Considering the Nature of Humankind, How Could Peace Be a Viable Goal for a Powerful Nation State?

 By William Robert Barber

For ten thousand years mankind has sought the destruction of ones neighbor. Examples of such destruction abound; history could not be read without multiple references to violent battles and deathly wars. Withstanding, the voluminous amount of evidence detailing humankinds’ violent-behavior there are individuals and organizations that espouse and perceive peace as a realistic viable goal. Considering the nature of humankind, how could peace be a viable goal for a powerful nation state?

Nevertheless, peace is the founding credo of influence for the political left; the mantra of reasoning for the often violent peace with demonstrators of political change and the guiding light of their leadership. It is as if the study of history was absent from their education or that deduction was never a plausible method to their logic.

The world is dangerous; reasoning does not govern worldwide discourse; morality is not a tangible factor of transacted concern; within the scope of human endeavor only power exist. Power is the prime mover of all action between nation states. A historical maximum is that: Weakness will be triumphed by strength and perceived weakness will always be challenged. Vigilance coupled with the will to act is the burden of leadership and the necessary fortitude of the nation state’s citizenry. Once a nation state has been attacked or lethally terrorized by even subtle bullying (in today’s world of nuclear-biological-WMD) there is no substitute for a solid determined specifically targeted offence. Therefore offensive is the weapon of the ready; defense is the reaction of too little too late; thousands or more are already dead.

However, a determined offensive cannot survive the challenges and hurdles of a determined ‘against-any-policy’ political opposition that offers no acceptable specified alternative of protection; thus far the Democratic Party solely seeks to enjoin in a policy of disgruntled contrarians. This policy is a menace to sensibility, a nation state’s right to invoke its sovereign interest, and to protect its peoples right to life. Despite a recent national election that validated the current administration’s right to govern, these Democratic Party contrarians for the sake of no more than general opposition offering no reasonable counter-policy seek to influence the populous’ will to win the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to disable the nominees of world-wide terror.

The United States of America is at war. The country’s troops are in the field of combat. Elected to national public office contrarians should tender their concerns in private sessions not on the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives; the battlefront in today’s field of combat includes the world-wide media; a media that does effect popular opinion. The enemy knows and appreciates the power of popular opinion. The stakes of this administration’s foreign policy are very high; human life is at risk; the effects of policy disagreements are lethal and should not be produced to weaken the nation’s stated objectives and goal.

Nevertheless, elected to high office Americans of liberal leftist persuasion, in a time of war, aid and abet the interest of our enemies with provocative anti-American rhetoric animated and delivered with the bravo of God speaking to His Chosen Peoples. Often scurrilous in context, opportunistic in timing, and by the specific choice of language personally offending to the country’s President and duly elected members of their opposing political party; I assume the motivation for such is political because I can not ascertain any tangible counter policy offered to the electorate. Do these liberal leftist provocateurs harbored within the Democratic Party not understand that their frothy declarations and statements are immediately on the air waves, web sites, and television media of the enemy? Does it not concern them that unwarranted, even inflammatory name calling and ridiculous accusations such as blatantly suggesting on the floor of the United States Senate that the guards policing the captured terrorist in Guantan’amo are behaviorally Nazis-like have a direct negative effect on endangering our troops in combat? Where is the sensibility of such a declaration?

I can understand the Democratic Party’s opposition to their counter party however is there no civility to their opposition? How can rational, sensible, specific counter proposals be considered when none are offered? I do not believe that the policies of a nation state’s elected government nor its constituency is well served by casting bombastic ridicule and demeaning rhetoric; the interest of the nation is above the interest of any political party; demagoguery is not an effective method of persuasion. Today the nation’s armed forces are at lethal risk; the nation is at war. It seems reasonable that if there is opposition to current policies and surely opposition is a constant no matter the administration, the contrarians should present a viable alternative in a civil transparent manner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s