievement of the Clinton administration. But our failure to shoot looters. snarling to head for Berlin and beyond in 1945. Stanford University. Arafat today is a marginalized figure not because of a belated European perception that he is corrupt and murderous. and increased intelligence and vigilance-drastically curtailed the efficacy of the tactic. neutrals and well-meaning moderates in Iraq often put their ideological preferences on hold as they wait to see who will. Paul Bremer. hoping their newly armored Humvees and fortified flak vests will deflect projectiles. Fresno. win. but not humiliated. A year ago.victorhanson. and iron resolve. rather than a stern rebuke from L.

the safer Iraqis and Americans will be in the years to come. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Fresno. If the humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975 helped create the landscape for the boat-people. Stanford University.html.Q. hesitation and uncertainty would propel the sequence of events into reverse. UK: Fisher By June 2. Khan. A. The more lethal they are today. 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. and put Iran and Syria under scrutiny--a volcanic. http://www. “Kill the Insurgents . and a decade-long demoralization at home. Ph.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. reeducation camps. Kufa. so. in Classics. the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. and Najaf. the takeover of the Tehran Embassy.victorhanson. situation that can as easily deteriorate as improve. 24 . the Russiansponsored insurrection in Central America. our momentum thus far has curtailed the Libyan weapons program.” The New Republic. brought revelations of nuclear mischief from Dr. the Cambodian holocaust. in the same way. not a static. D.Stop Talking. 2004. a Professor Emeritus at California University.

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. China. swept from power the pro-U. and enlightened self-interest. especially now that we contend with the sirens of the mall. NATO. All this can be a hard lesson to relearn each generation.S. The age-old lure of appeasement—perhaps they will cease with this latest concession. 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. As long ago as the fourth century B.html.victorhanson. when an affluent European electorate.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad Hardline militarism is critical to saving millions of lives – appeasement historically fails Victor Davis Hanson. Stanford University. and the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia did not win gratitude but rather Hitler's contempt for their weakness. 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. military deterrence and the willingness to use force against evil in its infancy usually end up. Thereafter. Spring 2004. What eventually contained Stalinism was the Truman Doctrine. Fresno.” City Journal.C. Ph. British and French restraint over the occupation of the Rhineland. in Classics. Most important. not Jimmy Carter's accommodation or Richard Nixon's détente. the Anschluss. http://www. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. 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. and Southeast Asia only embolden the Soviet Union. 25 . Fifty million dead. the Holocaust. Oprah. saving more lives than they cost. “The Fruits of Appeasement. tolerance. who long ago promised the Western and Christian Iberians ruin for the Crusades and the Reconquista. Our affluence and leisure are as antithetical to the use of force as rural life and relative poverty once were catalysts for muscular action." So too did Western excuses for the Russians' violation of guarantees of free elections in postwar Eastern Europe. a Professor Emeritus at California University. the absorption of the Czech Sudetenland. nor expect that peoples outside the purview of bourgeois liberalism share our commitment to reason. in the terrible arithmetic of war. perhaps demonstrations of our future good intentions will win their approval—was never more evident than in the recent Spanish elections. D. and latte. perhaps we provoked our enemies. reeling from the horrific terrorist attack of 3/11. and nuclear deterrence—not the United Nations—and what destroyed its legacy was Ronald Reagan's UK: Fisher The twentieth century should have taught the citizens of liberal democracies the catastrophic consequences of placating tyrants.

Communism’s demise likewise freed these trendy ideologies from having to offer some wooden. pampered Western intellectuals since Diderot have always dreamed up a “noble savage. the West Bank. as in Taiwan or South Korea. thus they could happily remain entirely critical. or Beirut. and who refashioned Iranian state policy to hunt down. Christian missionaries in Kabul. UK: Fisher Rather than springing from realpolitik. down the arduous. 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. it opened as many doors as it shut. from gender. a Professor Emeritus at California University. Spring 2004. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time”). 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. sarcastic. whether in Damascus. multiculturalism.” who lived in harmony with nature precisely because of his distance from the corruption of Western civilization.html. the oppressive multinational corporation and the humiliation and erosion of indigenous culture brought on by globalization and a smug. Fresno. Teheran. Of course.victorhanson. http://www.” City Journal. Anyone could play in these “area studies” that cobbled together the barrio. 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. might eventually lead to a consensual. “The Fruits of Appeasement. who was engaged in the messy. who murdered nonMuslims. 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. An Ayatollah Khomeini who turned back the clock on female emancipation in Iran. Ph. corporate. was the rich. Endemic racism and the legacy of colonialism. capitalist profiteers in Islamabad. The font of that collective oppression. unworkable Marxist alternative to the West. and white United States. To be sure. and kill liberals nevertheless seemed to liberal Western eyes as preferable to the Shah—a Western-supported anti-communist. There was victim status for everybody. in Classics. 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. and cynical without any obligation to suggest something better. Though the abrupt collapse of communism was a dilemma for the Left. after all. self-important cultural condescension—all this and more explained poverty and despair. such a collapse of doctrinaire statism did not discredit the gospel of forced egalitarianism and resentment against prosperous capitalists. both at home and abroad. after the fall of the Berlin Wall. torture. minorities. Far from it. and all the other dogmas whose fundamental tenet was that white male capitalists had systematically oppressed women. his spirit reemerged among our intelligentsia in the novel guises of post-structuralism. new historicism. But if the creed of the socialist republics was impossible to take seriously in either economic or political terms. and class at home to colonialism. like American pioneers of old on their way west. and Third World people in countless insidious ways.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. [Continues…No Text Removed] 26 . whiskey-drinking oilmen in Riyadh. sloth. 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. often corrupt task of bringing Iran from the tenth to the twentieth century. race. But now this fuzzy romanticism had an updated. D. dangerous path that. women in Westernized dress in Teheran. and hegemony abroad. Stanford University. Bomb Texas. If Marx receded from economics departments. political edge: the bearded killer and wild-eyed savage were not merely better than we because they lived apart in a pre-modern landscape.” 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. or fear of oil cutoffs. capitalist society like our own. as witness the nihilist signs at recent protest marches proclaiming: “I Love or miniskirted tourists in Cairo. Republican.

nor do they possess the intellectual tools to make judgments about the relative value of different cultures. how could critical debate arise for those “committed to social change. “oppressed” peoples either could not be judged by our biased and “constructed” values (“false universals.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. They would have deconstructed Atta's promotion of anti-Semitic. 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. Iran might offer the world an alternate path. a different “discourse” about how to organize a society that emphasized native values (of some sort) over mere profit. 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. 27 . Western-hating thought. 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. uncorrupted by the evils of Western capitalism. in which a Noam Chomsky could proclaim Khomeini’s gulag to be “independent nationalism. its spread to our popular culture only encouraged more. the silly gospel of multiculturalism insisted that Westerners have neither earned the right to censure others.” reasoned argument was futile. as anything but a danger and a pathology to be remedied by deportation or incarceration." Thus. Indeed.” when no universal standards were to be applied to those outside the West? Thanks to the doctrine of cultural relativism. misogynist. So at precisely the time of these increasingly frequent terrorist attacks. 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. Instead. they would more likely have excused him as a victim of globalization or of the biases of American foreign policy. Now back in the hands of indigenous peoples.” in Edward Said’s infamous term) or were seen as more pristine than ourselves. as well as his conspiracies with Third World criminals. before female-hating psychopath Mohamed Atta piloted a jet into the World Trade Center. 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. without logic but with plenty of romance.

The only result was the rise of an Iraqi Dolchstosslegende. You must be willing to kill in the short term to save lives and foster peace in the long term. 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. Unquestionably. It’s never lose your focus on killing the enemy.carlisle. our long-term strategy must include a wide range of efforts to do what we. UK: Fisher It cannot be repeated often enough: Whatever else you aim to do in wartime. but betrayed. Especially in our struggle with God-obsessed terrorists—the most implacable enemies our nation has ever faced—there is no economical solution. can to address the environmental conditions in which terrorism arises and thrives (often disappointingly little—it’s a self-help world).mil/usawc/Parameters/04summer/peters. It is not enough to materially defeat your enemy. all we can do is to impress our enemies. 28 . But at a time when huckster contractors and “experts” who never served in uniform prophesize bloodless wars and sterile victories through technology. incisive attacks on command networks and control capabilities. Retired Army officer. Only the shedding of their blood defeats resolute enemies. as outsiders. our allies. It is not a matter of whether attrition is good or bad. p.” Of course. and humane treatment of civilians and prisoners matter profoundly.htm. 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. “In Praise of Attrition. You cannot do that by bombing empty buildings. 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. crucial portions of the population never really felt America’s power.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. the notion that they weren’t really defeated. and all the populations in between that we are winning and will continue to win. for now. well-considered psychological operations. http://www. This essay does not suppose that warfare is simple: “Just go out and kill ’em. Summer 2004. But.” Parameters. The only way to do that is through killing. You must convince your enemy that he has been defeated. 24-32. along with many other complex factors.

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

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

" What. They don’t envy our free elections. But this does not justify blaming the victims. they spit on it." What cycle? We did nothing after a hole was blown in the USS Cole and 17 sailors were killed. Horrific as the Twin Towers atrocity was. Violent death. They don’t want to take what we have. it doesn’t matter how many resolutions the sheep pass in favor of vegetarianism. and of the world. and children. atheists and even Muslims who disagree with their totalitarian agenda. Buddhists. Not just soldiers. All of us. today’s pacifism is merely apathy and cowardice in fancy clothes: * "Give peace a chance. Hindus. it cannot obliterate the memory of the other 18. The world is full of hungry wolves. Christians. free speech." Really? What about World War II? * "We aren’t perfect. Confucians. They don’t want to hijack our plane. crime and terrorism are realities we have been forced to face.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good ." About what? How to identify body parts? * "There is another way. But what if the sheep were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs. We can no longer pretend that only others are at risk — others who live or work in "bad" parts of town. while we stand aside feeling superior? Is that peace? * "Let’s sit down and talk. they want to crash it. specifically? * "Stop the cycle of violence. so sheepdogs protect them." To do what? Allow more thousands of innocents to be slaughtered. Men. and it does not excuse us from our duty. or women’s rights. 31 . religious pluralism.Pacifism Bad (2/2) [Continued…No Text Removed] As has been said. We have been forced to face the fact that all parts of town. can be "bad. they hate us because of these freedoms. Sheep are too stupid to know this. Jews. What good did our restraint do? * "Violence never settles anything. because the growls disturbed their peaceful slumbers? Rather than a coherent philosophy of nonviolence and peacemaking. women. the only thing that matters is whether the wolves are hungry." There are people who want to see us dead. They want us dead.000 or so Americans who will be murdered this year." Neither is anyone.

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

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

When America had a "Department of War. the same old hell. in Classics.reminding us that we can repackage and rename conflict through euphemism and good intentions. 2002. “War Will Be War: No matter the era. UK: Fisher The first such reality is that war will not be outlawed or made obsolete. but never really alter its brutal essence." no more Americans were killed overseas than in the period after its name was changed to the less bellicose "Department of Defense" -. a Professor Emeritus at California University." runs the ancient wisdom -. only avoided by deterrence. http://www. This idea is a spasm of utopian thinking on the part of elites.” National Review Magazine.their kritik risks the death of millions as they de-emphasize the importance of the military in keeping peace Victor Davis Hanson. Stanford University.victorhanson.UK6 The Truth Militarism Good – War Inevitable Despite Alternative War will never go away .com/articles/hanson050602. D. Fresno. Ph. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. 34 . "He who wishes peace should prepare for war. War cannot be eliminated entirely.html. no matter the weapons. May 6.and it remains true today. its only result is to get millions of less educated and less affluent innocents killed.

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

D. We are not winning the war. the Administration quailed. in finance from the University of Texas at Austin. but they were armed with the conviction that political freedom is an ideal worth fighting for. 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. apologetic and appeasing. “The Timid War on Terrorism. But we have been flailing in unpredictable directions. though such casualties are regrettable. Instead. It should have asserted that. Why? The Bush Administration lacks moral confidence.” The Ayn Rand Institute. the 18th century's lone superpower. but militant Islam. and Elan Journo is a senior writer for ARI. we should target not terrorism. but we could be. holds a B. Facing the prospect of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2003 http://www. the ideology that motivates the terrorists. UK: Fisher To defend American lives properly. Our survival depends. not only on having a more powerful military. We are at war with militant Islamists who lust for our annihilation. America was guilt-ridden. September unsure of where to go next. because the war lacks a clear purpose.aynrand. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. Our Founding Fathers did not have even one hundredth of America's present military power. a tactic. Their moral certainty gave them the courage necessary to fight for their independence from England. in civil engineering and an MBA and Ph. 36 . they are the responsibility of the regime that initiated force against us.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.Sc. 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.

http://www. February 8. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. and the Taliban were all defeated. and only after that were their societies rebuilt—and thus Grenada. baby. 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. that he is going to lose. 2005. 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. “Postmodern War. and North Korea—all had in common unfinished business with the U.victorhanson. Ph. we would do best to recall the realistic. Fresno. Perhaps for all the debate over how to fight irregular wars in an age of global terrorism. 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. Amid all the glitter of contemporary culture and technology. educated. and Afghanistan now do not belong to the axis of anything. if inelegant. an odious thought for us postmodern children of the Enlightenment. But bin Ladin’s October infomercial mentioned truces and respites. but because bin Ladin is beginning to feel. President Bush’s so-called Axis of Evil in 2002—Iraq. 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. Serbia.” City Journal. a Professor Emeritus at California University. Modern Western man is faced with this awful dilemma. the will to fight for victory remains crucial to battlefield success. Noriega.S. In like al-Sadr. the Grenada communists. or sophisticated—ever to have to descend to the primeval swamp to destroy bin Ladin and his ilk to ensure our survival.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. D. not out of tender concern for the West. Panama. UK: Fisher Victory always sways the heart even of the most ardent pacifist. the infamous Al Davis: “Just win. words of the owner of the Oakland Raiders. Stanford University.html. who feel we should be exempt—as too wealthy. To that end.” 37 . military that had led to a bellum interruptum of sorts. in Classics. Milošević . Iran.

Eastern Europe. Argentina. February 21. once their sanctuaries and capital shrivel up — as is happening as we speak. Japan.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.” National Review Online. Fresno.victorhanson. Ph. Killing American diplomats. UK: Fisher The jailing of al Qaeda. flattening embassies. Stanford University. a Professor Emeritus at California University. Rome. So too will the terrorists. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. “From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy. attacking warships. Instead. blowing up Marines in their sleep. and the Arab world. in Classics. one war. 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. D. http://www. the end of the Taliban. and Italy — diverse enemies all — did not require the weeding out of all the fascists and their supporters in Mexico. 38 . one outcome. 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. and Tokyo. 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. Taking on all at once Germany.html.

or the Allied laxity in closing completely the Falaise Gap in summer 1944 that allowed thousands of Germans to escape.html. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. 39 . This rule of postmodern war? Before the he can expect a court martial. a colonel who blows apart an Iraqi Baathist in April might win a medal. November 17. and humanitarians. 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. the military must finish the destruction of enemy forces in the unforgiving minute.” National Review Online. 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. it was true that the failure to destroy a doomed enemy could later prove near disastrous for a victorious force. in Classics. Of course. but if in October he shoots a round off near a terrorist suspect's head to save the lives of his men. 2003. After all. and the sheer arrogance engendered by rapid victory sometimes have stopped the full exercise of American power that would finish the job. and attack six months later in the Bulge. D. sociologists. 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. and the UN converge. a Professor Emeritus at California University. Conflicts proper — the period in which belligerents freely attack one another in conventional fighting — are now often brief. and before victorious and unapologetic soldiers are asked to be peacekeepers. before embedded reporters leave and investigative journalists arrive. the auditors. wide-scale pacifism. The so-called "highway of death" of 1991 was not quite the massacre promulgated by the media. regroup. Yet the conditions of the new warfare — instant and televised global media exposure. UK: Fisher Why? Because we are in a war that is not quite a war. Ph. before terrified fleeing soldiers are reborn as emboldened terrorists. well before our pass on storming Baghdad in 1991. Yet a false sense of morality.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. “The Paradoxes of American Military Power: Strange new guidelines about the way we fight. Fresno. indeed more a matter of days or weeks than of months or years. Stanford University.victorhanson. 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 postbellum terrorism — have made the need to destroy a reeling enemy before the shooting stops more critical than ever before. http://www. 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. Witness the German pause outside Dunkirk when a trapped British Expeditionary Army escaped to England largely intact.

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

their common ideological enemy is liberal democracy — specifically its global promotion of freedom.” National Review Online. or Iraq.victorhanson. and politically makes it more difficult for tyrants to rule over complacent and ignorant populations. in a post-Soviet Union world. individualism. 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. Fresno. and German Nazis saw commonalities in their efforts to spread right-wing nationalist rule. Stanford University. blackmailed. religious diversity. Libya. gender equity. For another. or openly joined with in ad hoc efforts to destroy a hated West. our various enemies share an eerie modus operandi as well: Al Qaeda terrorists blew themselves up killing Americans. which can be cajoled.html. and so do terrorists on the West Bank — and so does Saddam Hussein send bounties to the families of such killers. For one. 2003. UK: Fisher Just as Italian fascists. exhibit affinities that go well beyond sporadic and murky ties between such governments and fundamentalist terrorist groups. Ph. in Classics. 41 . a Professor Emeritus at California University. one war. in fact. Third. capitalism. one outcome. D. and secularism that undermines both Islamic fundamentalism in the cultural sense. February 21. 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. “From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.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. Japanese militarists. Fascist states and radical Islamists.

In response to his long record of terrorizing Israel in the name of "Palestinian liberation. By relying on terror and unearned 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. 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 . increased dramatically. and power for the "downtrodden" Palestinians--money which the Palestinian leadership uses to fund still more attacks on Israel.” Ayn Rand Institute. is more land. Then. loot. along with Arab nations claiming that antiAmerican terrorism stems from sympathy for the mistreatment of Palestinians. they convince Israel and the West. terrorism coupled with blaming Israel. “Israel's Deadly Appeasement Process Continues. Arafat was offered unprecedented territorial concessions. 2005. 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.UK6 The Truth Appeasing Terrorists  More Terrorism Appeasing terrorism breeds more terrorism – Arafat proves Alex Epstein. BA Philosophy. Unsurprisingly. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and Edward Cline.aynrand. 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. indoctrinate them with anti-Semitism. August 25. The solution. UK: Fisher Observe what the absurdly named "peace process" has consisted of. figuring he could get more by terrorism. Under the Oslo accords. Graduate of Duke University. The PA and its Arab neighbors deliberately keep the Palestinians in misery. having been handsomely rewarded." Yasser Arafat got recognition as the "legitimate representative" of the Palestinians. The resulting escalation of terrorism. in 2000. and sponsor terrorism against Israel. Consider the recent history. he rejected the proposal and launched a second Intifada. contributing writer to ARI. http://www.

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

leaving his Western border lightly defended. ask the very people who are in charge of our defense. We must demand from our leaders the only real defense: a renewed offense. identified threats and waste it investigating the movements of ordinary students and tourists. Rather than holding hearings on the nuclear weapons programs of Iraq.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. They thought this defensive line would eliminate the need for offensive action. http://www. America is not going on the defensive because our leaders believe that a defensive stance will work. The French defenses proved useless. In the 1930s. 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. By 1940. They are doing it because they do not have the moral courage to take the offensive. if you want to know whether this defensive stance will stop terrorism. they have given up. trained and dispatched to the United States. This is the climax of a trend that has been building for the past month: the only action the U. the nations that sponsor terrorism have risen to unprecedented heights of importance and prestige. it was too late. government is now taking in response to terrorism is purely defensive. The best we can expect from this kind of defense is the result achieved by Israeli army and intelligence forces. “America's Maginot Line. Rather than sending soldiers to invade hostile powers abroad. America. the administration is sending law enforcement agents to invade our privacy at home. government is now taking in response to terrorism is purely defensive. 2002. The new efforts announced by the administration are likely to be less effective." It is better. 44 . "unilateral" and "imperialist. No archipelago of law-enforcement agencies can keep America safe. with the most powerful military in the world. Congress is holding hearings on the supposed failure of the FBI to prevent September 11. Far from being destroyed. UK: Fisher The only action the page=NewsArticle&id=7360. which manage to stop about 80 percent of attempted suicide bombers (successes that are still dependent on the intelligence gathered from Israeli military incursions). 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. breaking the Treaty of Versailles with a token force that was ordered to retreat if attacked. armed. But President Bush has just announced to Europe that he has no plans to invade Iraq. an impressive chain of fixed fortifications along its border with Germany. Iran and North Korea.N. France acquiesced. not to rock the diplomatic boat. as we began to do in Afghanistan. The United States remains an "ally" of terrorist sponsor Pakistan as it threatens India with a nuclear first strike. When Hitler employed his whole army to invade Poland in 1939. June 10. they have apparently concluded.” Ayn Rand Institute.'s Security Council. The Department of Homeland Security is America's Maginot Line. at bus stops and during religious celebrations. the French army remained in its bunkers. the patron of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The only effective way to stop terrorism is to eliminate its sponsors. obstructionism from the United Nations and petulant posturing from Arab princes. France did nothing. the French constructed the ultimate monument to the folly of a purely defensive strategy: the Maginot Line.S. holds the presidency of the U. To oppose such forces would be denounced as uncompromising. When Hitler annexed Austria and seized Czechoslovakia in 1938. It ended when President Bush pushed to the top of his agenda the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. 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. So when Hitler militarized the Rhineland in 1936. Faced with cowardly quavering from Europe. a new attack is inevitable and we must get used to the threat of sudden mass death. The Saudis continue to pump money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. They can only try to stop attacks that have already been conceived and planned by terrorists who have already been funded. Even this phenomenal success rate does not stop ordinary Israelis from being blown to bits in pizza restaurants. FBI Director Robert Mueller has just told us his agency cannot stop every terrorist attack. and Syria. The massive armies Hitler had built during years of European inaction merely bypassed the Maginot Line. The War on Terrorism is over. the director of the CIA is helping to rebuild Yasser Arafat's goon squads. has chosen to retreat into a bunker of expanded police powers and "homeland security" programs. America's War on Terrorism is over--but the terrorists' war on America is not. Indeed.

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

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. 46 .victorhanson. Ph. “Western Cannibalism: Eating each other while our enemies smile. the terrorists planted more bombs. a Professor Emeritus at California University. allowance for vicious mullahs — we have seen more. 2004. 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. In return.html. tolerance for looters and militias. UK: Fisher Out of all the recent chaos emerges one lesson: Appeasement of fundamentalists is not appreciated as magnanimity.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 Hanson. and people the wages of its mollifying. as is its historical wont. issued more demands. embassies. but ridiculed as weakness — and. Fresno. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Following the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979. and then staged a fiery exit for themselves. General Musharraf once did all he could to appease Islamists — and got assassination plots as thanks. encourages further killing.” National Review triangulated with the Muslim world and then found its fundamentalist plotters all over Paris. http://www. skyscrapers. France. planes. in Classics. Stanford University. killed. in fact. And every time in Iraq we have tried to offer conciliation before complete military victory — low profiles. April 08. not fewer. D. A shaken Spain elected a new government that promised to exit Iraq.

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

Germans? Who was stirring up such animosity? We are in a similar dilemma — in our hesitation about Iraq. All the while.html.No Text Removed] 48 . fundamentalism. thousands of Japanese shouting "Banzai!. and our worries about mission creep in pursuing the killers. 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…. 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. and dangerous. 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. like those 70 years ago who so wanted a perpetual peace. Rather than preparing for what our enemies are preparing for us. tribalism." and even Mussolini's comically delivered. not Israel — make their people poor. 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. 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. no American statesman has the guts to tell the Arab leadership that statism. our pressure on Israel. the best strategy for promoting long-term stability is decisive victory now Victor Davis Hanson. http://www. We are more amused than shocked that madrassas have taught a generation to hate us. 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. not democracy and freedom. pray for a return of sanity in the Middle East. in Classics. most of Western Europe. We chose to ignore horrific stories of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia — the embryo of 9/11. Stanford University. although perhaps mesmerized. gender apartheid. Again: A hard rain is going to fall. we look to gestures of UK: Fisher In some ways in our war against the terrorists we are like the democracies of the late 1930s. Ph. They sort of suspected that an entire. venerable culture in Germany and Japan had gone off the deep end. and whose fuel was brutal force and autocracy. We put our trust in peace with a killer like Mr. and monuments. and the United States. “The 1930's. They knew that there was more to Hitler than his avowed quest for the return of the Sudetenland or the Alsace-Lorraine. people. 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. Fresno. March 25. but also shrug. When mullahs in Iran speak of destroying Israel we wince. who packs a gun and whips up volatile crowds in Arabic. For England. but hateful rants overwhelmed the senses. and autocracy — not America. 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. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.” National Review Online. Can't the Jews and Arabs just get along? If Israel would just give back all of the West Bank.UK6 The Truth A2 Muslim Resentment (1/2) Resentment is inevitable – instead of trying to appease terrorists. D.victorhanson. Arafat. 2002. a Professor Emeritus at California University. Filmstrips of German Panzers. angry.

but I am proud that thugs like Khaddafi. No mas.No Text Removed] Like the dashed hopes of the 1930s such faith is not only misplaced. we see much of a whipped-up Arab world entering this similar period of dangerous unreality. and weapons hucksters." deal with Iraq. I would find it repugnant if they did. hearing the childish rants about "The Mother of All Battles" and "The Great Satan. or sweet-talked — only defeated. inquisitionists like the mullahs in Iran. Saudi Arabia. A nuclear Pakistan is a tottering military dictatorship away from Armageddon. Arab terrorists. apologized to. We can either step up and stop Islamic fundamentalism. the third day fury against the sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait. I am tired of the appeasers of the Middle East on our Right who fawn for oil and trade. bought and paid for PR suits. but deadly leave of their senses — Napoleon's France for most of a decade. bodies dumped on the tarmac of airports. prepare for the worst. do not speak freely. but they will not cease. not us. medieval sheiks in the Gulf. and Middle Eastern dictators or we can step back and watch it all continue to grow. gender. then we should remember that wars usually end when one. the ritual torching of the American flag. 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. 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. our planes blown up. one that will pass — or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen in 60 years. The efforts of countries like Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons might under the present pressures grow dormant. not us. and that even higher poll numbers reflected real antipathy for the West. 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. oppress women. the thousands of paint-by-the-numbers posters of psychopaths from Khomeini to bin Laden. suicide bombers. the next sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait. Only a few of us Americans really take the Islamic world at its word — that one in three is reported to think (representing. win. and millions of others who do not vote. Japan in 1931. televised threats that sound as hideous as they are empty. and certain religions at peculiar periods in their history take a momentary. History teaches us that certain nations. hijacked planes. the misspelled banners of hatred. criminals in Syria. The problem is you. you. they cannot be bribed. hope for the best. The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon. Syria. but also dangerous. hooded Klansmen in Hamas and Hezbollah. their hatred is a badge of honor. and Libya. not us — just as it always is when unelected maniacs take control and hijack an entire country and culture. 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. one day the salvation of Kuwait. the southern states in 1861. Polls everywhere in the Middle East reveal not mere anguish. I've about had it. The problem is them and their unelected and unfree regimes. and the really tawdry assortment of oil men. embassy takeovers. 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 I would have it no other way. shrill turbaned nuts spouting hatred on C-SPAN broadcasts. that two of three believed no Arabs were involved. Public pronouncements in Iran are not any less hateful than what emanated from Berlin in 1936. In that context. murders at the Olympics. Either we shall say "no more. oil-boycotts. the fifth another from A. and are not tolerant of religious. our citizens butchered. If 9/11 was the beginning of a war. and Russia after World War II. what America really is. shredded diplomats. Germany in 1939. killers of al-this and Islamic-that.000 Americans was justified." and witnessing presidents from Carter to Bush burned in effigy. and Iran. Mussolini. not both sides. After 30 years of listening to nauseating chanting from Teheran to Islamabad to Nablus. or do not like. our towers toppled.C. say. continual televised murders of Americans abroad. 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. And when they do. madmen in sunglasses in Iraq. Tojo. you….D. No. not us — you. Arafat and his bombers. So we should stop apologizing. Nazi-inspired anti-Semitism. I'd rather think of all the innocent dead on 9/ 11 than give a moment more of attention to Mr. our equivocators in the state department. and ships. cars. D. 752. not us. I don't listen any more to the apologies and prevarications of our whiney university Arabists. certain peoples. I don't know about the rest of America. 49 . a small number of around 200 million?) that the murder of 3. lectures from unelected obese sheiks with long names and gold chains. and Stalin. the fourth day some grievance from 1953. and those pacifists and multiculturalists on the Left who either do not know. demented mullahs and whip-bearing imams in Pakistan. but real enmity toward Americans. insiders. or ethnic diversity don't like me for being an American. not us — just as it was Hitler.UK6 The Truth A2 Muslim Resentment (2/2) [Continued…. murderers like Saddam Hussein. peacekeepers incinerated in their sleep.

perhaps demolishing Buenos Aires and hanging those who had launched the aggression. which Americans had built and bled for.not far from Argentina but thousands of miles from Britain. Here too. Had that potential been mobilized earlier. not just a military recapture of the islands by the British. in a grand gesture of noblesse 1882? First of all. the Western democracies wrung their hands and tried to appease Hitler.capmag. the United States had given away the Panama Canal. as he continued building up his military machine and picking off countries one by one." Margaret Thatcher wasn't buying any of this. so the Argentine military leaders attacked and took over the small British settlement on the Falkland Islands -. 2002. which the Argentines called the Malvinas. secure in the knowledge that "world opinion" the military potential of the West was greater than that of the nations which launched aggression.which is to say the fashionable attitudes among the media.” Capitalism Magazine. Why then did they attack in 1982 but not -. By the time it became clear that he was not going to stop until he got stopped. She dispatched a naval force that stormed the Falkland Islands and recaptured them. to the applause of "world opinion. and the United Nations -.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. back in the early 20th century. Instead. By contrast. as well as accommodating the advancing might of the Communist world. Even such a staunch ally as the United States cautioned Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher against retaking these insignificant little islands. 50 . Thatcher did not send troops into Argentina. had already been in British hands for almost a century and a half.asp?ID=1542. an ultimatum to Hitler would have made clear that it would be suicidal for him to proceed. After all. given the state of "world opinion" -. Moreover. even though those supposedly innocent civilians had cheered on the attacks against the Falkland Islands. http://www. as any 19th century British Prime Minister would have done. Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution. In 1882.and civilization along with it. Back in the 19th century. in 1982 "world opinion" deplored any attempt by Britain even to recapture this little outpost of imperialism in the South Atlantic. while it could have been suicidal in 1882. “Another War Brought on Pacifism.would prevent the stronger force from retaliating to its fullest extent. would be a welcome distraction. April 19. the pacifists. invading a British possession would bring certain retaliation. such an attack could mean British troops landing in Argentina itself.and especially vocal pacifists -. The unprepared West came agonizingly close to losing that war -. 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. 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. but which President Jimmy Carter turned over to Panama. and a good little war with an easy victory against a virtually defenseless settlement of Britons. it was too late to prevent World War II. The Argentines had claimed. Just as the Palestinians launched terrorist attacks on Israel. as well as solidifying popular support for the regime. But even tough Mrs. The Falkland Islands. At the end of that historic carnage. 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. the military junta ruling Argentina in 1982 was having internal problems. a weaker force attacked a stronger force.war brought on by pacifism. just as the Palestinians cheered the campaign of terrorism launched against Israel. In both cases. 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 -. all that time. She understood the double standard that would have condemned any punitive military action against "innocent civilians" in Argentina. Although this happened during the Reagan administration in the United States. As Churchill put it. that the islands rightly belonged to them. at one point a memorandum would have stopped was considered a safe bet in 1982.say -.

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. 51 . anything less than relentless pursuit. 24-32. http://www. 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.” Parameters. Even the occupation of Iraq is a war of attrition. 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 no offers of conciliation. On the contrary. Retired Army officer. only encourages the terrorists and remaining Baathist gangsters. The terrorists know that.htm. This is sophomoric nonsense. unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond. We pretend otherwise. with both preemptive and retaliatory action. Some fanatics will flock to the standard of terror. “In Praise of Attrition. Success breeds success.carlisle. It’s about killing them. Everybody loves a winner. it’s not about PSYOP or jobs or deploying dental teams. ruleof-law Iraq. We’re doing remarkably well. 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. no gestures of Until the people of Iraq are secure. p. The clichés exist because they’re true. given the restrictions under which our forces operate. UK: Fisher And we shall hear that killing terrorists only creates more terrorists. 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. With hardcore terrorists. they are not truly free. which benefits from our reconstruction and development efforts. no matter what we do. the best thing we can do for them is to kill terrorists and insurgents. But no grand maneuvers.

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.and contempt for him by Hitler." He wanted "a general settlement of the grievances of the world without war. where each side gives a little and everything gets worked out in the end. Moreover. We should understand the "alienation" and "sense of grievance" against us by various people in the Middle East. while on the edge of a volcano. 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. What Winston Churchill understood at the time. 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. It is astonishing to see the 1960s phrase "root causes" resurrected at this late date and in this context. which sought the "root causes of crime" during that decade." Like our former ambassador from the Carter era. and Chamberlain did 2001.” Jewish World Review. which allows for violence Thomas Sowell. Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution. What Chamberlain did not understand was that all his concessions simply led to new demands from Hitler -.there are still those who insist on posturing. trying to assuage aggressors' feelings and look at the world from their point of view has had an even more catastrophic track record. But there are others who are old enough to know better. “Pacifism and War. Chamberlain sought to "remove the causes of strife or war. On the international scene. http://www. 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. 52 . In the forefront are college students who demand a "peaceful" response to an act of war. who are still repeating the pacifist platitudes of the 1930s that contributed so much to bringing on World War II. even if that means dangers to the lives of us all -.asp." That was also what drove the men who drove the planes into the World Trade Center. which led to skyrocketing crime rates. creating soft policies toward criminals. September 24th. the British prime minister approached Hitler with the attitude of someone negotiating a labor contract.jewishworldreview. It was precisely this kind of thinking." In other words. 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. and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles. 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.

but rather those renegade Muslims who use the cover of Islam to rally support for their self-serving politics. the rantings of Hezbollah and Hamas to extend theocracy and kill infidels.html. or creating oil slicks — is another telltale symptom of our enemies. Ph. why heart surgery is done in London and not Damascus. 53 . as is the perversion of Islam. whether illustrated in bin Laden's crackpot communiqués. “From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy. 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. or why so many Arabs seem to seek out Detroit rather than Baghdad. http://www. UK: Fisher Nihilism — whether torching oil fields. toppling towers. 2003. or Saddam Hussein's ugly nouveau minarets and holy books written with his own blood. Muslims from the Middle East are not per se the enemy. one war.victorhanson.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. in Classics.” National Review Online. crashing one outcome. gassing civilians. Fresno. Stanford University. a Professor Emeritus at California University. February 21. After all. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. D. desecrating shrines.

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

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

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

http://www. “The Ugly Side of Pacifism.freerepublic. But these exceptions always seem to lie in the past. the exceptions are never relevant to the current problem — they aren’t really exceptions at Pacifists in the 1980s opposed rearmament.” October 10. pointing out that no Genghis Khan was at the gates. they won’t do anything David C. despite the growth of the Soviet empire. Stolinsky. Pacifists in the 1930s opposed rearmament. That is.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. pointing out that the Soviet empire is no more. despite the rise of Hitler. Pacifists today oppose rearmament. 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 Hitler was on the horizon. 2001. despite the rise of global terrorism. 57 .

victorhanson. 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. Stanford University. is critical to maintaining their present tranquillity. D. 2005. in Classics.html. Usama bin Ladin’s own fatwas invoke America’s purported inability to take casualties. February 8. a Professor Emeritus at California University. while Saddam Hussein stockpiled morale-boosting DVD copies of Black Hawk Down. “Postmodern War. More recently. UK: Fisher Thus a weaker enemy can hope to persuade or frighten a majority of its adversary’s citizens to reject the war party. 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.” City Journal. Fresno. and to come to its terms or simply quit. 58 . rather than preparedness and 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. Ph. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. http://www. by such means as the rather crude Soviet Union propaganda efforts in the cold war or by appealing to deep-seated Western pacifism.

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

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

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

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

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. They are as insufferable as a college freshman who believes he and his political-science professor can end poverty if only people would listen. There could be war — and likely will be war — regardless of our course of action. candidate Bush said that his administration would conduct its foreign policy with less arrogance than past administrations had displayed.asp Peace activists may be well intentioned. but the peace movement is fantastically more arrogant. In the mind of the peace activist.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. instead. State Department. and are not controlled by. 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. 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. The only questions are: on whose terms. directives and treaties.UK6 The Truth Pacifism Bad Peace movements ultimately fail – even if the US turns more peaceful. 2003. If the United States would ignore open and notorious breaches of U. 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. they believe America has the unbounded ability to manipulate foreign governments through economic and cultural means.S.S. Naïveté allows the peace movement to thrive. is it arrogant to expect the North Koreans to abide by the Agreed Framework.nationalreview. 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. “Down with the Peace Movement: The trouble with the antiwar warriors. now an attorney. http://www. Served in the enlisted and officer ranks of the United States Marine Corps from 1990 to 1995. under which the U. THE ARROGANCE While campaigning for the presidency. but it is animated by arrogance. Therefore. other enemies won’t Adam G. promised to inject millions of U. Of course. The peace movement is founded upon a subtle ethnocentrism that escapes detection even by the multicultural Left where most peace activists are bred. chemical. America is not just the sole superpower. Mersereau. It is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il might have diabolical plans and evil aspirations that were not created by. simply by choosing to lay down its arms. to rattle his saber at any dictator he thinks he can rattle. the choice between war and peace is not ours alone. 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. the U. The peace activist then reaches the conclusion that the United States can make a unilateral decision for peace.” National Review Online.S. If America does not start a war. He is now widely accused of forsaking the less-arrogant approach and of choosing. Peacenik foreign policy is really very simple: Without an action by the United States. Under this view. tax dollars into the faltering North Korean economy? Perhaps it is slightly arrogant. it is the center of gravity for all world events. and war is tragic. and so every world event is simply an equal (and sometimes opposite) reaction to a prior American action. The best we can say is that they are clinically naïve. and simply refuse to disturb the current state of peace. there will be no reaction by others. January 15. they are more helpful to America's enemies than to America.N. but at their worst. This is the arrogant ethnocentrism of the peace movement. Little do they know that a majority of the Iraqis who stroll past their peace marches in Baghdad support an American invasion. and on whose turf? 63 .com/comment/comment-mersereau011503. there will be no war. then peace would prevail by default.

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

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

We were likely to sigh in relief when we were kicked out of the Philippines. American bases are predicated on contractual obligations — costly to us and profitable to their hosts. not them. Should the Greeks tell us to leave Crete — promises. or the European Union. and the South Americans all say worse things about us than we do about them. not privately and in hurt. Pakistan gets debt relief that ruined dotcoms could only dream of." But if we really are imperial. promises — we would be more likely to count the money saved than the influence lost." along with neologisms like "hyperpower" and "overdogs. political support — and money — for their allegiance. but rather the American electorate itself — whose reluctant worries are chronicled weekly by polls that are eyed with fear by our politicians. we rule over a very funny sort of empire. Athens worried about Sparta and Persia. but because Mr. 66 . Schroeder by not phoning him as frequently as the German press would like. France and Russia go along in the U. not them." but our elites in the military and government worry that they have to coax a reluctant populace. parochialism. and the British wanted land and treasure and grabbed all they could get when they could. UK: Fisher It is popular now to talk of the American "empire.html. Britain worried about France and Spain at sea and the Germanic peoples by land. Imperial powers order and subjects obey. In contrast. we offer the Turks strategic guarantees. The Ottomans never could bully too well the Venetians or the Spanish. Athenians." "imperium. but instead accept the risk of losing almost 40. which in turn impose taxes on coerced subjects to pay for the legions. the restraint on American power is not China. Russia. the Arabs. and the British Parliament alike were eager for empire and reflected the energy of their people. Fresno. Stanford University. among Americans. and self-absorption are far stronger in the American character than desire for overseas adventurism. We do not see any profits in Korea. 2002. and never finished the job in either Korea or Vietnam. Empires usually have contenders that check their power and through rivalry drive their ambitions. The Athenian America went to war late and reluctantly in World Wars I and II. Puerto Ricans are free to vote themselves independence anytime they wish. November 27. and really have no desire to return. But in our case. Jordan reels in more aid than our own bankrupt municipalities. The United States hasn't annexed anyone's soil since the Spanish-American War — a checkered period in American history that still makes us. Bush snubs Mr. not anger. 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. a Professor Emeritus at California University. 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. Romans. “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online. D. We. stop us from becoming what we could. If acrimony and invective arise. not constrain a blood-drunk rabble. — but only after we ensure them the traffic of oil and security for outstanding accounts. http://www. Isolationism. it's usually one-way: the Europeans. Bush to Caesar — and worse — and invocations all sorts of pretentious poli-sci jargon like "hegemon. Take away all our troops from Germany and polls would show relief. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. but publicly and proudly. Instead. Ph.UK6 The Truth Not Imperialist The US is nothing like past imperial nations – their comparisons are bankrupt Victor Davis Hanson.N." and "subject states. Ottomans.000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can flood our shores and that shaggy students can protest outside our embassy in Seoul." In Europe particularly there are comparisons of Mr. the Roman senate. In contrast.victorhanson. in Classics. Our critics may slur us for "overreaching. but is more likely to get you ten minutes on CNN. Rome found its limits when it butted up against Germany and Parthia. We do not send out proconsuls to reside over client states. out as villains in our own history books. We are considered haughty by Berlin not because we send a Germanicus with four legions across the Rhine.

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

but rather baggy jeans and backwards baseball caps. Its crass culture abroad — rap music. brown. America is also a revolutionary. wealthy white people who want your copper. 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. yellow. Big Macs. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. D. rather than a stuffy imperial society. Star Wars. and oppressed southeast Asians are dying to get here. 68 .victorhanson. That explains why Le Monde or a Spanish deputy minister may libel us. Thus far the rest of the globe — whether Islamic fundamentalists. Stanford University. a Professor Emeritus at California University. in Classics. and white middle-class Americans alike have to offer. European socialists. It is one thing to mobilize against grasping. Fresno. We so-called imperialists don't wear pith helmets. even as millions of semi-literate Mexicans. bananas. or rubber — quite another when your own youth want what black. or Chinese Communists — has not yet formulated an ideology antithetical to the kinetic American strain of Western culture. “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online.html. UK:Fisher In that regard. November 27.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. http://www. Pepsi. 2002. unfree Arabs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

secularism and the importance of the individual. 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. http://urbanmozaik. 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. Australia. Never mind lofty ideals like freedom.nov_issue/nov01_fea_eastwest1. New Zealand.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best The ideals of the liberals are mainly Western creations Emily Monroy. November. Though a smattering of nations around the globe have abolished the death penalty. Take something as concrete as capital punishment UK: Fisher In their haste to distance themselves from what they see as the imperialistic oppressor.have ceased to do so. the only region as a group to do away with it is the West -. Is The West The Best? After The Attacks: Taking A Closer Look At Both Sides of The World.Western Europe itself and the so-called neo-Europes abroad. and Latin America. Urban Mozaik. One American abolitionist site wonders aloud why the US continues to execute its citizens when the "countries with which we identify socially" -.html. like Canada. 75 .a practice that leftists and liberals almost universally oppose. those in Latin America and Europe -.i. 2001.

org/1999/departments/the_podium/a0000016." This option. Why? Because the non-western cultures are thought to be victims. You have what can be called a double standard of multi-culturalism. sexism. To exalt them. And the whole idea behind multi-culturalism is to celebrate those cultures. The Podium: Boundless Webzine.… The Real Enemy of Slavery The historical irony is that the movement against these universal evils—the movement against slavery." But in fact. 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. 76 . "Why have mono-culturalism when you can have multiculturalism. Christianity posits that all men are created equal in the eyes of God. as you know. we’re gonna’ teach you about non-western cultures. While pretending to be interested in all cultures and pretending to apply a kind of uniform lens of curiosity about all—they say. and we’re gonna’ denounce them for being even more racist and bigoted and retrograde than the west. in fact. but the only movements against these crimes are Western Dinesh D’Souza. this equality is not just a spiritual equality in the next. and they’re uniquely western because they make unique claim to the western notion of equality. "No. multiculturalism cannot apply a critical lens to non-western cultures. is politically impossible. it is a moral equality that should be respected politically. The teachers can’t say. Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. But what distinguished the early anti-slavery movements was that they said. and this is a real multicultural dilemma in our schools and universities. That no man has the right to be governed without his consent. It was thought to apply only in a spiritual equality. To use them as inspirational role models to build the self-esteem of students on the campus. Originally that view was thought to apply only to the next world. of imperialism. and so on—even though all those crimes are. there is the same principle that no one has the right to govern us without our consent. 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." And so you see the case against slavery and the case for democracy are the same. And so in reality. They are victims of colonialism. And the western notion of equality originated essentially in Christianity. The Civil War was really nothing more than an acting out of that contradiction.html. To cherish them. A Minority Point of View. universal. of racism. Western civilization is defined by a series of crimes—racism. http://boundless.UK6 The Truth Multiculturalism Bad – Double Standard Multiculturalism sets a double standard – the West is blamed for a multitude of crimes. In both. you have a double standard in which western civilization is essentially seen critically. and non-western cultures are essentially seen uncritically. Many is better than one. "Okay. the movement for the liberation of women—these emancipation movements are uniquely western. 1999.

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

They too believed that an individual's thoughts and actions are determined by his racial heritage. on personal merit-and no other basis. 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. Texas A&M president Robert Gates should be praised for announcing that race will no longer be a factor when applications are considered. According to its proponents. The Racism of "Diversity. Whether a given race receives special rewards or special punishments is immaterial. 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." What is needed now is for him. and that students "should be admitted as individuals." These circumlocutions translate simply into this: one's race determines the content of one's mind. Admissions should be based on race. therefore. minority and majority alike. their repudiation of the entire policy of "diversity. We supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of page=NewsArticle&id=7915&news_iv_ctrl=1076." etc. we need "diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life. To the racist. to go further in challenging "diversity. Unlike the valid policy of racial integration. and others." They ought to declare their categorical opposition to racism--and." as the MIT Faculty Newsletter puts it.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. because "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students. but of the genes he shares with all others of his race.” Orange County Register. the particular members of a given race are interchangeable. not of his own choices. They imply that people have worthwhile views to express because of their ethnicity. December 19." "Hispanic ideas. the University of Michigan's vice president insists." which is simply an insidious form of racism. 2003.aynrand. To the racist. "diversity" propagates all the evils inherent in racism. the individual's moral and intellectual character is the product. 78 . http://www. and that "diversity" enables us to encounter "black ideas.

” Orange County Register. They sneer at the principle of "colorblindness. But that is not what "diversity" advocates want. because it is the very essence of racism.aynrand. your accomplishments--is to be dismissed. while that which is outside your control--the accident of skin color--is to define your life. The Racism of "Diversity. 79 . It implies that the students or workers were chosen objectively. We need to identify "diversity" for what it is: a malignant policy that harms everyone. UK: Fisher The value of a racially integrated student body or work force lies entirely in the individualism it implies. your character. with skin color ignored in favor of the standard of individual merit. 2003." They want decisions on college or job applicants to be made exactly as the vilest of racists make them: by bloodline. December page=NewsArticle&id=7915&news_iv_ctrl=1076. They insist that whatever is a result of your own choices--your ideas.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. http://www.

of course. 80 .” The Ayn Rand Institute. an empire spread purely by voluntary persuasion. 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. the poor things. But almost no one is prepared to name the long-term answer to that threat. an empire whose "conquest" consists of bringing the benefits of civilization to backward regions. http://www. “An Empire of Ideals. The long-term answer--the only means by which we can eventually secure world peace--is cultural imperialism. "cultural genocide. That is a smear-tag created by the academic left. It refers to the most benevolent kind of "empire" that could be imagined: an empire of common ideals and attitudes.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. ostensibly a society that tolerates many different cultural influences--except. "Cultural imperialism" is not exactly the right term. any influence coming from the West. The same purpose is served by another leftist smear-tag. and some are even willing to admit that the source of this threat is Islamic fundamentalism. 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. October 8. art and entertainment produced in civilized countries.aynrand. UK: Fisher Everyone has finally awakened to the deadly threat posed by terrorism. The real phenomenon that the phrase "cultural imperialism" refers to is the voluntary adoption of ideas. The inventors of these smears are the same people who clamor for a "multicultural" society. Western "cultural imperialism" is the march of progress across the globe. 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.

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

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


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.


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

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

African or Arab and hold Western values. is it morally equivalent? In most of the Middle East. Capitalism Magazine. 89 . 2003.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 Doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. Jewish. a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Northern Sudan. http://www. 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. Are these cultural values morally equivalent. The Absurdities Underlying Multiculturalism. as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East countries. wealth and comfort for the ordinary person. Japanese. Ask your multiculturalist friends: Is forcible female genital mutilation. there are numerous limits placed on women such as prohibitions on driving. in some countries. women adulterers face death by stoning and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed. 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. For them different cultural values are morally equivalent. It's no accident that western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health. There's an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living. A person can be Chinese.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. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one culture cannot be judged superior to another and to do so is eurocentrism. employment and education. While western values are superior to all others. life expectancy. one need not be a westerner to hold Western values. November 5.capmag. Under Islamic law. superior or inferior to ours? Western values are superior to all others. That's unbridled nonsense. Why? The indispensable achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights.

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

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

1994. however. Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law. but the weak. 1131. Transcendent Justice-. not the strong. 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. 92 . but the victim. Balkin. and declined to consider our uniqueness and authenticity.htm Derrida's ethics of Otherness has a second component: It employs a different sense of individuality and uniqueness. not the oppressor. The duty we owe to the Other is the duty to see how our actions may affect or have affected the Other. Similarly. suppose that we are the State. 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 . not the State. the stronger party. but the individual. or when we are in the position of a judge who is attempting to arbitrate between competing claims.yale. or the injurer. the ethics of Otherness demands that we try to understand how our decision will affect the two parties. the oppressor. 92 Mich. especially if the injustice we complain of is precisely that the Other failed to recognize us as a person. oppressor equal to oppressed – destroying the possibility of ethical decision making Jack M. Under this refused to speak in our language. and this will require us to see the matter from their perspective. or suppose that we are contemplating an action that might put us in such a 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. Rev. 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). but the oppressed. http://www. justice requires one to speak in the language of the Other by trying to see things from the Other's point of view. to fulfill this duty we must put away our own preconceptions and vocabulary and try to see things from her point of view. that we are not the injurer. (78) This conception of justice seems most attractive when we are the injurer or the stronger party in a relationship.UK6 The Truth A2 Obligation to the Other Derrida’s ethics of relating to the other requires viewing rapists as equal to victim. if we are a judge in a case attempting to arbitrate between the parties. Transcendental Deconstruction. L.Part II. For example. Suppose.

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

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. How do we intervene in the productivity of this overdetermined circuit? 94 . 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. nor that they cannot marry rich. pursue fame.g." 23 they remain blind to their own exploitativeness as they make "the East" their career. but also students from privileged backgrounds Western and non-Western.No Text Removed] The difficulty facing us.. Rather. it seems to me. or even be arrogant. through pursuit of fame. through powerful matrimonial alliances. or through a contemptuous arrogance toward fellow students) but who nonetheless proclaim dedication to "vindicating the subalterns. who conform behaviorally in every respect with the elitism of their social origins (e." 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.

we have to pay careful attention to the discursive arrangement in order to understand the full meaning of any given discursive event. 95 . the effects of her discourse is to reinforce racist. which ultimately overwhelms their attempts at improving the condition of the Other Linda Alcoff. The content of the claim. Here is my central point. as an event. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. or its meaning. location. and so on. One cannot simply look at the location of the speaker or her credentials to speak. language. we need to analyze the probable or actual effects of the words on the discursive and material context. in a situation where a well-meaning First World person is speaking for a person or group in the Third World. 5-32.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. the very discursive arrangement may reinscribe the "hierarchy of civilizations" view where the United States lands squarely at the top. 20. merely because of the structure of the speaking practice. This effect occurs because the speaker is positioned as authoritative and empowered. 14 This shows us why it is so important to reconceptualize discourse. “The Problem of Speaking for Others. In order to evaluate attempts to speak for others in particular instances. hearers. thus disempowered. UK: Fisher 4. to an object and victim that must be championed from afar.” Cultural Critique. Winter 1991-92. Though the speaker may be trying to materially improve the situation of some lesserprivileged group. For example. one must also look at where the speech goes and what it does there. 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. p. while the group in the Third World is reduced. partly because the notion of a content separate from effects does not hold up. as the knowledgeable subject. Given this. as Foucault recommends. which includes speaker. nor can one look merely at the propositional content of the speech. imperialist conceptions and perhaps also to further silence the lesser-privileged group's own ability to speak and be heard. emerges in interaction between words and hearers within a very specific historical situation. words. No.

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. “The Problem of Speaking for Others. 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. In the end Spivak prefers a "speaking to. This response is the one with which I have the most agreement. We should strive to create wherever possible the conditions for dialogue and the practice of speaking with and to rather than speaking for others. 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. to promote "listening to" as opposed to speaking for essentializes the oppressed as nonideologically constructed subjects.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. Thus. expanding one's own authority and privilege. 96 . But Spivak is also critical of speaking for others that engages in dangerous representations." 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. No. p. Foucault and Deleuze's position serves only to conceal the actual authorizing power of the retreating intellectuals. If the dangers of speaking for others result from the possibility of misrepresentation. 5-32.” Cultural Critique. the central issue is an essentialist. who in their very retreat help to consolidate a particular conception of experience (as transparent and self-knowing). 20. Winter 1991-92. and a generally imperialist speaking ritual. According to Spivak. then speaking with and to can lessen these dangers.

albeit contested. There is a strong.” Cultural Critique. 5-32. 20. No. p. . unethical. current within feminism which holds that speaking for others is arrogant. 'them' is only admitted among 'us. Winter 199192. 'Them' always stands on the other side of the hill. .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. vain. . 67).3 Given this analysis. when accompanied or introduced by an 'us' . ." Joyce Trebilcot offers a philosophical articulation of this view. 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.' of the white man with the white man about the primitivenature man. UK: Fisher These examples demonstrate some of the current practices and discussions around speaking for others in our society.2 In anthropology there is also much discussion going on about whether it is possible to adequately or justifiably speak for others. In her important paper. speaking for others has come under increasing criticism. Trinh T. 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). 97 . Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. in which 'them' is silenced.' the discussing subjects. naked and speechless." (65. . and politically illegitimate. Minh-ha explains the grounds for skepticism when she says that anthropology is "mainly a conversation of 'us' with 'us' about 'them. "Dyke Methods. As a type of discursive practice. “The Problem of Speaking for Others. and in some communities it is being rejected. . even ethnographies written by progressive anthropologists are a priori regressive because of the structural features of anthropological discursive practice.

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

5-32. I am engaging in the act of representing the other's needs. 99 . p. UK: Fisher If "speaking about" is also involved here. 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. however. 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. 20.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. and in fact. who they are. situation. “The Problem of Speaking for Others. I am representing them as such and such. the entire edifice of the "crisis of representation" must be connected as well. or in post-structuralist terms.” Cultural Critique. goals. I am participating in the construction of their subject-positions. Winter 1991-92. No. 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). In both the practice of speaking for as well as the practice of speaking about others. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University.

but the truth-value or epistemic status will also be affected. When writers from oppressed races and nationalities have insisted that all writing is political the claim has been dismissed as foolish."')9 The rituals of speaking that involve the location of speaker and listeners affect whether a claim is taken as a true. and how it is understood will be affected by the location of both speaker and hearer. since a single text can engender diverse meanings given diverse contexts.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. This claim requires us to shift the ontology of meaning from its location in a text or utterance to a larger space. well-reasoned. Not only what is emphasized. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. in other words. 100 . how what is said gets heard depends on who says it. whereas the style in which African-American writers made the same claim marked their speech as dismissable in the eyes of the same milieu. and who says it will affect the style and language in which it is stated. UK: Fisher Rituals of speaking are constitutive of meaning. And an important implication of this claim is that meaning must be understood as plural and shifting. or grounded in ressentiment. in many situations when a woman speaks the presumption is against her. the meaning of the words spoken as well as the meaning of the event.” Cultural Critique. 20. For example. 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. 5-32. or. compelling argument. or it is simply ignored. noticed." as Andy Warhol accused Bruce Springsteen of doing. No. p. a space that includes the text or utterance but that also includes the discursive context. Thus. Winter 1991-92. which will in turn affect its perceived significance (for specific hearers). 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. or a significant idea. when a man speaks he is usually taken seriously (unless he talks "the dumb way. if he is from an oppressed group).

p.” Cultural Critique. Winter 1991-92. opting for the retreat response is not always a thinly veiled excuse to avoid political work and indulge one's own desires. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University. 5-32. No. UK: Fisher However. though Linda Alcoff. 20. Sometimes it is the result of a desire to engage in political work without engaging in what might be called discursive imperialism. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.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. 101 .


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***


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

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

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

Such a response satisfies the criterion of Utilitarianism -. and so confront the threat of violence with anger. 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. so does a nation. such action merely makes war on war. I give my assent. In the same spirit. S. remember that we used our entire stockpile of two bombs.) Just as an individual needs his evil impulse to live. annihilates forever the argument that it was good.the greatest good for the greatest number -. In associating with a nuclear weapons program. In response to Stalinism. 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.dogchurch. I give it because in response to the Nazis. Even the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. and therefore a threat to themselves and humanity. Futterman. I am both. 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. and it was the best that we humans could do at the time. above. I would also have done as my predecessors did. (Otherwise we risk being attacked just for being vulnerable. to bring about the surrender.the question is how to harness it. rather than less. How can we use it for good?[31] 108 . because acting from it creates more conflict. [30] It was an evil response of good people to evil. And if the old enemy is no longer visible on our horizon.UK6 The Truth Nuclear Weapons Good Nuclear weapons are necessary for world peace. I would have done the same thing. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb. and ensuring protections of freedoms – their argument ignores the rational basis for the creation of nuclear weapons J. Rather than making peace. burned and screaming.html. I am neither one nor the other -. (And if you think there we could have demonstrated the bomb over an unpopulated area. eliminating evils. 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. A. And by continuing to develop and/or maintain a stockpile of them we give our assent to this evil impulse. Or in the Christian idea that we are simultaneously sinners and saints.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. all we need do is to become complacent for a new one to 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. you. I confront the evil of potential aggressors against America with my own evil impulse. And I suppose I would have supported it for that reason. The question is not how to eliminate the evil impulse -. They rightly see nuclear war as a threat to the planet. [30] Ironically. and Stalinism had to be least in its outcome so far. Ph. I believe that Nazism had to be defeated at all costs. which hastened the defeat of the evil of Japanese Imperialism. Now the peace activists didn't invent this type of response. and that it took two cities. http://www. 1937. what I had remembered as an image of Hiroshima turns out to be H. if we are to defend our freedom. On the other hand. Such an attitude is self-defeating. even in this outrageous manner.” 1990-94. Wong's photo taken after the Japanese conventional bombing of Nanking on August 29.) [29] But the image of an orphaned baby.

the difference will become moot if we and our adversaries engage only in deterrence without empowerment and enfranchisement. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.” 1990-94. H. Futterman. Thus. It is true that the path into group evil is taken in small steps." 109 .com/scriptorium/nuke. UK: Fisher [19] There are some who think I should compare myself to the engineers who designed the Nazi gas chambers instead. Moreover.UK6 The Truth Nuclear Weapons Good Nuclear Weapons good – necessary to eliminate evils – their kritik is misplaced J. many of the folks who compare people like me to Nazis dismiss or dehumanize us with language borrowed from psychiatry. and I and my colleagues know it. “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb.html. 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.dogchurch. They might do well to remember how the Nazis used psychiatric and biological terms to dehumanize their chosen "undesirables. http://www. 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.D. On the other hand. A. each with its own rationalization. Ph. for example.

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

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

Peter M. When people are subjected to too much fear-provoking material. 112 . Valenti.” Frances Peavey advised readers in 1981: “Do not stand up after the film is over and try to scare people with further horrifying facts. “Scared stiff — or scared into action. 12–16. whose fear was maintained at reasonable levels by their own activism. given by New York University’s Center for War.psandman. UK: Fisher Numerous testimonials indicate that the shock therapy of a fear appeal may sometimes cut through paralysis. In a set of guidelines for “Helping People Deal With Terrifying Films.htm. This is a violent act and does not encourage pp. so long as the discussion afterward helped people deal with the feelings they aroused.”(12) At that time Peavey still saw value in terrifying films. Sandman is a preeminent risk communication speaker and consultant in the United States and has also worked extensively abroad. startle the apathetic into fresh attention. and the News Media. the value of the films themselves is much reduced.D. Ph. http://www. Winner of the 1986/1987 Olive Branch Award for Outstanding Coverage of the Nuclear Arms Issue. and torment the terrorized and the numb into starker terror and deeper numbness. But such testimonials are usually from activists who were neither paralyzed nor numb in the first place. Our wager is that the fear speeches revitalize the committed into renewed action.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. when few are apathetic but many are numbed by terror. and Dr. JoAnn M. Peace. in Communication from Stanford University in 1971.UK6 The Truth Fear Good Fear is okay in the context of a debate round – discussion helps alleviate the numbing caused by fear Dr. and who derived new energy and reinforcement from what people in the adjacent seats may well have found intolerable. January 1986. In 1985. forgetting or feeling so violated that they are hostile to the overall message. a founding member of SEJ and elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. they tend toward numbing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

it’s betraying that responsibility. not individuals.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. The moment it willingly sacrifices them for any reason whatever." 119 . since neither has initiated force. “The civilians of the aggressor country. an online magazine for Objectivists. http://www. the proper question is not.” they say.” 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. “Killing ‘Innocents’ In War. "The moral principle. 2005. Publisher of Axiomatic Magazine. It must be guided by a single principle: self-defense. Just as an individual shouldn’t sacrifice his own life for fear of harming an innocent bystander in the course of defending himself.capmag. Any act of war that harms civilians is therefore indefensible. A war is a conflict between nations. then." writes Onkar Ghate. During a war. A government’s responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens. he is initiating force. we retreat from the world in the hopes that this will quell the threat. August 16. "is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force. 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. not with those who defend themselves. rather than go to war to defend ourselves.asp?ID=4367. If a soldier harms a UK: Fisher A certain argument is common among libertarians who oppose American national defense and demand that. “Did this nation initiate force against that nation?” If the answer is yes. “Did this individual initiate force against that individual?” but rather. 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.” Capitalism Magazine.

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

"Who are we to judge. is a physical threat to America and should be militarily subdued. But making moral judgments is the basic requirement of an effective foreign policy. http://www. We need to identify the danger posed to the value of human life and human liberty by certain regimes. “War and Morality. while the government of a free country is the police who uses force to defend its citizens against those criminals. December 2. The same applies to countries: dictatorships are criminal states. The moral distinction between the initiator and the retaliator is obvious to everyone except our diplomats (and our intellectuals). The government of Iran. for example. to attack America's interests. 121 . Saddam Hussein is an enemy. 2002. The justification for war is not some amoral calculation about geopolitical "balances of page=NewsArticle&id=8016&news_iv_ctrl=1509. Passing moral judgment is the one act they seek to avoid. In a battle between gangsters.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. which is the wellspring of world terrorism. The same goal applies to other aggressor countries that are demonstrable threats to the safety of Americans.” Ayn Rand Institute. in a battle between tyranny and freedom. 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. potential or actual." The only justification is a moral one--and the only nation entitled to invoke it is one that upholds freedom. it is the proponents of the latter who are in the right. both sides are wrong. 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. is a threat that deserves to be eliminated. We all recognize the objective difference between criminals and the police.aynrand." they declare amorally--leaving conflicts to be resolved through pragmatic horse-trading and arm-twisting. and has demonstrated the willingness. of every free country in the world. UK: Fisher Any dictatorship that has the capability.

2006. “Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan. Despite lip-service to the goal of protecting America's safety. 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 at best it demonstrated Washington's reluctance to fight ruthlessly to defend Americans. http://capmag. UK: Fisher The failure in Afghanistan is a result of Washington's foreign policy. the "war on terror" has been waged in compliance with the prevailing moral premise that self-interest is evil and self-sacrifice a virtue. June 6. It failed to render their ideology--Islamic totalitarianism--a lost cause. Ultimately. Instead of trouncing the enemy for the sake of protecting American lives. How better to stoke the enthusiasm of jihadists? America cannot win this or any war by embracing selflessness as a virtue.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. Instead.asp?ID=4691. 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 Afghans. Senior Writer for the Ayn Rand Institute.” Capitalism Magazine. 122 .

” National Review Online.victorhanson. then perhaps electrical power from their proud city can be mysteriously diverted to Kurdistan and the south. If the citizens of Tikrit choose to murder. postmodern. and disavowal of terrorism and other sordid tactics. The point is not to showcase our own unpredictability but rather. If Syria sends in assassins to kill Americans. we are wealthy and have much to live for. or condone killing. “The Paradoxes of American Military Power: Strange new guidelines about the way we fight. while the latter of course could and probably will be. 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. the worst sin of a Western military is quite simply to be predictable. then perhaps recently purchased French rockets in Baathist depots can be used as backdrops at press conferences. Conventional wisdom says that in fourth-dimensional. slowly to get the message out that a very humane and civilized military is. sometimes quite crazy itself. our enemies are poorer and have little to lose. If France publicly castigates the United States. http://www. Thus Israel ponders trading 300 incarcerated terrorists for the life of one Israeli businessman. November 17. given our greater attention to human life. Americans. well. then perhaps our pilots can become confused about where its border with Iraq actually begins and then perhaps such houses can be cordoned off and. But cultural fault lines do not mean that we cannot at times seem a little unhinged ourselves. D. desire for peace. If munitions are found in the houses of killers. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. blown to smithereens. 123 . In this new war. We cannot and should not change our values. 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. American prisoners are raped and shot with impunity. in Classics. 2003. After all. The fear is that a parasitic nonWest can import our weapons but not our costly military skills — and still obtain military parity of sorts. a Professor Emeritus at California University. their Iraqi Baathist counterparts cannot be so much as frightened. Fresno. quietly and with genuine nonchalance.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. Stanford University. of course with due notification. UK: Fisher Unpredictability. Ph. The world accepts that none of the former will be abjectly murdered in custody.

" the PA and its supporters have proven by their actions--and by repeated statements in Arabic--that they seek to destroy Israel. 124 . tribalist.aynrand. Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and Edward Cline. Israel will abate the hatred that drives so many Palestinians to terrorism. the Gaza withdrawal is a deadly act of appeasement toward Israel's committed enemies: the Palestinian Authority (PA). 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 Israel. its rabidly anti-Semitic Palestinian supporters. As for Israel’s other Arab neighbors. 2005. Western Civilization--from the Middle East. Due to their racist. 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.” Ayn Rand Institute. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is being portrayed as a wise (albeit unpleasant) move by Ariel Sharon. “Israel's Deadly Appeasement Process Continues. much of the Arab world seeks the eradication of Jews--and. contributing writer to primitive philosophy. It will only increase their hope and ability to achieve their long-standing goal: the obliteration of Israel. August 25.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. In polls taken. 80 percent of Palestinians say they do not regard Israel as legitimate. and other Arab regimes throughout the Middle East. http://www. Graduate of Duke University. In fact. Contrary to their pronouncements to Western media that they seek peace with Israel via a "reasonable" landfor-peace "compromise. they have attempted to destroy Israel in three previous wars. UK: Fisher The Gaza withdrawal is a deadly act of appeasement toward Israel's committed enemies. more broadly. BA Philosophy.

the Japanese had to be shown the literal meaning of the war they had waged against others. and adopted suicide as a path to honor.capmag. They followed months of horror. Over six million Japanese were still in Asia." This was the only way to show them the true nature of their philosophy. and the next generation broke the treaty by attacking Manchuria in 1931 (which was not caused by the oil embargo of 1941). so wide-ranging and so long-term. surrender was not at hand in mid1945. It showed the Japanese that "this"-point to burning buildings. The Japanese had to choose between the morality of death. Give it up." the propaganda of their leaders. and renounced war permanently.” Capitalism Magazine. The bombings have been called many things-but moral? The purpose of morality. elevated ritual over rational thought. but to prosper and live. Volunteers lined up for kamikaze "Divine Wind" suicide missions. embraced a constitutional government. The invasion of Japan was cancelled. The bombings marked America's total victory over a militaristic culture that had murdered millions. Despite three and a half years of slaughter. until hopeless prostration before American air attacks made the abject renunciation of all war the only alternative to suicide. the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. screaming children scarred unmercifully. 1945 the American Air Force incinerated Hiroshima. the promise of starvation-"this is what you have done to others. and to beat the truth of the defeat into them. and countless American lives were saved. their twisted samurai "honor. 125 ." their desire to die for the emperor-all of it had to be given concrete form. piles of corpses. UK: Fisher On August 6. http://www. A relentless "Die for the Emperor" propaganda campaign had motivated many Japanese civilians to fight to the death.asp?ID=4648. or Japan's war with Russia had ended in 1905 with a negotiated treaty. Some 12. Facing extermination. World War II in the Pacific was launched by a nation that esteemed everything hostile to human life. is not to suffer and die. Now it has come for you.000 Americans had died on Okinawa alone. and the morality of life.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. This is what firebombing Japanese cities accomplished. The Japanese accepted military occupation. It had gripped Japanese society for three generations. The effects were so beneficent. How can death on such a scale be considered moral? The answer begins with Japanese culture. It was after Japan attacked America that America waged war against Japan-a proper moral response to the violence Japan had initiated. The abstraction "war. Many Japanese leaders hoped to kill enough Americans during an invasion to convince them that the cost was too high. when American airplanes firebombed civilians and reduced cities to rubble. a journal of culture and politics. which left Japan's militaristic culture intact. “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima. April 29. Japan with an atomic bomb. On August 9 Nagasaki was obliterated. subordinated the individual to the state. and thrown in their faces. 2006. The fireballs killed some 175.000 people. Hope of victory kept the Japanese cause alive. that the bombings must be ranked among the most moral acts ever committed. Japan's religious-political philosophy held the emperor as a god. The motivations for war were emboldened. wrote Ayn Rand. To return an entire nation to morality. This was truly a Morality of Death.