NRO's Mark Goldblatt supplies the wartime equivalent of Cliff's Notes for the anti-war student movement. It's a ten-step, point-by-point program of clarification and demystification, one that, alas, is not terribly likely to reach the readers it needs to reach--unless bloggers pick it up and pass it on, and on, and on.

As far as i can tell, the American and European "peace" protesters divide into five basic groups:

1>students who do what their instructors (reliving the 60's -even though it's not the same) are telling them.

2>the largest percentage (which also contains most of the first) are people who cannot stand PRESIDENT Bush, are still smarting from the election, and would not have anything good to say about him if he started walking on water or cured world hunger.

3>Muslims everywhere. This requires a longer explanation and some study of the basic beliefs and structure of Islam.

4>people who equate (wrongly) the US and Israel. Some of these include socialists groups including facists. In the US this goup is mainly represented by a small, but very vocal anti-semetic fringe element. This group can be particularly hateful, shallow, and single minded in their opposition to Jews, Israel and anyone considered a supporter of that democracy.

5>(and the smallest portion) people who honestly believe that any war is wrong. They know very little of human nature and history and thus profess that war has never accomplished any good.... they are dead (unless someone like President Bush stands up for them), and they are dead wrong.

-jackscrow

"Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight." -- Bruce Cockburn

JCrow - I have no opinion on whether your five categories cover all protestors, but they sound good to me. However, the 5th group (pacifists?) you characterize as especially ignorant. On the contrary, I think that pacifism is the only principled opposition against this war that I have heard. Pacifism doesn't require one to know all the facts and decide whether war is just; rather, its adherents have come to a principled solution.

I am certainly not a pacifist, but it is surely a more tenable position than: "Bush is lying," "Saddam is not a threat to the US," or "there is a Jewish conspiracy."

While not every pacifist may give a convincing or even reasonable argument for his position, it is not fair to characterize it as patently false because of the evidence of "human nature." If the nature of which you speak is what we see going on every day, then any virtue (courage, justice, temperance, etc.) could be dismissed by the same argument. That is, virtues, or moral precepts, are not about what "works" or what the average human can attain; they are about living correctly.

I'm not sure pacifism is really that principled. In some situations, sure. Gandhi employed it, very effectively. But suppose a pacifist was sitting on his porch, and he looked over and saw his neighbor mercilessly beating his daughter, to the point of threatening her life. Would the pacifist go next door and make him stop? Or would he go in his house, shut the door, pull the blinds, and say to himself, "After all, the important thing is to live in peace with my neighbor."

I do think that a philosophy that requires that one passively sit on one's hands in any situation at all, even where terrible wrong is being done and one can't reason the wrongdoers out of it, shows profound ignorance of human nature and history - that's the kindest thing I can think of to say about it. "Bush is lying" makes more sense to me.

Just because you disagree with something does not mean that it is not "principled." You can put whatever spin on pacifism you want. My only point was that pacifism makes a judgement about the use of violence per se. All other "arguments" that we commoners resort to are guesses at best. I guess Bush, Rice, Rumsfield, and Powell have the facts right. Others guess that Russia, Germany, and France have the facts right. It comes down to a matter of trust, namely, who do you trust?

So when the two sides argue and neither one of them is arguing that violence and war are always wrong, then they shouldn't attack each other as though they were arguing about first principles or moral precepts (which is the tone used by most Bush-haters). Rather, they should realize that what divides them is the existence or non-existence of fact; a fact that, if different from their perception, is weighty enough to change minds (as opposed to a pacifist, whose mind cannot be changed by facts).

If a non-pacifist, anti-war protester is unwilling to admit this, than he is surely deluded and has revealed himself as being opposed to any decision by Bush just because he doesn't like Bush. And this applies to Bush's supporters as well: if I were convinced that the real facts are that Iraq poses no threat, has no weapons of mass destruction, and doesn't support terrorist, how could I possibly support the war?

One last point - that you said pacifism is principled "in some situations" shows that perhaps you and I are not communicating well. A position is either principled or it is not. In Aristotelean terms, it is either done for it's own sake (principled, or virtuous) or it is done for another reason (practical). If pacifism is used only because you think it will more effectively make your case, then it is not "principled." Just as temperance is not virtuous if you practice it only because you are paid to do so and you do it because you are getting paid. These are both uninteresting cases of "pacifism" and "termperance" and do not really deserve the label.

"Just because you disagree with something does not mean that it is not 'principled.'"

For pete's sake, I know that. I've been knowing that.

I can see a person of principle saying, "If it's me being attacked, I'll put up with it. If it's someone else, innocent and helpless, I might have to do something."

I don't believe that real pacifists, like Gandhi, don't care whether it accomplishes anything or not. I think they are quite passionate about their goals, beyond simply doing the virtuous thing. Gandhi wanted everyone to live in peace - it's why he had the hunger strikes when Hindus and Muslims fought each other - but he also wanted India's independence from England, and he got it.

I'm guessing (and I could be wrong) that our war protesters who think they are pacifists could not uphold their views if they truly let themselves look at what's been going on in Iraq.

I also guess, like you, that Bush, Rice, et al. have the facts right. That's partly because I've not had my head in the sand for the past several years. What they're saying now fits into the big picture.

On the "five basic groups" of "peace" protestors, I think there is a sixth and probably larger group: those that want to do whatever is fashionable. If the cool thing were to invade Guatemala, these people would be for it.

Several former leftists have commented that their politics were based largely on improving their social life and, specifically, on the opportunity to get laid more often..

"However, the 5th group (pacifists?) you characterize as especially ignorant. On the contrary, I think that pacifism is the only principled opposition against this war that I have heard."

Whaddya mean, "on the contrary?" There's nothing "contrary" about being simultaneously ignorant and principled. To the extent that an ideologue's rigid adherence to his lofty principles gives him a crutch to avoid dealing with the complexities of the day, quite the opposite is true.

"Pacifism doesn't require one to know all the facts and decide whether war is just ...

Bingo. Pacifism is to ignorance as idiotarianism is to idiocy.

Perhaps Gandhi's pacifism worked because of his opponent's moral misgivings about using violence against non-violent. I doubt it would work in, say, Chechnya. Or Tibet. Or Tianinmen (Sp?) square.

Some principled behaviors are inherently self-destructive. Shakers believed in complete sexual abstinance. As a result there aren't any Shakers anymore.

Nobody important:

I recently read an alternative history story, by Harry Turtledove if I'm not mistaken, in which the Nazis invaded India and Gandhi attempted to liberate India from them, using the same techniques that brought success with the British Empire. He got an unceremonious bullet to the head for his trouble. It was a thought-provoking story.

(I do realize this is fiction. It's still useful for provoking thought.)

wow. you people are really digging into the "pacifist" term.

although i didn't actually refer to people "who think war is wrong" by that term, i guess it was what i meant.

HOWEVER, i thought that it was plain that i was discussing the practicality of such belief as it relates to the current situation.

question: what do people who do not wish to fight for their beliefs and way of life do when faced with someone like saddem?

have to say that i think laura said it best:

"I do think that a philosophy that requires that one passively sit on one's hands in any situation at all, even where terrible wrong is being done and one can't reason the wrongdoers out of it, shows profound ignorance of human nature and history...."

It seems now that the discussion has shifted to the merits of pacifism, or perhaps the psyche of purported pacifists. I'm not sure what a true pacifist would say, but my guess is that it would be something to the effect that violence itself is such an evil that one cannot resort to it even in the face of violence.

However, I think that the brand of pacifism we see today in the US is caused by some sort of guilt about being a US citizen or a product of moral relatavism.

Or cowardice.

I don't think that Ghandi's hunger strikes stopped the wars
between the Muslims and Hindus. They still fight on the Indian/Pakistan border. They have been able to deter all out war due to each other's Nuclear capabilities.

When I said that pacifism didn't require knowledge of all the facts, I did not mean to imply that it encourages or requires ignorance. I meant to illustrate the point that a pacifist is taking a principled view about the war and the debate with him is different in kind from the person who believes war should be avoided because Bush is bad and Saddam poses no threat to US security. In my opinion, the latter dissenters make patently false claims about the existence of certain facts in the universe while the former are not trying to convince us (those not opposed to thw war) about facts. They are making a moral claim. Insofar as they are making an honest claim about a moral precept, I am more willing to listen to them, discuss with them, and tolerate their protestations than I am the Hollywood starlets that ruin my great city and make absurd claims. In other words, I perceive the pacifist's position to be inherently more reasonable and honest (though wrong).

Peace, unfortunately for Gandhi and other principled pacifists, is a two-way street.

If I'm living my life and minding my own business, and somebody comes along every two weeks and beats me up although I never offer a defense, I may be acting as a pacifist but you couldn't say there is peace between me and that person. It's kind of like Bush's "failure" of diplomacy: you can't successfully negotiate with a brick wall.

I keep thinking of Patrick Henry's famous speech: "Gentlemen may cry 'Peace! Peace!' But there is no peace."