Dig in Deep

I’ve had many conversations with liberal friends over the past year about war. Many of these friends are Christians, though not all of them. But I’m hearing a common theme about war and violence – the idea that it is never appropriate to respond to violence with violence, and particularly that it is never right to kill someone to prevent violence, for the basic belief that “killing people is wrong.” For Christians, it is usually rooted in the example of Jesus’ nonviolence, his exhortation to “turn the other cheek,” etc. Sometimes it includes variations on the “war cannot produce peace” argument. In many ways, this is the new pacifism, though it is really not that different from the old.

My response to this is usually that I can totally understand, appreciate, and even identify with this on a personal level. But that applying that kind of mentality towards government is dangerous and suicidal.

I usually try to take the argument towards this one question: why do cops carry guns?

I have had people refuse to discuss that point – outright claiming that it was silly of me to ask the question. But I bring it up because it is crucial to understanding the effects of pacifism.

Cops carry guns because without the credible threat of authorized, deadly force, it would be impossible to keep society from descending into anarchy. To understand this, you have to have a basic understanding of the sinfulness and depravity found in a fallen world. That while most people will obey most of the laws, there are always some who will disregard as many of society’s rules as they possibly can.

Take your typical hostage scenario, for instance. If the police do not have the authorization to use deadly force, then what is to prevent the criminal from shooting all the hostages, and then come out with guns blazing and shoot all of the cops? Nothing. It is the credible threat of deadly force, coupled with the desire on the criminal’s part not to die, that prevents the worst-case scenario.

Note that it is not enough that deadly force is authorized. It must also be credible. That means that the criminal must believe that he will be killed if he comes out with guns blazing. In order to believe that, he must have a basic understanding of police that they will fire if fired upon. And that if hostages are seriously endangered, they will do what they can to neutralize the person responsible, including killing them.

The exact same logic applies to global affairs. It is not enough that other countries have the power to stop an imperialist from invading another country. They must believe that other countries (and particularly, their leaders) have the will to do so if necessary. That means the possibility of a response must be credible.

The only reason Hitler felt able to pursue his imperialism was because he judged the nations of Europe to be too weak to stop him. The threat of other countries stopping him was not credible. He had rightly judged that few nations in Europe could withstand his attacks, and he had rightly judged that America would stay out of it (until Japan tipped us over the edge).

Bin Laden saw America’s response to issues in Somalia in the 1990’s and judged us to be weak. He felt that he could attack, and stay safe in Afghanistan because he judged us to be a “paper tiger.” So plans were prepared to attack targets on US soil. The threat of force was not credible to him.

The UN had authorized the use of military force on Iraq if Saddam did not comply with the weapons inspections, based on the cease-fire from the 1991 Gulf War. But this threat was not credible – the UN was incapable of action. So Saddam threw the inspectors out.

More recently, Russia watched as the world, and particularly America, debated these issues in the aftermath of Iraq. Russia sensed America’s growing pacifism, and knew that there was little an American president could do to stop them.

Do you think Russia would have invaded Georgia if America had been showing a more unified sense of support regarding sticking it out in Iraq? Personally, I think not.

Now take a look at this year’s presidential election. You have two men, neither of whom want to go to war with anybody. But one represents a position of strength, the other represents a position of weakness. My pacifist friends prefer the weaker candidate, as far as how our enemies would view him.

Now let me ask you – based on the understanding of the credible threat of force, which president would prevent enemies from attacking us, just because of their presence in the oval office?

You can stick to your pacifism out of a sense of principle, but you should do so understanding the inevitable result. If cops without guns leads to anarchy, countries led by pacifism leads to fascism. History gives us plenty of proof for that.