As there's no news I can think of that relates to me, so I thought it would be a good time to talk about pacifism, given it's poppy time (though this has started far too early). Specifically, I'd like to talk about why it's rubbish.
Now, it's worth doing some definitional work here. I am, like everyone should be, of the belief that war and death are, in general, bad. Anyone who has studied the Pax Romana and lived in postwar Europe knows the power of peace to deliver prosperity and long life. I am also not advocating hawkish solutions to any number of outstanding issues, because I don't think they work. Nor am I denying the efficacy of some pacific movements. And I am not even arguing with the right of individuals to opt out of a draft as conscientious objectors, though I don't really like it as a position (NB I did read a wonderful letter on this yesterday). I am simply saying as a general position it is wrong, muddleheaded and selfish. In political discourse, it's also quite dangerous because its adherents won't debate real decisions.
The substantive argument is actually pretty easy: essentially, pacifists don't have an answer to Hitler. Most contemporary pacifists didn't bother and made him an exception. But that won't wash: if your political theory doesn't include the biggest example then it's probably a bad theory. I'd also argue on historical grounds that there shouldn't be a thick line round the Nazis. In an attempt to get round this, modern pacifists then tend to argue that's it's the wrong discussion to start with Hitler, rather we need to go back and posit a pacifist policy earlier (here's an example - he refers to the church, but it could be anything). This is just silly. It rather implies that modern pacifists wouldn't support pacifist policies now because of bellicosity in the past. And we know they do.
To me, that line of argument is indicative of the problem with pacifism, in that it wants the world to be other than it is. It's undoubtedly unpleasant that people seek to resolve things by force, but they do. Sometimes they benefit hugely from doing so; sometimes they have nothing to lose. Pacifism seems to ignore this reality. More irritatingly, it also allows its adherent to avoid thinking about difficult decisions. For example, for right-thinking people in the west, foreign policy decisions around are complex. Militarily, to intervene or not is a vexed question, especially in the light of huge suffering. It is right that we should approach intervention with deep caution, but it may be worthwhile. To the pacifist this agonising never occurs. The answer is always 'no.' And in the west this is an easy and cheap luxury afforded by our own peace, and the knowledge that foreigners will be doing the dying.
It's right there is a bias against war, but to oppose it on principle is simply wrong. Next time we debate this , don't oppose 'war,' oppose 'this war,' and make sure you know why.
