War comes with more than victory

Curtis tries to cure my peacenik streak over at Empty Rhetoric. But I think, as many people who encounter my view on war, he receives me wrong.

To be clear: I’m not a pacifist. I recognize that war is an unfortunate reality of being human, and must be executed both justly and mercilessly. But I believe we should all start at the base conception that war is a pock upon us and regret it when it happens, so that we’re emphatically compelled to seek other (perhaps ego-bruising) means of solving our problems. Why? Because war generates horrific unintended consequences that go solidly against our own morality and, furthermore, cannot be controlled once the fists start flying.

In the current conflict, which started with the capture of two (or three, depending on perspective) soldiers, negotiations, even of the backdoor or “assasination” kind, were immediately eschewed in favor of a full-blown attack. War might be good for something, but so far it hasn’t been good at getting those two soldiers back (would it truly stop if they were released?), and has been deplorably inept at stopping rocket attacks. It’s also helped the Lebanese government lose what little control it may have had over Hezbollah, which I guess is something, but something unwelcome to me. Been good at funneling Iranian and Syrian weapons into the area, too, and increasing recruitment and support of Hezbollah. I sense it has also turned some American citizens (let alone the Lebanese), if only briefly, against Israel’s policy. If this is what the world wants, then I suppose it is good for something.

War causes problems; it rarely fixes them. Check out the rousing success in Iraq or indeed the history of the current conflict to see how war spreads its beneficence. As Ben said, “There has never been a good war, or a bad peace,” even as he participated in the Revolution. He’s one who always kept his head screwed on tight, and knew what he was getting into. If we begin with peace, we still have difficult, maybe impossible, problems to solve, which may eventually lead to war anyway. But if we begin with war, we create thousands more problems we most certainly can’t control, let alone solve.

Explicitly promoting the continuation of this war by rejecting a ceasefire as harmful admits diplomatic incompetence. I’m still not clear on what “lasting ceasefire” truly means (I am not psychic, you see), which is probably part of my problem understanding the arguments that create a false choice between “lasting” and “immediate.” I’m also not quite sure why “ceasefire” is conceived as an admonition to Israel, not both sides (Tony Blair flubbed as much in the House of Commons). Perhaps both concepts insinuate complete victory and eradication of terrorism as the only chance for peace. I do not know.

What I am sure of, however, is that if Condoleeza called for an immediate ceasefire and then dug deep into hardcore negotiations, I wouldn’t be hearing much from the right about how a ceasefire is idiotic and useless, but how it was brilliant, bold, and proof that this administration was on the verge of solving the Middle East conflict.

And they’d be right to brag, of course. I could deal with that, even though Ms. Rice and the rest of them irk me so.