[lit-ideas] Peace Mystics and World War One
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:50:24 -0800
I can see now why the chief Peace Mystic refused to grapple with any of my
arguments but instead to create a few generalizations that don't
characterize anything I argued and draw conclusions from those. Phil Enns
on the other hand fancies that he is grappling with one of my real
arguments. Actually he does it sloppily (to borrow one of his expressions)
by referring to a "different thread." I did not create different threads.
I may have changed titles but all the notes pertaining to Donald Kagan's On
the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace or writings on similar
themes are in the same thread. Further sloppiness on Phil's part is evinced
by his ignoring the early definitions of Peace Mystic and drawing his own
mistaken and unsupported conclusions about what that means, but let's look
at the portion he quotes and expects to demolish:
Phil cropped a little off the beginning and the end of a paragraph I wrote,
but I'll include the whole thing:
"Actually some of them did think about it enough to develop
rationalizations. They had their rationale for Peace Mysticism. There was
quite a bit to choose from: On page 329 Kagan writes, "There was broad
support for the notions that the Great War and the terrible destruction that
came from it were caused by the arms race, the alliance system, and the
willingness of Britain to commit a land army of significant size to a war on
the Continent. British leaders were persuaded easily that the Western
Allies had been at least as responsible as the Germans for the war; that the
arms race, stirred up by munitions makers and their associates, had been a
major cause of bringing it on; that greater understanding, more generosity,
and patience were better ways to avoid war than by military deterrence.
There was a general feeling that to think and act on the basis of strategic
considerations, to try to preserve a balance of power to admit to pursuit of
national interest supported by military strength was not only dangerous but
immoral. By the end of the twenties such opinions were limited not to
radicals or pacifists but influenced by thoughts and actions of both Liberal
and Conservative governments and politicians and came to be orthodox, the
only ones respectable among educated people."
Phil follows this by writing "Note that this quote is exclusively focused on
the 'Peace Mystics' concern regarding means. World War I was, in part the
result of the arms races, alliances, and profit-making of munitions makers.
Thinking on the basis of strategic considerations and pursuing national
interests through military strength also increases the likelihood of war.
This is means-thinking, whether accurate or not. In short, Lawrence is
confused in his usage of the term 'Peace Mystic' in that his definition is
one that ignores means while he uses it to refer to people very much
concerned with the means for achieving peace. "
I addressed all this earlier in the thread. What I quote by Kagan here are
the rationalizations Peace Mystics use to justify their avoidance of means.
They don't care about means for achieving peace. They as Geary wrote want
to just embrace peace. Phil here confuses theories regarding the means that
caused the war with the possibility of creating means for achieving peace.
I don't really enjoy showing someone who has accused me of being sloppy that
he has been sloppy instead but I am like Zenemon Yogo and have a chip on my
shoulder. When Geary on 2-11-08 at 5:32 wrote out his "several steps" to
achieve peace, his first one was
(1) "No more war. War, never again!"
That was the famous slogan after World War One. You and Geary and Britain
make the same mistake. Only in retrospect do you call this a step toward
peace. It wasn't a step, it was an imagined rush into Peace's Embrace.
Neither the Britains, the Americans nor anyone else spent any time with
"steps toward peace." They weren't concerned about means. They did what
Geary recommended and blithely passed Go and went directly to Peace.
Geary's other 7 steps are reducing the military budget until it gets to
zero. That was the ideal of those after World War One who said "Never
Again."
But, I have argued in many of the notes on this thread, saying something
like "Never Again" or reducing your military budget is NOT a step toward
peace. It is not a means, not even a poorly thought out means, it is pure
mysticism. It is what Geary recommended in a note I can't find. He
advocates getting rid of the weapons, denouncing war and embracing peace.
He didn't worry about means and neither did the British or Americans after
World War One.
Kagan does discuss means. He shows what led up to a war. None of the
material in the paragraph that so impressed Phil as means were means leading
up to that war, let alone means that might lead toward peace.
Bumper-sticker philosophies like "Never Again," or "Make Love not Peace" are
not the means for achieving peace. They are not even mistaken means. The
people who voice these simple slogans are not interested in means. I call
them Mystics because they want to avoid the mundane means, avoid studying
the mistakes that led up to past wars, and rush straight into the embrace of
peace (one of Geary's expressions).
To return to Phil, it is interesting that he seems to think the rationales
presented for reducing weaponry and disarming as quickly as possible aren't
half bad. That is, he implies that having arms really did contribute to the
war; so getting rid of them was a means, albeit a mistaken means that might
foster peace. This isn't a means. It is what the mystic does before
embracing peace. He takes off all his clothes, throws his gun away and
embraces it. That's mysticism.
Another thing the British used as a rationalization was to say that the
enemy wasn't guilty of aggression -- that we provoked him somehow. That was
said after 9/11 by a lot of people as well. Fortunately, Americans didn't
"embrace" that peace again. We weren't (most of us) going to wring our
hands and try to figure out how to appease the Islamists. Some of us may
have learned that lesson. You can't unilaterally "embrace peace." You have
to work at it. You have to develop viable means. Throwing your gun away is
NOT the means to peace. It is the means, we have seen described by
historians, of tempting an aggressor. Throw your gun away and he will see
you as a victim.
Once you are conquered there will be a sort of peace, but I am dismissing
that as a definition for peace anyone might want to embrace - unless some
quibbler wants to take that one up and defend it. Irene's extinction of all
human life would provide peace as well.
Phil gives evidence that he hasn't read my notes when he writes, "Lawrence
shows no interest in the many differences that distinguish the varieties of
peace positions, instead choosing one particular definition and then
applying it to all." Had he read my notes he would have found that I said
several times that Kagan doesn't provide one path to peace, no catch all
principle. What he does do is describe four wars at some length, showing
what led up to them and how (the means) they (these wars) could have been
avoided. I find that approach refreshing. If we discover that we are in
danger of making one of the same mistakes the Athenians did in the
Peloponnesian War we may learn from that and avoid that mistake.
Phil writes, "In addition . . . there is his attempt to use history as a
premise for a logical argument. If 'peace mysticism' did not work after
WWI, then it cannot ever work. It may be that the conditions for peaceful
disarmament were not present after WWI, but why should that mean that those
conditions will never be present? We can certainly learn from history, but
it is a mistake to think that history repeats itself. (There is that
reference to generals fighting previous wars leading to tragic results.)
Historical events are far too particular to functions as proofs."
That is a good presentation of what a Peace Mystic might say about the steps
leading up to World War One. Just because unilateral disarmament didn't
prevent World War Two doesn't mean it won't prevent the next war we see on
the horizon. Just how would that work, pray tell? Kagan writes that
several statesmen have said that appeasement from a position of strength is
often good policy, but appeasement from a position of weakness never is.
The British were weak (due to their unilateral disarmament) when they
appeased Nazi Germany. That didn't work. Do you think the appeasement of
Al Qaeda might work? How about the appeasement of Iran? Let them have
their nuclear weapons and do whatever else they like in the region. Or are
you thinking of something like Canada and the U.S. disarming insofar as the
other is concerned? In the Fukuyama view of the future, all Liberal
Democratic nations will be like the U.S. and Canada with each other and
their views on weaponry will in those future days be moot. But in the
meantime, if we ever face a nation like Nazi Germany again, we should know
beyond any doubt or equivocation, that we had better deal with them from a
position of strength and appeasement should never be considered.
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
Other related posts:
