Sunday, April 15, 2007
Chew on this...
I'm not sure whether this article, and this reference to it, seem right to me because I'm a clear thinker or because I'm spiritually corrupted. We report, you decide...
Hat tip: Jonathan Rauch, National Journal
The classic modern reptilian manifesto is a bewitchingly Machiavellian article published in Foreign Affairs in 1999 by Edward N. Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Perhaps because of his European accent (he is Transylvanian-born) and his penchant for caustic pronouncements (he observed recently that the Transportation Security Administration can find a bomb only "if you attach it to a pair of nail clippers"), Luttwak has something of a Strangelovian reputation in foreign-policy circles, though no one disputes his brilliance. Characteristically, he titled his article "Give War a Chance."
War, he argued, is a great evil, but it has one indispensable virtue: It brings peace. Too often, well-meaning diplomats or peacekeepers interpose themselves in conflicts that should be left to burn themselves out. Alas, cease-fires and peacekeepers "artificially freeze conflict and perpetuate a state of war indefinitely by shielding the weaker side from the consequences of refusing to make concessions for peace," he wrote. "The final result is to prevent the emergence of a coherent outcome, which requires an imbalance of strength sufficient to end the fighting." In other words, war ends in a stable peace only when one side loses, and understands it has lost. "If the United Nations helped the strong defeat the weak faster and more decisively," Luttwak wrote mischievously, "it would actually enhance the peacemaking potential of war."
Hat tip: Jonathan Rauch, National Journal
Labels:
GWOT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
April
(34)
- Romney (Re)Defines the Enemy
- Congrats, D.C.!
- Hey Linderman...
- Carbon emissions: actually the fault of Indonesia?
- Wedding Dress
- alec baldwin
- "You are useless, Arec Bawdwin"
- Ted Nugent
- Poll #s
- Rudy flipping around on PBA
- Today's Image
- Partial birth abortions...
- For the sake of his sorrowful passion,
- 2008 Power Rankings
- Rudy's story keeps changing
- Obama flaunting success
- Chew on this...
- Mitt is frustrating me
- As if Peggy Noonan wasn't already the best
- Forbes endorses Rudy
- NBC and CBS Want Sick Children To Die
- The NBA should be dissolved
- Carlos Slim Helu overtakes Buffett
- Global warming
- Maggie G is disgusted with Rudy
- Get your anthropogenic global warming before it's ...
- Cella on Conservatism
- Thought for the Day
- Pelosi...
- Where is Our John Howard?
- Pelosi, part deux
- Fundraising
- The Fred Thompson Buzz
- 1Q Fundraising
-
▼
April
(34)
1 comments:
I've thought about this a few times before. It makes sense to let wars happen in some circumstances but not others. The toughest question is "where is the line between war and genocide?" This post also raises the question of America's superpower status and the responsibilities/influence that come with it. Should we get involved to hasten the end of wars via helping the side we want to win (either by aiding the stronger side or making the weaker side the stronger)?