Authored by William Robert Barber
Mindboggling, bewildering, amazingly dumb, and downright ignorant is the concept of peace at anytime; much less peace in our time. The very idea that peace (as a foreign policy goal) is an attainable probability is an absolute absurdity. Realpolitik dismisses peace as outright naiveté — a dangerous strategy and a silly forethought. Yet, although, and still the intelligentsia unapologetically touts peace as its ultimate goal, the raison d’être of a nation state’s primary obligatory, and most profusely, those who profess to know just about everything (wonks of the department of state for one) pronounce peace as the moral-ethical priority of an enlightened society.
For those of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton legacy, the very ones that underwrite, regulate, and administrate the workings of the government dismiss the available volubility of documentation to the contrary and continue to profess peace as feasible. After all, they who behold MBAs and JDs have degreed that peace is the rational extension of humanness, of intellectual enlightenment; conclusively therefore, these of Noblesse Oblige lineage (the ones that run the show) have confidently surmised: Rational deduction reasons that peace is reasonable thus attainable.
I say that peace is mythical as well as a convenient illusion void of all empirical evidence as to its attainment; further, peace as a stated policy goal is nothing more than a rhetorical utility extensively used as a reason for violent conflict; an excellent example of such rhetorical utility is WWI: “The war to end all wars.” Since humanoids learned to fashioned and bound stone to stick, millions of humans have died directly or indirectly from the purposeful misdirection of establishing peace in the name of war.
The intrinsic behavioral dysfunction that prompts one to rob, deceive, murder, and lie on an individual basis is the same — although exaggerated dysfunction that prompt nations to, under the ensign of manifest destiny, xenophobia, theocratic intolerance, ideological incongruity, or a myriad of other such ‘causes to act violently’ predicaments that render the idea of peace as a foreign policy goal impossible.
Amongst nation states the great persuader is not kindness, personal niceties, nor offers of understanding and friendship. The great persuader is power coupled with the will to act. Power if uncoupled from the will to act disadvantages the nation with power; such a disadvantage eventually disables the persuasion of power rendering the nation in common denomination with the not-as-powerful.
The choice is self-evident: America is either the most powerful nation on earth or not. If the choice is “not” then another nation will take its place; the weaker will either submit or conflict. Prudence and analytical reality compel America to be the most powerful nation on earth. Therefore a foreign policy that is as unrealistic as the ridiculous notion that peace is an attainable goal only misdirects costly efforts, wastes resources, and corrupts time spent. Further, when one accepts peace as an attainable goal one expends treasure, resources, and blood in the hope that the particular counter-party will be converted to civil sensibility, rational deduction, stop the violent behavior, and act reasonably. The key word is hope. Hope is not a tactical or strategic policy; hope is emotional wishfulness.
My assumption is that peace as a goal is so impeded in the American psyche that my thoughts will be dismissed and disregarded; nevertheless, I have expressed my thoughts on the subject and found accordingly satisfaction in doing so. Obviously, my concern is that as Secretary Kerry and President Obama seek compromise with America’s enemies and pseudo-allies in the interest of peace the result will be diminished U. S. power while eliminating this nation’s will to act from its quiver of steal-tipped arrows.