shotbanner.jpeg

September 23, 2005

Make-Work Program For Lefty Dilettantes

I've told this story before. Feel free to skip ahead to something else if you prefer.

In 1940, the official policy of the governments of Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands was pacifism and absolute neutrality. It was also the policy of Sweden and Switzerland.

For the Belgians, Danes and Dutch, with their flat, indefensible homelands and relatively long borders, it was matter of knowing that they had no way of defending against the likely aggressors - the Germans or (absolute neutrality bid them to include) the French or British. As a pragmatic matter, it seemed that eschewing war and relying on international law and blandishments about peace was the best practical course. Their militaries - at least in the homelands - were small, almost token forces (although in the days leading up to war, at least Belgium started a last-minute crash rearmament program, buying American tanks that were never delivered and British airplanes that their pilots hadn't enough time to train in before the blitzkrieg).

For Norway - a much more defensible country - it was much more a matter of national temperament; Norway decided as a matter of policy to eschew war.

For Switzerland and Sweden, pacifism and neutrality was spoken softly; both countries carried big sticks, by regional standards. The Swiss national psyche, with its citizen militia (every able-bodied male is in the military from age 20 to 50, and keeps his rifle, ammunition and gear at home - a system the Isralis adopted and retain to this day) and rugged mountains, was geared toward self-defense. The Swedes backed their neutrality with a well-equipped Army, and defended its long coastline with a relatively large and excellent Navy.

"Peace" was the official policy of these six nations.

Two of them survived World War II unscathed. The other four - Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands - were conquered by the Nazis.

After World War II, Sweden and Switzerland maintained their policies. Interestingly, the other four nations' societies didn't change - and yet, did.

Nobody can accuse the Norwegians or Danes or Dutch of being warmongers; if anything, they have quite the opposite reputation. And yet each of these countries backs their pious pacifism with relatively big teeth; Norway adopted an almost Swiss-style national service system (Norwegian reservists - a huge part of the population - keep their assault rifles at home) and built a Navy with a disproportionate number of small submarines and fast missile boats to defend its huge coastline. The Netherlands made a point of always buying the best equipment available, building a Navy that man for man was one of the best-equipped in NATO. The Danish military has, by all accounts known to me, a great reputation within NATO; in Bosnia, the Danish troops were more likely than most to take the fight to the Serbs; stories of Danish tanks blasting Serb snipers abounded a few years back.

The point?

There's this irritating little bumper sticker you see on a lot of Volvos in Merriam Park, which sanctimoniously sniffs:

You can not simultaneously prepare for peace and for war -- Albert Einstein
With all due respect, Einstein should have stuck with physics; history shows that a more accurate slogan is:
Preparing for "peace" without preparing to defend it is utterly meaningless
All by way of reacting to Senator Mark Dayton has endorsed the idea of a cabinet-level "Department of Peace".

The Strib reports:

In what peace activists call a milestone, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., introduced legislation Thursday supporting a long-shot citizen lobbying effort to create a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence.

He is the first and, so far, only member of the U.S. Senate to publicly endorse the plan.

A remnant of the quixotic 2004 presidential candidacy of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, the idea of a "Peace Department" has been derided by critics as utopian and naïve, while supporters say it is an idea whose time has come.

It came, alright; in 1940. Our Scandinavian cousins can tell you what a wonderful idea it was.

For those of you who don't live in Minnesota; you probably spent a good part of the early months of the 2004 campaign wondering with whom on earth Dennis Kucinich got any traction.

Welcome to Minnesota:

Almost half of Minnesota's congressional delegation -- all the Democrats but one -- have lined up in support of the campaign, which calls for a cabinet-level secretary to develop an array of policies from international conflict-resolution to reducing domestic abuse and violence against animals.
Almost sounds like something from Dilbert, doesn't it? Linking abuse of animals to thugocracies killing each other...

...although five'll get you ten a "Department of Peace" will never address the sins of a single thugocracy.

Nobody gives the plan much of a chance in a Republican Congress [Thank God -- Ed.]. But backers in Minnesota -- where Kucinich turned in one of his best electoral performances -- say their support is intended as a political statement.

"It sends the right message," said Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn. "It's about promoting justice, expanding human rights and preventing conflict."

Besides McCollum, Minnesota Democrats Martin Sabo and Jim Oberstar are cosponsoring Dayton's bill.

Minnesota is one of 12 states whose Democratic Party has endorsed the plan.

"It underscores Minnesota's forward-looking approach to government," Kucinich said. "That's what Minnesota is about. It's the one state where new ideas are welcomed."

No matter how stupid they are.

The fantasy-based community is truly in full sway in this state.

But hey, I can be convinced. I won't let the fact that every single example from history rises from the dank past to heap scorn on this idea prejudice me. Much.

The Minnesota Republican Party, however, is adamantly opposed, having chastised Democratic congressional candidate Coleen Rowley, who spoke at a Department of Peace conference in Washington on Sept. 11.

"Money would be taken away from the Department of Defense to fund programs such as a Peace Academy and prisoner rehabilitation," said a statement issued last week by Minnesota GOP Executive Director Bill Walsh. "The creation of a Department of Peace is a naïve and unreasonable approach to dealing with the problems of the 21st century, including international terrorism."

Detractors say that a new peace bureaucracy, along with its proposed $8 billion-a-year price tag -- pegged at 2 percent of the Pentagon budget -- is just another big government idea that will never happen. But Minnesota voters are likely to hear more about it in the coming election year.Which means we Minnesota Bloggers are guaranteed at least a year's worth of red meat free-range tofu.

The Minnesota GOP highlighted the Peace Department proposal to attack Rowley for joining forces with "liberal extremists." Rowley, who became a national figure for blowing the whistle on FBI shortcomings before the Sept. 11 attacks, is now challenging Rep. John Kline, R-Minn, a former Marine colonel with strong ties to the Pentagon.

Rowley dismissed the GOP's extremist tag, saying "that's their tactic. Everything they don't want to do, they call you a name."

Ms. Rowley; when does "accurately summing you up" turn into "name-calling?"

I'm so looking forward to '06!

Posted by Mitch at September 23, 2005 12:12 PM | TrackBack
Comments

walking through the prospect park neighborhood one sees Make Peace, Support Troops ... bring 'em home, etc., signs. I am tempted to write in permanent marker on those signs "sivis pacem para bellum" (If you seek peace, prepare for war.)

Posted by: kevin at September 23, 2005 10:39 AM

"It sends the right message,"

If you want to send a message, try e-mail. It's less ambiguous, and it's really fast.

Although I suppose that nothing says "dufus" like a congressional resolution.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at September 23, 2005 11:39 AM

It is a poor idea to fight the Democrats on the proposal for a Department of Peace. Doing so would give the appearance that it's only the Democrats who hate war and love peace. What kind of message do you think that would send, especially now when the support for the war in Iraq is at a low point?
Most American people, of all political stripes, believe that military conflict is wrong when it's for the wrong reason. To think less of this democratic nation and its people is an insult. Let's give it a try. It probably won't require any more of our tax dollars than the exhorbitant amount we are currently paying to run the Department of Defense and it might actually begin to mend the divides we are experiencing among our own population. But then, what would weblog owners do for fun?

Posted by: Teena at September 23, 2005 01:02 PM

Shall we next have a Ministry* of Love? We could call it Miniluv.

Oops, sorry, that should be Department. So I suppose the abbreviation would be Dippyluv? I must admit that there is an undeniable attraction.

I suppose it "is a poor idea to fight the Democrats on the proposal for a Department of [Love]. Doing so would give the appearance that it's only the Democrats who hate [hate] and love [love]."

Mitch: I think there might be another universal law in here someplace -- something like, "As any discussion of the propriety of government action continues, the probability of a mention or allusion to George Orwell or "1984" approaches 1." It's a little too similar to Godwin's Law, but it's definitely better than Cole's Law.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at September 23, 2005 01:29 PM

I suggest the the Republicans support a dept. of peace providing its proponents are willing to change the name to 'the department of moral posturing'.

Posted by: Terry at September 23, 2005 02:01 PM

"...providing its proponents are willing to change the name to 'the department of moral posturing'."

Can we call it the Dippymopo? If we do, I am so there.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at September 23, 2005 02:27 PM

I'm curious. What would the official Dept of Peace , 'DoPe' for short, be on ELF and ALF ( the terrorist group, not the sitcom ) be?

Posted by: aodhan at September 23, 2005 02:32 PM

Teena said:

"It probably won't require any more of our tax dollars than the exhorbitant amount we are currently paying to run the Department of Defense..."

I would certainly hope that it would not cost MORE than what we presently set aside for DOD (which I consider barely sufficient rather than exorbitant). It might tough to scrape together another $402 billion though.

Posted by: the elder at September 23, 2005 02:39 PM

"It is a poor idea to fight the Democrats on the proposal for a Department of Peace. Doing so would give the appearance that it's only the Democrats who hate war and love peace. "

Only if the majority of people assume that "meaningless gestures" = "love peace".

Do the Swiss love peace less because every man between 20 and 50 keeps an assault rifle in his house, ready to defend the peace?

The last time the body politic spent this much time gnawing over worthless gestures for "peace" was the 1930's. Remember the Kellogg-Briand Pact?

Remember how that turned out?

To prepare for peace without preparing to defend it is worthless. In fact, it guarantees *more* war, *less* peace. Not the other way around.

Posted by: mitch at September 23, 2005 02:49 PM

Speaking as someone with a BS in Physics/Comp Sci. and an MS in Electrical Engineering (solid state), in my experience most 'scientists' are absolutely fscking ignorant about the world, those who populate it, and their motivations.

Einstein may have been a genius, but so was the Unabomer...

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2005 12:44 AM

When I was a kid I really wanted Transformers. I wanted a lot of them because they were so cool. Did I get them? Nope. Mom and Dad had their budget and Optimus Prime didn't fit in. It's well and good to want peace, but if you want it you might have to spend your own money because Mommy and Daddy can't impose it.

Posted by: Uncle Ben at September 24, 2005 11:40 AM

Of pacifist physicist syncophants quoting "You can not simultaneously prepare for peace and for war"

I ask: "Which would you rather face unprepared?"

The end of the cold war kind of snuck up on us. I don't recall the downside of being surprised.

Modern France, on the other hand, despite now being surrounded by friendly and lightly armed nations, seems to have learned a lesson from the 20th century. Shouldn't we take instruction from our European betters?

Posted by: Knowledge Worker at September 24, 2005 12:59 PM

I absolutely can't understand why the remaining 98% of the Pentagon's budget, after using 2% for the Department of Peace, would not be enough to sustain our defense capabilities. In fact, the cost of defense would be steadily reduced over time if peace initiatives were implemented rather than agression toward other countries, thus freeing up funds to create jobs, fund our schools, and care for our sick and elderly.

Posted by: Teena at September 24, 2005 04:32 PM

I do not consider a cause that may spare my sons - who are dangerously close to drafting age - to be a worthless gesture. We watched the Lebanese protest in the streets and said, "good for them, the Syrians are gone." We watched the post-election protests in the Ukraine and said, "what brave people to not allow their election to be stolen." The people of the United States, who are sick to death of the lies (and there are reams of documented ones - read "Worse Than Watergate by John Dean) of the Bush administration, have every right to exercise free speech and let the rest of the world know they will not stand for this. Those who support the war will also exercise their rights today. I can't predict how things will go today, but if yesterday's counter-protest is any indication, it won't be much of a showing. Yesterday's numbers: 200,000 to 300,000 anti-war to 150 prowar. Our local newpaper had a great photo and there was not a single hippy in the shot. This probably disappoints those of you who believe it is just pot-smoking, chanting hippies who oppose war.

Posted by: Teena at September 25, 2005 08:09 AM

Excepting that Einstein was a brilliant thinker in any number of disciplines, not just physics and not just the hard sciences...so "stick to physics" is, well, showcasing some ignorance about Einstein's life and work in general.

His quoted phrase doesn't mean what you argue it does and then use it to rail against. It means simply that one cannot prepare for WAR (note: not DEFENSE) and peace at the same time.

That is, you cannot both say, "I'm going to kick your ass!" and try to also achieve a peaceful solution. It says nothing, however, about being prepared to defend oneself and taking non-hostile preventative measures (ex: locking my doors at night is not the same as kicking in my neighbor's door and trussing them up so they can't break into my house).

Posted by: Rev. Raven Daegmorgan at September 25, 2005 10:49 AM

Teena said "I absolutely can't understand why the remaining 98% of the Pentagon's budget, after using 2% for the Department of Peace, would not be enough to sustain our defense capabilities. "

Teena - I worked for many years at a VA Hospital as a subcontractor. I know from experience that governmental agencies will NEVER cut their spending. Once they are used to having X number of dollars they will continue to operate with that number of dollars. So taking 2% from the DOD (which BTW funds the VA Medical Centers) will simply cause them to up their budget requests by 5% (or more) to cover the difference....

Rev. Daegmorgan said "That is, you cannot both say, "I'm going to kick your ass!" and try to also achieve a peaceful solution. "

No, but you can (and should say) to an aggressor, "you can not come here. If you do I will kick your butt!". You have to be able to defend yourself. A good peace plan requires a good war plan. Look at what happened in Isreal this week. They followed the "peace plan" and withdrew from Gaza and the Palestians STILL attacked them. It is not until Isreal gets "serious" about defense that the Palestinian attacks slow down.

Posted by: The Lady Logician at September 25, 2005 02:31 PM

"Excepting that Einstein was a brilliant thinker in any number of disciplines, not just physics and not just the hard sciences...so "stick to physics" is, well, showcasing some ignorance about Einstein's life and work in general."

You're missing the point. Again.

Either Einstein was wrong, or the bumper-sticker crowd is taking him out of context. Either way, the bumper sticker is wrong.

"His quoted phrase doesn't mean what you argue it does and then use it to rail against. It means simply that one cannot prepare for WAR (note: not DEFENSE) and peace at the same time."

But in the context that the sticker people are using, it's a distinction without a difference. You know damn well that when they see "preparing for war", they mean "spending money on defense". The stickers were a constant irritant in the Twin Cities from the late '80's til today - during which time the US was constantly at peace. We were not "at war" in any way - and yet the sticker people protested. What COULD they have been protesting with their clever quotation?

"That is, you cannot both say, "I'm going to kick your ass!" and try to also achieve a peaceful solution."

Which is a strawman on the part of the sticker people; the US is not saying "I'm going to kick your ass" to anyone.

Posted by: mitch at September 26, 2005 10:31 AM

No, sir, I did not miss the point, though you apparently missed mine. You made a statement concerning Einstein's quote and I specifcally responded to that.

Did I say, "Those people aren't misusing the sticker!" or even talk about the sticker being taken out of context? No. Not my point, though I agree with you that they quite likely ARE taking the statement out of context to support a political agenda.

Posted by: Rev. Raven Daegmorgan at September 29, 2005 03:34 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi