Why There Will Be No Department of Peace

In answer to your question, no, I don't think we *have* to have both camps. I think war supporters naturally become less bellicose over time, as costs of that war drag on. War produces its own desire for peace. I also find it interesting that the opposite of pro-war is not anti-war. People who support war rarely, if ever, do so in all circumstances and without question. There is rarely absolute support for a war even amongst those who support war in general. The absolute opposition to war is not hard to find, however, in the anti-war crowd. I don't think that you need both camps to balance each other out, because I don't really think they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

AW1 Tim - best I can find, it would appear to be Jerry Pournelle who coined the phrase. Any reference I found *with* an attribution (it was usually listed as "unknown" comes with Dr. Pournelle's name attached.

Kat got us mentioned on Pajamas Media! Way to go, girl!

Heh...and I was gone all day and did not get to enjoy the fame. Thanks for putting it up there John since I know I saved it and forgot to go and publish it this morning.

I think when I said "anti-war", I did mean "not want war". However, I suppose it does include the "peace at all cost" folks. I think this author hit on several points that resonated. ONe he termed "American Civil Religion". Another Author at the same site talked about Herodotus and the 300, what they could teach America. I think that we have learned many things as a nation. We believe with religious fervor in this thing called "freedom" and we tend to defend it as a collective in all ways we can. We may not always agree on the appropriate method, but we will defend it. I think I also wrote something about how we struggle continuously to balance individual rights against the rights of the collective. I don't mean that in the way of the utopian Russian collective, but referring to our many citizens bound together, not by religion or ethnicity, but by a creed. I sometimes think that this binding by creed is why we are able to absorb so many immigrants of all nations, all races, all faiths so much better than our European brethern who were first "British" or "French" in a way that generally denoted "White", "Christian" and originally born from monarchal/fuedal societies. Our ancestors deliberately shed those ties and ideas. We even fought a civil war that basically put paid to the last lingering ideas of fuedalism that had transferred itself to our society: slavery. We revel in our creation as "free" and our history is based on that total concept, while the British, French and even Germans have a long history of "fuedal" where they remember the great kings and emperors, while simultaneously trying to put those historical figures and time periods into some context of their current republicanism or democratic monarchies. When your pride is the pride of kings and race as opposed to the pride of an idea, you can subconciously be chauvinistic towards those "others", even while espousing such ideas of democracy and tolerance. Worse, it can make them tolerant of things that they should not be because they are still working on the idea of cultures and race, as opposed to ideas of the philosophy of freedom. In terms of militancy, ideas are very strong. As the author on Herodotus noted, freedom as an idea and the need to defend it can make men do things and endure things that he would not do for a piece of land, a chest of gold or a throne of power. I truly believe that it is that idea that makes us militant. Technology or economic power does not increase "militancy" in and of itself, so much as it makes us more connected to the outside world and thus what we believe we must defend to insure freedom's continuity is expanded and thus falls under the realm of what we would be "militant" about.

Scott - that was the thrust of my post on the subject (top link in this post, but here's another to save scrolling) that Kat was responding to. And if you go into the details of the proposal, virtually everything they want the DoP to do is covered by other agencies.

Yes, that is Bacevich. I did disagree with him on the speech which I caught on C-Span. His error, I believe, was in first starting his thesis from Vietnam. I don't know why because the time between that "war" and Korea might have been a decade or so, but between WWII and Korea it was a few years. There are these little "bumps" of peace, but, as I noted, going back since creation of nation and prior, we have certainly had a very long history of military action to both expand the nation, expand the economy, expand international power and, of course, determine or defend freedom. I think, as a matter of fact, that his whole speech put me off because it DID start with Vietnam and I have a very visceral reaction to people trying to make this THE marker for all things "modern" in politics and global economy. Totally false dichotomy (heh, I get to use that word). Particularly, if you look at the details of the American Revolution, you can hardly dismiss the incidents leading up to it and the players involved. Most of which centered around, not just lack of representation, but, in fact, economics. "No taxation without representation" was essentially a complaint about tariffs and taxes damaging international (dare I say "global") economics. Everything going over and everything coming in was being taxed into "luxury" status, damaging and depressing internal economics. Another tell is the Declaration of Independence itself wherein one of the chief complaints was the limitation of immigration and how it damaged the colonies' ability to expand and grow economically. The war of 1812 was similar in context. While we talk about "press ganging" American citizens from interdicted ships, the truth is, it was about interrupting trade. I mean, to ignore that aspect of those "founding" wars and the fact that we HAVE used military forces since the inception to enforce our economic and political rights GLOBALLY is like pretending that the sun orbits the earth. It makes a wonderful, idealistic tale to believe that every joe schmo who leveraged himself into debt to support a regiment and every farmer saw himself strictly defending an idea. They were, but these folks understood that economic freedom (dare I say "power") and defense thereof was part and parcel of the defense of this grand political idea. If you do not have strong economics, you cannot support nor defend a political idea, regardless of your borders or number of people inside it. Without strong economics and the defense thereof, required to pay for the defense of the idea, the idea of freedom would have died still born. Thus his premise that "militarization" is a 20th century phenomena and that it has really started growing with the pace of economics and technology, is false, in my opinion.