Pacifist Problem

This Thomas Sowell piece has some interesting thoughts, though I think this is far too simple an argument.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

And

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

Sowell uses examples of Sherman's March and the defeat of Germany and Japan as examples for his point. I'm not certain that I think you can take these examples forward with complete confidence to the present warfare in the Middle-East and the war on terror.

Sherman's march clearly took the war to the public of the Confederate states to show them clearly that they weren't safe, and that their support of the Confederate war effort would not keep them safe. In this case, the psychological impact was devastating. The American Civil War was a clearly defined set of combatants and states.

The examples of WWII Germany and Japan are also interesting, though I'm not quite as convinced that the Sherman effect was quite as effective. Fire bombings of cities did indeed have a psychological impact on the civilians, but, as Granted commonly points out, it also freed many more hands to work for the war effort.

Can the Sherman effect work in the Islamic Middle-East? I don't think so. Most of the terrorists are fanatical Islamists. The best evidence I see is that the civilians in those countries seem to accept the punishment that they receive and generates more fanaticism.

Now to the Peaceniks.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

The WWII analogy has a point in the lead up to war. Though, I think that is less likely. In the US, the peaceniks aren't able to cause issues with the military, primarily due to the understanding by most of the civilians that the security they now experience is only possible due to our having an overwhelming force. The problem then is not the peaceniks, but the complacent public.

Fourth generation warfare uses the complacent public against action that would stabilize areas where the US has interests. Note how the states that are the most secure are those that are screeching the loudest for Israel to stop their offensive against Hezbollah due to civilian collateral damage. Even worse, that collateral damage could contain much higher numbers of Hezbollah fighters than the reporting is stating. A terrorist doesn't wear a uniform, so how is he separated from the civilians during a body count, especially when those making the count are sympathetic with Hezbollah.

Asymetric warfare uses the press and idealist within the enemy countries, such as the US, to make propaganda advances against their enemies. Our MSM is very idealistic. Look at where they stand on topics like gun control and you'll get a whiff of how they fail to keep touch with realities in the world. The MSM, also known as the Fourth Estate, has political clout, and no accountability. They make political motions that effect the military activities of this country and in many cases it's not advantageous to the US citizenry in general. Also consider how and where they stand on the intelligence community. The NSA programs revealed recently have not been of any benefit to the safety of the public. With the MSM's idealism on topics, they rarely take any look at context or the results of their reporting. Looks like the terrorists have a very stable powerful ally when they can work their message into the MSM.

Sadly, the public in general gets weak kneed whenever there is a picture of a bloody child or a report of a family killed in fighting. The modern media is very new to warfare, and it isn't assisting our side of this fight. They are benefiting the terrorist aims.

I think the Sowell's analysis is looking at a small group that in itself has less effect on the security of the American ideals than the complacent public.