Obama and I agree on one thing: diplomacy is a better solution to disputes than violent interaction. Conflicts can be resolved bloodlessly and proportionally. Each side gives up something.
The disagreement is that he thinks that everyone in the world now shuns aggression.
Reality convinces me otherwise. Many people believe that armed aggression is the means to their end. They want something possessed by another country or have a religious/philosophical difference with another group and are willing to violently act on those feelings.
Obama thinks that negotiation is possible even when one side sees elimination of their opponents as their only option. When a group feels “called” to world domination, peace is the first casualty.
The US entered WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor. No one phoned ahead to warn civilians to evacuate the targeted area. As our only alternative, we eventually inflicted more damage and casualties on our enemies, and their governments surrendered.
Learned economist Thomas Sowell reminds us that “vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers… during World War II than American civilians killed… by Hitler’s forces?”
Disproportionately more Japanese civilians were killed in that war than US civilians.
In order to get someone who attacked you violently to cease and desist and eschew covetousness or choose diplomacy in the future, you show that serious retribution is the cost of their misdeeds.
An aggressor can stop the aggression at any point. You hope they will see the error of their ways sooner rather than later. Sadly, it’s usually long past that point of realization that they make that decision.
A country doesn't have an obligation to acquire more things for its people, but it does have a moral, and in the case of the US, a Constitutional duty to protect them.
No comments:
Post a Comment