IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER, WHAT’S THE QUESTION?
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER, WHAT’S THE QUESTION?
By
Ken Eliasberg
Bleeding heart left-wing wackos never cease to amaze me with respect to the lunacy of their positions. My favorite concerns one of their popular bumper stickers, War Is Not The Answer. Of course, most of the left-wing’s positions never amount to more than a bumper sticker, so devoid of either logic or facts are they. Perhaps its real meaning can be found in Sheryl Crow’s magnificently idiotic effort to illuminate this age old dilemma re bellicosity. She observed that—the way to avoid war is not to have enemies; now is that brilliant or what? How come no Republican ever thought of it? Way to go Sheryl; this observation was only slightly more brilliant than her even zanier thought on using only 1 sheet of toilet paper on a bathroom visit. Fortunately, Rosie O’Donnell, a nastier, but slightly brighter, nitwit, to be sure, put that suggestion to rest by calling attention to the amplitude of her derriere (which actually came as somewhat of a surprise to me since I always thought that Rosie was all derriere). In any event Sheryl Crow has demonstrated the abundant fairness of the Almighty; after having endowed her with beauty and talent, the price he exacted was to leave her dumber than your average pet rock.
Now, really, what does this ridiculous platitude mean? That is, to what question is “war is not the answer” supposed to be the appropriate response? Is there no situation to which war is the appropriate answer? If that’s the case then is this is just a variation on the age-old demand of some lefties that we unilaterally disarm. I think it is, and it’s a reflection of just how emotionally unbalanced these left-wing idiots are. They actually believe that to expose our vulnerability in this manner—i.e .offering up our soft underbelly—is an invitation so pregnant with peace that even the most wicked of America-haters would have no recourse but to throw in the towel. Puuullleease! How stupid can these people get? Do they actually believe that your inability to defend yourself is a compelling reason for our potential enemies to forego the opportunity to take advantage of our vulnerability? Every study of history and every insight into human nature gives the lie to this absurdity. On the contrary, from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz, it has been clearly established—at least to the satisfaction of any mature individual with half a brain—that the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. This line of thinking is not only militarily sound, it is the only approach possessed of a scintilla of intelligence. But, silly me, I’m talking about the left; why then should I bring intelligence up when trying to understand left-wing thinking.
Tell me, was war the answer in 1776, or should we have remained a British colony? How about in 1861—should we have fought the Civil War, or settled for 2 North Americas? What about WWI and WWII—were they a mistake; shouldn’t we just have let the Germans and Japanese do whatever they wanted to do? And, after all, weren’t the wars our fault anyway—you know, those greedy, imperialistic, self absorbed Americans; don’t we deserve whateverdevastation is visited on us. Of course, I’m being a bit much here—but not really - not if you closely examine the thinking (oops, I meant the non- thinking) of our friends on the left to whom America is always the bad guy. Is there any struggle in which they would engage, or is the appropriate course of action always surrender, not matter how vicious the adversary. C’mon, any rational adult knows that freedom isn’t free. Our Founding Fathers, a group of fairly gifted individuals, admonished us from the start that the preservation of our freedom would require a fairly constant vigil. Did they think that vigilance would be enough? Of course not—they were, as I have indicated, a very bright bunch of guys who birthed our country by virtue of a war. So, at least for them, war was the answer.
This topic is addressed in an excellent column by Bruce Bawer in an article that he did for City Journal (and reprinted at frontpagemag.com on 8/31/07) entitled The Peace (Studies) Racket, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“