Tag Archives: peace

Peace? or the Constitution?

Our judges, leaders, law-makers, and war-fighters swear to protect the Constitution. Others argue it is inconvenient to do so, and the police should be transformed into a quasi-legal militia force to fight “actual criminals” (as opposed to what? de jure criminals?)

I do not worry too much about over-aggressive cops as a public menace. Where I live, the actual criminals are menace enough…

I am sympathetic to this argument. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, even if we industrialize death to defend it. Deep in our violent creed is the conviction that there are some things so dear, we expect others to die for it, if not ourselves.

While Dr. Henry Gates is clearly a Hero of the Constitution for standing up to the rogue (and armed!) Sgt. Crowley, others insist that Crowley is a Hero of the Peace for standing up to a rude (and impatient!) home owner.

So given our Constitution or Peace for our war-fighters what do we choose? All but pacifists, it seems, would choose the Constitution. Given our Constitution or Peace from “real criminals” what do we choose? Many choose Peace.

To get to the answer to this dilemma, of course, we need to go through the horns.

We need to stop criminals from ever being born in the first place.

That’s coming.

We had a President opposed to manipulating life before it was formed. That’s over.

We will have Peace and we will have our Constitution.

We will have new generations better than any in history.

We will live in a world, radically artificial twice over.

We haven’t begun to see what it will hold.

Supplier Failure

The best justification for keeping a large Leviathan is to end conventional war. Essentially, the US can use its military power to make the cost of waging aggressive war against another sovereign state unacceptable. This provides the global public good of security, because when states do not have to defend themselves, or spend funds appeasing dangerous neighbors, they can concentrate on economic growth.

Russia’s invasion of Georgia is a great (perhaps fatal) challenge to America’s role in keeping the peace. By allowing that Saddam Hussein with a slavic name to occupy Georgian territory, we make every state think twice about the “peace” that the world loans us so many billions to uphold:

Signal received, Azerbaijan thinks ahead (Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog)
So yeah, given few to no alternatives, Azerbaijan takes up Gazprom’s offer to buy its natural gas and pipe it westward, possibly killing the planned Nabucco pipeline.

In his Beijing diary, former President (and at the time, de facto US ambassador to China) George H.W. Bush notes how the US failure in Vietnam caused other states to warm up to the Soviet Union and other communist states.

While Communism and the Cold War are dead forever, the inability to expel Russia from Georgia will likewise force countries to further subsidize Gap states such as Russia.

Of course, Russia is in a lot of trouble regardless. Russia’s economy is caving in, and Putin’s nemesis George Soros is influential with the incoming government of the United States. Still, the U.S. is expected to supply security, and so far in Georgia it has been unable to do that.

That is what we see in Azerbaijan’s actions, and it is harmful to us, to the world, and to peace.

Nonkinetic "War" is called "Politics"

Despite his own theory’s internal incoherency and agenda-driven nature, John Robb nonetheless hosted a great discussion on 5GW, or “SecretWar.” In the comments, RyanLuke asked

If 5GW is getting others to do what you want them to do of their own free will (though maybe that is not the best definition?), where is the “war” part?

Purpleslog, a blogfriend who writes at his own site as well as Dreaming 5GW

It is limiting to equate war with just kinetic power and fighting.

War is conflict and competition between global actors to survive, hold, flourish and grow. This can be zero-sum or non-zero sum.

John Robb chimed in

Purpleslog, that’s called politics.

and I agreed with John

5GW is the use of meaningful violence to change one’s free will. That is, the victim believes he reached the decision through his normal processes, but in reality you are selectively killing, destroying, etc, in a way to bring about that decision.

I agree with John Robb that non-kinetic “war” is called politics. Politics and war are qualitatively different from each other. They should not be confused.

I made a mistake similar to Purpleslog’s eighteen months ago. Peaceful politics can be similar to violent war, and there may be a 5GP (5th Generation Politics) that complements 5GW (5th Generation War).

But war and peace are nonetheless distinct activities. They should not be confused.