Peace through War

It is amusing hearing disaffected liberal Democrats struggle to understand how President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize squares with his Afghan war strategy, which entails sending 30,000 more troops to the troubled region. These detractors seem to think that there is an inherent contradiction between fighting for peace and waging war against violent extremists.


This false paradox is emblematic of the Nobel Prize Committee's sophomoric world view: war is never justified and peace is achieved through handshakes, smiles and concessions. According to this world view, Neville Chamberlain should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938 and Winston Churchill should have been denounced as a war monger.

Over the course of history, hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered (and continue to be slaughtered) by tyrants. In cases where these tyrants were finally stopped, war, not peace, was the primary instrument of deterrence. It is staggeringly ignorant to uphold pacifism as an absolute good, for pacifism in the face of violence being waged by a tyrant is tantamount to sanctioned mass suicide.

The merits of the Afghanistan War are debatable, but what is not debatable, is that war is sometimes necessary to achieve peace. Free and noble men have for centuries taken up arms against tyrants and murderers, thereby saving and liberating millions of people. Had they instead chosen peace and compromise, men like Hitler would have slaughtered masses with impunity. It is therefore intellectually naive to contend that any leader who escalates a war is by definition not advancing peace, and any leader who veers away from armed conflict is a peacemaker.

3JCH4BKE2XE5

Moral Absolutism

Recently, I published an essay in the American Thinker entitled The Left's Moral Absolutism, in which I argued that despite conventional wisdom, the far left does not subscribe to moral relativism. Rather, the far left adheres to a strict ethical code that condemns central aspects of Western Culture, most notably capitalism and individualism. As I explained:

Moral relativism holds that all morality is subjective; nothing is fundamentally good or bad. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder and no one can claim the moral high ground. I don't doubt that there are purists who unwaveringly adhere to this nihilistic philosophy, but the far left does not belong to this orthodox breed. In fact, the far left shuns moral relativism with as much fervor as the "moralizers" the far left purports to despise.


The far left has no qualms about defending third-world barbarism, yet proclaims with an aura of ultimate righteousness that corporations are evil and that the men who lead them are corrupt tyrants, who profit at the expense of the public good. They routinely vilify Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and all others who do not adhere to utopian Marxist ideals and variations thereof. To many of these so-called relativists Dick Cheney epitomizes evil; a man who served not only as the Secretary of Defense for the imperialistic United States but as Chief Executive of the multinational corporation Halliburton, itself a symbol of evil.


The far left's tirades against "evil" corporations and Christian (but almost never Muslim) zealots are not relativistic, neither in tone nor in substance. They are unambiguously absolutist. The left moralizes about perceived injustices -- be it the effects of capitalism or the war against global jihad -- with a religious-like conviction, never uttering the word "relative" in its condemnations.

In discussing this essay with my liberal and Democratic friends, I attempted to clarify that this essay is not about liberal Democrats or even social Democrats; it is about the far left, which is admittedly an imprecise characterization. Think Reverend Wright and Noam Chomsky, not John Kerry and Thomas Friedman, I told them. I think my left-leaning  friends were generally receptive to this distinction, but some questioned the pertinence of this essay to today's political environment. After all, they argued, Noam Chomsky and his cohorts are on the fringes of ideological discourse, and no one in mainstream politics takes them seriously.

While I agree that Chomskyite and other far left-wing doctrines have been marginalized over the last several decades, I believe that left-wing intellectuals, particularly academics, continue to be influenced by them and that influence inevitably trickles down to their students and apprentices. Moreover, I think that there are elements within popular culture and mainstream politics that reflect the far left's world view, particularly when it comes to questioning America's moral highground in world affairs, vilifying corporations, or embracing class warfare. So while most mainstream political and media outlets don't wholeheartedly embrace Noam Chomsky's world view, his influence nevertheless manifests itself discreetly throughout our culture.