"What Ceadel calls (and, being British, spells) the defencists "hold that the incidence of war is minimized when all countries reject aggression and maintain national defences strong enough to deter others from attempting it.'"

We all saw how well this worked on 9/11.

"Between these two are the crusaders, who "believe that the first use of military force is sometimes necessary to achieve justice and thereby create the conditions for lasting peace." It's pretty clear which of these three classifications accurately describes the "neo-cons," and the other architects and supporters of the current U.S. effort in Iraq."

This kind of stereotyping ignores the facts that Iraq tried to kill president Bush the elder, failed to live up to the commitments it made to end hostilities at the end of gulf war I, supported international terrorists (the palestinians) who killed Americans (American citizens visiting in Israel) etc etc.

Those who prepetuate this type of misinformation make it much harder for our government to win the war at home, which leads to dead americans at home and overseas.

As you note, Callimachus, comparing political points-of-view in different countries is chancy at best and particularly so because the historical circumstances under which points-of-view which have superficial similarities may differ markedly.

For example, our militarists haven't had much political influence here for many years. And even our most militarist e.g. Theodore Roosevelt are really more properly considered as Wilsonians and derive their thoughts from a missionary tradition. Our Jacksonians, although vilified as militarist particularly by foreigners, simply aren't despite some superficial resemblances.

Interesting piece.

I wonder if another example of pacificist might be in those WWI soldiers that refused military orders without their consent, typically through soldiers' committees or soviets. They were not non-violent since they could be persuaded to fight, but they appear to have desired that the war be rational (in a fairly Marxist view of things).

In France, being partly occupied, the rationale of a defensive posture was apparent, but the soldiers' committees were reluctant to participate in offenses for fear that command was again leading them into battles of attrition in which no strategic advantage would be gained. This reluctance seemed to change in 1918 with the arrival of the Americans, which not only made victory foreseeable it brought Wilsonian (crusading) war aims which were more palatable to the French soldier.

In Russia, where the troops were essentially defending non-Russian portions of the empire (and thus at odds with the principle of self-determination), the soldiers eventually walked off and in the process failed to even defend Russia against German invasion.

All and all, these groups seem to exhibit a conditional form of pacifism that is not linked to the desire for non-violence, but that the violence comport with personal idealogical preference.

"All and all, these groups seem to exhibit a conditional form of pacifism that is not linked to the desire for non-violence, but that the violence comport with personal idealogical preference."

Or self-preservation. The number of times the two mysteriously are made to intersect is impressive if this type of this is allowed to go on. Practices like this are suicidal for an army, as the Russian example depicts.

"Or self-preservation. The number of times the two mysteriously are made to intersect is impressive if this type of this is allowed to go on. Practices like this are suicidal for an army, as the Russian example depicts."

Yes. I have a certain ammount of respect for pacifism, but pacifism will get you killed quicker than than militism will.

Much of the training that militaries give to thier troops to encourage them to be 'brave' is not merely so that the troops will be willing to die to preserve country and cause, but because on the field of battle a soldiers animal level self-preservation instincts actually work against him. Generally speaking, being 'brave' is not only the best way to preserve the cause, but barring spectacularly inept leadership (which in thier defence the Russians soldiers probably had), the best way to preserve the soldier's own life.

If you look at the history of pre-modern wars, you don't find alot of hard fought slugfights. You find battles generally of one of two types, either few casualties on either side, or else totally one-sided massacres in which one side annihilates the other to the man while taking virtually no casualties themselves. If you take your average war game resolution system, you'll find it almost impossible to duplicate these results. The reason is that most war game resolution systems greatly underestimate the importance of morale (usually this is intentional on the part of the designer, because systems governing morale are either extremely complex or make for bad gameplay or both). In pre-modern wars, almost all the casualties of most battles occurred in the 'rout' faze of the battle, after the formation had broken and was now open to attack. Reading both the Bible and Homer's Illiad can be particularly illustrative here. Most of the deaths occur when someone is fleeing, or after someone has begun to fled. Some guy turns around, throws down his shield, and starts running - and only then is he cut down and dies.

I don't know how many of your are familiar with them, but the Close Combat series of games handles this particularly well. So many of the deaths occur do to improper attempts at self-preservation on the part of your troops. Infantry troops will come under fire, and in an effort to keep from getting shot they'll do everything wrong. They'll come under artillery fire and freeze. Under orders to assualt, they'll get halfway across and then go to ground in poor cover. Sitting in a fairly safe place, but taking suppressive fire, they'll suddenly wander into a kill zone trying to find better cover. They'll get 2/3rds or 3/4s across a street, and then decide to turn around and fall back rather than go forward. Under suppression by a machine gun or mortar, they'll rout and start running across open terrain. (If you are still unconvinced, fiddle with the game's data files until all your troops are maximally brave and see how much better your infantry gets at staying alive.)

I have no respect for pacifism that contains an element of self-preservation. I can under some conditions respect the pacifists that adopt the belief fully knowing that it means giving thier life way without a fight but any other sort is cowardice and foolishness.

Good points, Celebrim. I don't play the games, but it sounds very much like the reality of Civil War soldiers as they described it in the letters I read that they wrote after the Seven Days battles and Antietam.

I was raised by and among Pennsylvania Quakers. I have a great respect for true pacifism; I think it's wrong, personally, but I respect it. It's a self-discipline comparable in some ways to that of being a warrior. But like the warrior's calling, when it deviates just a little from the discipline, it becomes something execrable. In the one case, criminal, in the other, cowardly.

>>I have no respect for pacifism that contains an element of self-preservation.

For sure, battlefield cowardice is usually just stupid (gets one killed faster).

That said, how would you judge Wehrmacht/Red Army/Iraqi soldiers who deserted their (manifestly unjust) cause in order to save their own skins? Here cowardice, self-preservation, and justice would seem to line up. Doesn't the USG have extensive psy-ops programs designed to promote such "virtuous cowardice" in its enemies?

You fight a battle for the express purpose of breaking an enemy so the real killing can begin. There's an anecdote about Stonewall Jackson. Apparantly during one of his battles he was close to the lines (as usual) observing a repulse of union infantry. The union formation was savaged and retreating in disarray but the standard bearer was maintaining his composure, holding up the flag and retreating one step at a time. The Reb troops, out of respect, werent shooting at him and Jackson asked why. Some unnamed soldier replied that they shouldnt shoot a foe so brave. Jackson ordered the man shot down, saying, "Shoot the brave ones especially. Then the rest will run away".

TJ, Nazi soldiers and Russians who deserted were summarily shot if captured or noticed. Whatever you call it, desertion was NOT self-preservation but a different form of risk. In the Russian case, the NKVD SMERSH units often made sure of that immediately. Which they kind of have to do, if you're a platoon of political prisoners ordered across a minefield.

In Desert Storm abd OIF, the US did indeed encourage desertion among its enemies. With some success in both cases.

Mark is right about the element of self-preservation in the ranks of the WWI soldiers that collectively organized.

I was try to get my head around the idea of a pragmatic pacifist. At a basic level, Christian just war doctrine holds that war can be necessary for peace and justice. The trick is in figuring out when the costs of war outweigh the benefits or vice versa. I don't think this view is limited to Christians, but it is a good example of where an ideology of peace recognizes the circumstantial need for violence.

Ultimately, I would say the crusader group and the conditional pacifists are one-in-the-same. They both operate with a similar moral compass; its just one is ultimately unconvinced that the war will bring about the desired outcome. For example, Rev. Sensing has argued that Iraq qualifies as a just war while co-confessionalists have argued the opposite using a similar framework, but different conclusions over future events. Returning to WWI, you can compare the Russian socialists call for a peace conference at Stockholm and Wilson's war speeches and realize that both were essentially advocating democracy and self-determination, but one believes that the path is through war and the other through negotiated peace.

True pacifists refuse to take responsibility for the choice, something which I personally consider immoral. Militarist refuse to take into consider the morality of their actions and are likewise immoral. I am unconvinced that defencists exist -- they are more likely one of the above categories.