Byzantium's Shores: chronicling the misadventures of an overalls-clad hippie

A couple of responses to some things posted by Rachel Lucas:

:: The story contained in this post, assuming it really happened (and I have no reason to assume that it didn't), is certainly nauseating. That someone would go to such lengths to behave in such a fashion is despicable. But for God's sake, Rachel, that is not a reason to tar all anti-war people with the same damn brush. I am so unbelievably tired of seeing this kind of thing, on both sides of the political spectrum, and it doesn't help matters when we keep resuscitating the myth -- whether it's the left-wing myth or the right-wing myth -- that it's the other side that does mean-spirited, vindictive crap to "us poor regular folks who are just trying to go about our business".

:: Rachel also defended, in two separate posts, the notion of violence as a solution to problems. I am not anti-war, certainly, and I've never subscribed to the idea that war is inherently bad -- well, not that, but the idea that war is never the correct answer to a particular problem. However, when thinking through problems like these -- especially the Robert A. Heinlein quote -- I worry that the pendulum is pushed too far in the other direction, namely, that war and violence are more a solution than they really are.

The problem I have with war is not so much that it doesn't work, because that's simply historically false: World War II was a pretty effective solution to the Hitler problem and the Imperial Japan problem; the American Revolution was a strikingly effective solution to a host of problems between England and her colonies. The problem with war is that it seems to me best geared toward solving very specific problems -- and then, not so much solving the problem from the standpoint of addressing why the problem happened in the first place, but simply removing the problem altogether -- and that's about it. If I may indulge in a poker metaphor, war tends to shuffle the deck, or worse, upset the table and spill everyone's chips to the floor. And while it is certainly true that the specific objective for the war may be achieved -- the illegally invading army may be pushed back to its own country, the evil dictator may be killed or removed, the ruling faction's policy of "ethnic cleansing" may be halted -- it's spectacularly hard to know whether the situation that exists after the achievement of that objective is any more conducive to long-term peace and prosperity than the situation that existed before it. War is not unlike surgery to remove cancerous tissue: it may work in that regard, and it can pave the way to health and prosperity afterwards for the person undergoing the surgery. But it can also lead to more health problems, more pain and suffering for the patient, and ultimately not play much of a role at all in whether the patient lives for another five years or merely another five weeks.

That's why I waffled so long on the current war, and it's why my ultimate support of this war is still quite soft, even as we're fighting it. Getting Saddam Hussein the hell out of power -- and, if need be, the hell off this mortal coil altogether -- is, in itself, desirable. The problem I keep running into is whether the world will really move into a better position afterward. I'm supporting the war because I simply can't envision a peaceful and just world that includes Saddam in charge of Iraq. But I'm also scared because I can envision any number of violent, warlike futures that arise not because Saddam's still alive, but because he's dead.

So, I disagree with pacifists who maintain that war and violence are never the answer. But I'm completely unconvinced that war and violence are ever the entire answer, either.