> “The peace activists are war activists,” Karp insisted. “We are the peace activists.”
They are literally saying, "War is Peace".
They are literally saying, "War is Peace".
"If you wish for peace, prepare for war" is an old way of phrasing this. It's not a new thought.
War is real.
This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)
Do you have a historical example?
As often, the solution lies in the middle. We do need strength as deterrent, but over-focus on this leads to an infinitely escalating need for more strength.
But let's be clear: war is illegitimate. That we have not found a better way to resolve conflict does not legitimize it. Killing people with whom you disagree at-scale is insane on its face.
Note well: I am not saying that all claims of "we're fighting in self-defense" are legitimate.
And, of course, the self-defense bit wouldn't be necessary if not for war.
Most of the push-back I've gotten on my comment that war is illegitimate is essentially some form of, "yes, but war happens". This is circular.
My point was not to deny the current reality of war or the need to reckon with it. It's that if "war is peace" is accepted as the unchallengeable law, then we will naturally have more war.
It's not the only way. It's just the current way.
Everybody knows that nobody looks favorable at aggressors but they still want land / resources / whatever so they wage an information war to make themselves look better.
No doubt. And, I've personally become more hawkish in these times. You'll see me arguing elsewhere that the West needs to be more aggressive in supporting Ukraine. I understand that we can't just lay down arms now. It's more about whether we want this to be the status quo for conflict resolution. It's just not an aspirational worldview.
So, my superficial point was that the full reasoning rests on itself. It's circular and self-serving, so it's not surprising who most often repeats it. And, if that's the footing you accept, then it will always be your footing.
The slightly deeper point was that these little memetic sayings (and the posture they support) become a self-perpetuating construction that exaggerate the effectiveness of raw might, while short-circuiting the legitimacy of other options. We see around the World effective resistance to great power.
So, it's the promotion of a kind of persistent war-footing wherein perceived military strength becomes the only lens through which all conflict is sorted. Hence, it de-emphasizes the complexity of the world and the search for solutions that can persist because they rest on more sustainable solutions beyond subjugation.
TLDR; if we emphasize peace through war above all else then we will continue to have more war than peace.
I do not accept that just rolling over and being conquered is better than fighting a war.
Countries attack other countries. "Legitimacy" has nothing to do about it. The question is, what are you going to do when you're on the receiving end?
I'm not suggesting that we just declare it illegitimate and lay down our arms. I'm suggesting that the mantra, "if you want peace then prepare for war" rests on the premise that war is a legitimate way to resolve conflict. And, once you've made that decision, it becomes effectively the only way, and guarantees more war.
OTOH, if you consider that it is not, then it leaves space for prioritizing other approaches.
This does not deny the current reality of war. Think of it as aspirational.
(A great phrase and book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Desolation_Called_Peace)
So war isn't peace but being 10x stronger than everyone can be.
Just as the US doesn't invest in infrastructure the way other countries do or have an efficient nationalized healthcare system.
Why? We burn trillions on military and weapons. The military-industrial complex must be fed, and it is always hungry.
Think about retirement, healthcare costs, and the greedflation by corporations, as well as the government taxing your Social Security. It is intentional cruelty."
Better example is nuclear deterrence, which has effectively ended direct great power state-on-state conflict. War is never peace. But preparing for war protects an existing one.