Comments on: Red Pacifist Herrings And The “Pro-War” Label http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/05/06/red-pacifist-herrings-and-the-pro-war-label/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=red-pacifist-herrings-and-the-pro-war-label n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Magnus http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/05/06/red-pacifist-herrings-and-the-pro-war-label/comment-page-1/#comment-10497 Magnus Wed, 07 May 2008 12:25:07 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/06/red-pacifist-herrings-and-the-pro-war-label/#comment-10497 Conradg, I believe Churchill in the 30s wanted to follow Vegetius's advice: If you want peace, prepare for war. I don't think Churchill was arguing for a pre-emptive war against Germany, at least not until 1938. It would probably have been impossible to mobilize the populations of France and Britain to go to war on the basis of Germany deciding to take charge of its own territory. In some ways, Germany was seen to be occupying the moral high ground right up to the invasion of Czechoslovakia - they were righting the wrongs of the unjust Versailles-agreement. Churchill, I believe, can much more accurately be characterized as "pro-war" in the lead-up to the First World War. Without him, Lloyd-George and Gray, Britain might very well have stayed out of that war. There was no way they could do that in 1939. Conradg,

I believe Churchill in the 30s wanted to follow Vegetius’s advice: If you want peace, prepare for war. I don’t think Churchill was arguing for a pre-emptive war against Germany, at least not until 1938.

It would probably have been impossible to mobilize the populations of France and Britain to go to war on the basis of Germany deciding to take charge of its own territory. In some ways, Germany was seen to be occupying the moral high ground right up to the invasion of Czechoslovakia – they were righting the wrongs of the unjust Versailles-agreement.

Churchill, I believe, can much more accurately be characterized as “pro-war” in the lead-up to the First World War. Without him, Lloyd-George and Gray, Britain might very well have stayed out of that war. There was no way they could do that in 1939.

]]> By: conradg http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/05/06/red-pacifist-herrings-and-the-pro-war-label/comment-page-1/#comment-10469 conradg Tue, 06 May 2008 22:21:57 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/05/06/red-pacifist-herrings-and-the-pro-war-label/#comment-10469 In general, I agree, but I have a few problems with the specifics re WWII. Are you suggesting that someone like Churchill, who began sounding the alarm about Hitler even before the Nazis came to power, and who advocated intervention in the Rhineland, and at other stages during the escalation of Hitler's rise, was a "pro-War" hawk dispositionally, or simply someone who had an accurate assessment of the dangers and the need to militarily confron Nazism before it became the great threat that it was? Are you saying that intervening military in the Rhineland situation would have been an unjust war, and that sound policy would have been to wait until a just war situation came along? I suppose it hinges on the notion that some people have some sort of general disposition to go to war to solve problems. The problem with that approach is that it leads to dismissal of people like Churchill as merely dispositionally inclined towards war, rather than simply being shrewd in their assessment of a situation. Likewise with the tendency to dismiss intelligent anti-war stances as simply those of people disposed towards an anti-war politics, rather than based on a shrewd, intelligent assessment that some wars are simply unwise, regardless of whether they are "just" or not. The problem with labelling someone as "pro-war" or "anti-war" is that it is often an ad hominem attempt to dismiss the wisdom of their position regarding a particular war based solely on some character disposition of theirs. It's a way of avoiding the argument about the specifics of a potential war situation. On the other hand, I think it's certainly true that some people simply are "pro-war" as a general disposition, and are all too willing to dismiss anti-war arguments as mere "anti-war sentiment", and then launch into wars that turn out to be highly ill-advised. So, as with all things, real intelligence and discrimination is required in using these labels. They have to be accurate, and meaningful in the context of a specfic instance, rather than catch-all phrases aimed at masking the realities of the situation. In general, I agree, but I have a few problems with the specifics re WWII. Are you suggesting that someone like Churchill, who began sounding the alarm about Hitler even before the Nazis came to power, and who advocated intervention in the Rhineland, and at other stages during the escalation of Hitler’s rise, was a “pro-War” hawk dispositionally, or simply someone who had an accurate assessment of the dangers and the need to militarily confron Nazism before it became the great threat that it was? Are you saying that intervening military in the Rhineland situation would have been an unjust war, and that sound policy would have been to wait until a just war situation came along?

I suppose it hinges on the notion that some people have some sort of general disposition to go to war to solve problems. The problem with that approach is that it leads to dismissal of people like Churchill as merely dispositionally inclined towards war, rather than simply being shrewd in their assessment of a situation. Likewise with the tendency to dismiss intelligent anti-war stances as simply those of people disposed towards an anti-war politics, rather than based on a shrewd, intelligent assessment that some wars are simply unwise, regardless of whether they are “just” or not.

The problem with labelling someone as “pro-war” or “anti-war” is that it is often an ad hominem attempt to dismiss the wisdom of their position regarding a particular war based solely on some character disposition of theirs. It’s a way of avoiding the argument about the specifics of a potential war situation. On the other hand, I think it’s certainly true that some people simply are “pro-war” as a general disposition, and are all too willing to dismiss anti-war arguments as mere “anti-war sentiment”, and then launch into wars that turn out to be highly ill-advised. So, as with all things, real intelligence and discrimination is required in using these labels. They have to be accurate, and meaningful in the context of a specfic instance, rather than catch-all phrases aimed at masking the realities of the situation.

]]>