This has been an interesting leitmotif in many of your other postings over the last few years: the idea of the "useful idiots" be they left-leaning publications or in this case, peace movements. My take is not too far off from yours. Although I think WW I and WW II actually were somewhat caused and worsened by opposite issues. WW II was absolutely made worse by the pacifist movement as you describe above. That's a dead-on correct characterization of isolationism here in America and downright stupidity in Europe from 1919-1939. But WW I may have been caused by too much readiness for war by the people as compared to the disparity in preparedness shown between the governments of France & England as compared to Austria-Hungary. I always read the people of Europe at that time to be very hawkish for foreign wars for the most part, except for the Russians who wanted to have their civil war first. This didn't exactly cause the war, but it helped. But this does not negate the points you made about the detrimental effect of the pacifists, (however few they were in comparison to the pre-WW II era), at that time. Needless to say, I'm always suspicious of any political group, no matter how good the music is at their rallies.

Transnational progressives. A more technical term for "useful idiots," also situates them in a larger more frightening ideological movement.

The UN's attempt to take over the internet is the latest example of this ideology.

But aren't some wars worth protesting? Is it unreasonable to think that there might be a government that will go to war for the wrong reasons? I'm not implying that this is true of any particular war, but I'm a bit wary of your fairly broad generalizations.

Rule #1 just hits it out of the park. So many people cannot conceive of there being evil in the world.

So many people are convinced there is always a reason why someone would murder someone else. It is because they were deprived or hurt or some other social issue.

Well sometimes it has nothing to do with any of that.There are evil ideologies.

Good post.

Ilan:

Thanks so much for your comment. Of course there are wars that are not legitimate, and should be protested. America has not fought such a war. And, you should not be wary here for I am being incredibly specific.

Jake:

In fact, before WWI, the only country that was truly eager for war was Germany. Peace and pacifist movements in England and France were deeply entrenched in government and in the citizenship. It is myth that everyone was eager for war. In fact, Winston Churchill warned his countrymen about German aggression pre WWi--and no one listened. And did an exact replay pre WWII. And again no one listened. Churchill always said that millions died unnecessarily in both conflicts.

To play devil's advocate: perhaps if Germany's anti-war camp had been stronger the First World War would not have broken out. And by extention, neither would the Second.

I can't help thinking about one of your favorite films and mine, Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai."

The samurai's behavior is instructive. There's no talk of negotiating with the bandits, or appeasing them ("Hey, if we give them some rice, maybe they'll go away!"). The samurai understand the nature of their enemy, and the respond accordingly by very methodically securing the village and coming up with a battle plan. They know that the bandits must be defeated in order for the farmers to be safe.

I think that film should be required viewing for every political leader involved in war decisions.

Sean:

Thanks for your comment. There was no anti-war peace camp in Germany. You will discover that anti-war movements only exist in countries who are fighting true evil. The tyrannies murder any and all dissenters. Which is why these anti-democratic monsters must be confronted and destroyed early on.

Tamara:

Good point. The Seven Samura take it for granted that the bandits are evil and cannot be talked to. What to do? Come up with a smart battle plan and kill them. Some people must killed. It's that simple. But some people are too dumb, too overeducated to comprehend such a mindset. They want to "understand why they hate us." It's good these people were not around during WWII, they would have tortured themselves wondering why the Nazis were shoving Jews in gas chambers.

I often wonder about this. It's like when people who live in rich neighborhoods try to tell those of us who live in poor neighborhoods that we have crime because we're not kind enough to our neighbors.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm going to lock my doors anyway.

Good post.

Steve:

Very good analogy.

I think you are spot on in your observations about anti-war protests and protesters. I recently brought my kids to an anti-war demonstration in Houston.

It was very instructive.

A lady (with pretty foul B.O.)approached us. She identified herself as a "communist". At that point we all learned pretty much everything we needed to know about the protesters and their motives (as in, they are not "friends" of our country).

My 13 year old (girl) understands now that if these people get their way, she will have to work even harder to protect our country. This is not an idle threat to her, she wants to be in the Navy.

The best part of the whole day is while another lady was ranting on and on about how horrible our country and President were, a homeless type person yelled out, "Lady, you don't know what you are talking about". Even the homeless guy understood the protesters.

Dear Rightmom:

Going to these anti-war protests is instructive. You see the groups involved are always the same: communist, anti-Democratic and other rump leftist organizations led by angry foul mouthed totalitarians. Yes, even homeless people usually have more sense than our "educated classes."

This is a wonderful post which I shall show to my son. Thank you for writing it. I just finished a post about "The Three Major Areas of OIF Debate":

1. Do they really want to kill us just because we are infidels? Can't they actually be appeased?

2. How serious and how large is the threat? How fast is it growing? Is countering it worth the cost in lives?

3. Can our "grow democracy" strategy work? If it does work, what does that look like?

You are absolutely correct about "peace" movements often being penetrated, or at least used, by the enemy. The German General Staff made all kinds of mayhem exploiting the French World War I peace movement, not to mention that in Russia, or any other political grouping of any kind that would disrupt their enemies war effort.

Going to more modern examples, North Vietnamese military theory as developed by Ho Chih Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap had specific doctrines for efforts to use "peace movements" and enemy political groupings to advance their own military efforts "dich van" -- "action among the enemy." They conceived of warfare as the complete unification of military and political effort on the home front, the battlefields, and the enemy's home front.

I enjoyed both Tuchman and Weinberg, particularly Weinburg. If you're interested in World War I, I'd highly recommend David Stevenson's "Cataclysm: World War I as Political Tragedy" -- perhaps the best general history of that conflict I have read. Also, Norman Stone's "The Eastern Front, 1914-1917" is one of my favorite military histories, about a forgotten, but pivotal, front.

El Jefe:

Thanks so much for the valuable information. I will also read the books your have recommended, they sound wonderful.

Robert,

From one Watchers' Council winner to another, congratulations. It's well-deserved. To be honest, this is my first visit to your blog. Now, I'll be here regularly.

Visiting from Dr. Sanity's Watcher's link. Good writing, good comments.

A good question was asked above, wondering whether anti-war movements ever have their place. We can certainly conceive of such circumstances, and identify places where they would have been a good idea. As you point out, Robert, they are often forbidden in the places they are most needed.

I would hesitate to suggest that an antiwar movement is never an appropriate response. But I think counting the true cost is the obligation of any protestor, for any cause. A peace movement has the practical effect of diminishing your nation's ability to wage war -- diverting physical resources away from the military, using up the political capital of those favoring intervention, etc.

It is not a neutral, a mere "expression of one's opinion." Just because speech is free does not mean it has no cost. Free speech is very expensive to a nation. We happen to believe in America that the return is greater. But the cost is real.

In wartime, the cost of protest is encouragement of the enemy, distraction of the leadership, and discouragement of the nation's troops. There certainly are nations where that's worth it. The day may come when that cost is worth it in our own nation. But protestors have a moral obligation to consider the cost that others are paying.

Dear Assistant VI:

Lovely and thoughtful comment. In my lifetime the war protests I have witnessed have not, in my opinion, been forces for moral good. The mass protests agsinst the Viet Nam war ended up in mass murder. Mass protests against Iraq if they should suceeed, will have the same effect. It is odd that peace protestors never seem to protest true evil. In fact in Europe the "peace movements" are basically amoral and usually downright anti-Semitic.

Antisemitic, yes. It seems that whenever some group is overcome with bigotry, wherever they start, they next go after the Jews. With modern communications as it is, I almost expect the Kusunda of Nepal, after expressing their hatred of China, to suddenly start adding in "and the Zionists."

Dear AVI:

That would be so depressing. But hey, anything is possible.

Peace movements would have a place if they actually demanded something of totalitarian dictatorships...like that they behave or something...

Look at their hyping of "the arab street" - of how we, the lone Superpower must tremble with respect of what "the people in [any country] think"....

Well don't they think this country looks at US THE SAME WAY? What if any given nation trembled at the prospect that "the American street" (i.e., them) got hoping mad about something?

Imagine the re-thinking that tyrants and dictators (always the worst environmental polluters btw) would have to do if "the American street" was howling for their heads and demanding action! Why, we'd get peace breaking out all over the world without a shot needing to be fired.

This is why the so-called "peace movement" is actually a war movement...their agitation against democracies and for dictatorships ASSURE us that war, not diplomacy will ultimately settle conflicts among nations and ideologies.

John:

Thanks so much for your comment. You are correct, the "peace movements" are aggressive movements that bolster totalitarian regimes and assure geo political turmoil.

I managed to surf over here from the Watchers a couple weeks late, but this is EXACTLY what I like to see written. I've been harping for G-d knows how long about how the "antiwar" activists are anything BUT antiwar. (I always use the scare quotes.) You've just said it much better than I have. Why the average nightly news-watcher doesn't get who is behind these "peace" movements is beyond me--they are infallibly, always involved with murderous groups (i.e. intifada sympathizers, Castro and other commie sympathizers, etc.). Obviously they have our enemies' interests at heart, whether intentionally or just plain stupidly. I truly believe these people consist of the mentally disturbed and the pathologically stupid and immature. No love lost here for them.

And ironically, these "liberals" complain the loudest about being oppressed, while they actively--and FREELY--work to subvert American interests. You're absolutely right about freedom of speech being expensive. It's scandalous that they refuse to acknowledge their freedom and appreciate it, and then take up for the most oppressive regimes. "Peace" and "antiwar," my foot.

Nice work, Robert. :)

Beth:

Thanks so much for you kind words. The nightly news watcher doesn't get it because the "news" is part of the elitist media who are part and parcel of the problem. A man like Congressman Murtha should be marganalized; his positions are quite loony at this point. In the words of Hugh Hewitt, Murtha has gone "Curtiss LeMay." But the mainsteam media treat him as if he were actually making sense. For they are no longer capable of judging right from wrong, good from evil, insurgent from terrorist, sense from nonsense.

In truth, those who read from teleprompters, those whose real job is simply to sell toilet paper, are just more useful idiots and will soon be left on the ash heap of history, as notorious as Walter Duranty of the NY Times, who received the Pulitzer Prize for not reporting the famine in the Soviet Union that left millions dead.

That Pulitzer has never been returned.

I hope you will continue to read this blog. We do our best.

Was Ariels first name Robert, and his parent Roberty Averech?

Was Ariels first name Robert, and his parent Robert Avrech? Also, what did his son Ariel die of?

Was Ariels first name Robert, and his parent Robert Avrech? Also, what did his son Ariel die of?

Was Ariels first name Robert, and his parent Robert Avrech? Also, what did his son Ariel die of?