Just a thought that occurred to me.
I was young, but in the late 1960s and then 1970s I was never a part of the pacifist movement. (Actually in the 1960s I was too young to even have much of a clue.) But back then we were facing almost-certain invasion from the USSR, at least into the Continent, and we had little defence in place at all as Europeans. (The controversy was about having so many American forces in Europe. But hey, just for starters, they kept West Berlin free, which one day led to the fall of the Wall.)
It occurred to me again today what an outworn and simply corny concept pacifism is. It belongs in - I would state the decade as actually being the 1930s. I do honour the hearts and hoped-for peace within those who supported (still do?) this old-fashioned idea. But it's always been utterly flawed, intellectually.
Here, with Libya unfolding, we are not even talking about defending our own nation. But Libyans are human beings too. What would happen without the UN resolution? Well, it's a bit unclear who is fighting for Gadaffi, but it must be a combination of mercenaries paid by him in cash (whether Libyan or from south of the Sahara), and troops under threat or duress. They had the tanks and most arms: they would inevitably have taken back the whole country. And then what? Even in taking the country, thousands would have died. But he would want revenge, and I'd say tens of thousands would have died - untold numbers.
By being pro-active, we nations involved can probably stop such casualties. Time will tell. And we'll let the population of Libya choose a government and leaders they actually want. (No, it won't be smooth as a process, as they have never experienced democracy. But now they can begin.)
This situation, to me, is the 'death' of pacifism as anything anyone could, in intellectual rationality, hold onto. The nations involved are going to save lives. (Even though there is a death toll as fighting continues.)
If old-school pacifists wouldn't want to save lives, it demonstrates the intellectual insufficiency of the concept of pacifism. How would we feel if we just watch events unfold, not halting them, in our news media now?
Not that it will be a clean-cut scenario: there may in the end be a few troops on the ground, briefly; and Libya hasn't got the experience of making democracy work. But this action had to be taken IMHO.
V
If only things were that clear cut!
This subject brings up so many confusing feelings. While its hard to just stand by and watch people struggling, you have to wonder; if you have to convert others to democracy by the use of force, is that democracy? What if the power vacuum created then got filled with a fundamentalist muslim state chosen by the people? (that is after years of civil war which claims more lives) Would western forces then swoop in again till a government of choice then took over, then proceed to sell them weapons and 50 years later intervene again because the government ceased to be an ally. Or better still, just stay there for 50 years!
And then there's the issue of even handedness in these matters. There have been and still are dictators all around Africa (the world even) and no one has seen fit to 'intervene'. Why is that then? Could it be because they have no oil? That then leads one to believe that the intervention is self motivated rather than because its the right thing to do! If only it was guaranteed that lives would really be saved!
Meanwhile, in Japan, thousands have lost their lives and more have had their lives changed forever. Isn't that a wake up call?
All very sad.....like you say, time will tell......and a lot more lives......
Crystal elf
Well, having fostered our own oil interests in Libya, and making Gadhaffi rich enough in the process to behave like a spoilt brat, our next step was to profit from selling him weapons and resources to suppress his own people.
And having taken sides with the people of Libya already, which in our minds we probably all have done, it is inexcusable to abandon them to the tyrant WE have strengthened against them.
With that history, now would hardly be the time to decide peace was the way forward, having done nothing ourselves to create the conditions for it.
And thinking back to the first Gulf war, all those stories about Saddam turfing babies out of incubators - fabricated by the US administration. And right now, our leaders are thinking of the bigger picture - access to oil and the wider issues of the middle east. So do we really know what is going on? Are we being told the truth by our own sources?
Justice first? Quite possibly, of course that may eventually lead back to us, and we should be ready for that.
But pacifism wrong? Outdated? I don't think so.
Sup with the devil, better take a long spoon.
Very well put Heinz.
By being pro-active, we nations involved can probably stop such casualties. Time will tell. And we'll let the population of Libya choose a government and leaders they actually want. (No, it won't be smooth as a process, as they have never experienced democracy. But now they can begin.)
I think this is a facile argument. Look at what happened in Iraq. Look at how many civilians have died in Afghanistan because of mistakes made by the allied forces. Look at how many of our soldiers have died all over the world because we have taken it upon ourselves to get involved in other countries' wars.
I understand where Venetian is coming from but I don't feel it's 'corny' to want to have nothing to do with these conflicts and to put my faith in God to sort it all out in the long run.
The nations involved are going to save lives.
It's a good theory but the reality may not be quite as clear cut.
And as Crystal Elf says it's a bit late for us to discover that Gaddafi is such a monster. And talking of monsters, what about Mugabe? How come we didn't get stuck into him?
This is a dictionary definition of the word 'pacifist'
a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.
Well, I'm opposed to war or to violence of any kind and I don't believe that's a concept that demonstrates any intellectual insufficiency on my part.
Politicians are all hypocratics. You can see the old phrase "Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer" in action. It wasn't that long ago that the West was sucking up to Gadaffi:
RP
If only things were that clear cut!
This subject brings up so many confusing feelings. While its hard to just stand by and watch people struggling, you have to wonder; if you have to convert others to democracy by the use of force, is that democracy? What if the power vacuum created then got filled with a fundamentalist muslim state chosen by the people? (that is after years of civil war which claims more lives)
Yep. I wrote the opening post on instinct, believing it correct. Of course, I still hope it is.
But - you know, I'm not a politician, but the two who've really stood out for me in the past for a certain reason have been Tony Benn and Neil Kinnock. Just in this particular way: we get so fed up with politicians because they put on a facade of flawlessness, and can never, ever admit they were wrong. (Look at Blair.) Benn and Kinnock both amazed and won me over years ago when, on different issues, they plainly said in public something like, "I was wrong; I've changed my mind". I was won over by that honesty.
And I now see that Libya could become much more complex. Many of us read papers and follow the news, so I don't need to go into detail. But yes, who would take over? Why not intercede elsewhere then? Could this just become a civil war with the rebels unable to advance on Tripoli, Gaddafi unable to advance on the East? And how will the West, over months, come to be painted by the Middle East in this?
So I'll not edit my opening post, and do believe total pacifism belongs in the 1930s and is 'corny'. The Libyan situation is nothing like as clear-cut as I first painted it, though, true. It's not going to be so easy or as quick as it seemed, and could bog us down. We'll see....
V
A P.S. on this...
While its hard to just stand by and watch people struggling, you have to wonder; if you have to convert others to democracy by the use of force, is that democracy?
First, it is hard, isn't it. To stand by and know a slaughter is taking place. I always tend to go back to the classic example of WW II. If we'd all been pacifists, not that most of us were literally around then (!), Hitler would have kept Europe, definitely invaded Britain (HP wouldn't exist, or any free speech, nor probably any of us), and the Holocaust would have continued and spread to other kinds of people.
But this P.S. is really to clarify: don't forget, there's no stated aim to "convert" people to democracy actually. Not in Libya. So many nations just aren't used to the idea of real democracy, or too many pwers are in place to deny it in its real form - everywhere from Afghanistan to Russia. The stated aim is simply to stop attacks upon civilian centers, and yes, it seems to weaken Gaddafi, then to see what happens, up to the peoples' will.
(That last bit admittedly, is where it gets complicated).
V
While in my heart I would like to be a pacifist, in my head I know that that ideal cannot always be achieved. You mentioned the 1930s and, of course, I believe the Spanish republicans were right to meet force with force when attacked by the fascists. And I believe Britain was right to declare war on Nazi Germany. But that doesn't alter the fact that I believe violence should always be a last resort.
Someone on Facebook said yesterday we were right to intervene in Libya to save people who were threatened by Gaddafi, and on the face of it that is a seductive argument. But why so selective?
Did we intervene militarily in Burma? Have we done so in Zimbabwe? Why aren't we going in now in Bahrain - and, in the process, attacking Saudi Arabia for sending armed forces to Bahrain?
The answer, of course, is that we are not attacking Libya for altruistic reason. Fair enough, the people responsible could say it is in the national interest to protect Britain's energy security. But why can't they just be honest about it?
I agree with supersub. That reminds me of the clip by Eddie Izzard when he discussed mass murderers and dictators, funny but kind of painfully funny which is Eddie's style of educating his audiences.
I think this is a facile argument. Look at what happened in Iraq. Look at how many civilians have died in Afghanistan because of mistakes made by the allied forces. Look at how many of our soldiers have died all over the world because we have taken it upon ourselves to get involved in other countries' wars.
I agree very much with this part of your post sunanda.
Saddam Hussein killed over 1 million people over his lifetime. They cut off body parts of athletes who didn't perform, the had public executions, he chemically gassed his own people. Why is Libya somehow OK and Iraq was not? Saddam had attempt to obtain nuclear bombs from Indian scientists and he failed to let inspectors in - a requirement after the Gulf War, after he took over Kuwait.
Pacifism is a nice goal but I think in reality it will never happen, as you will always have evil people, regardless of whether they are religious or non-religious.
Pacifism is a nice goal but I think in reality it will never happen, as you will always have evil people, regardless of whether they are religious or non-religious.
I agree with you 🙁
Why is Libya somehow OK and Iraq was not?
Absolute pacifism is a great gaol for humanity and I believe we'll achieve it in the end as there will be no more war. But I opened the thread becuase IMHO it's not rational in the present day and age.
But Libya and Iraq are neither "OK". Iraq was a Western plot, from the USA neo-cons, to go get oil. I just hope that we'll be more innocent (naive me) re Libya. But we can't possibly allow ourselves to get embroiled in an Iraq-style situation again. We didn't go in there for any good reason.
V
Pacifism is really the most contemptible philosophy in history. It is the doctrine that evil should not be resisted- that we should meekly surrender to superior force and allow ourselves to be trodden underfoot. This despicable idea leads only to the future of which George Orwell warned us in his book "1984", "A boot stamping on a human face- forever".
There was a strong pacifist movement in the 1930s. As the threat of Nazism became ever more apparent, almost all pacifists abandoned this idea, recognising that extreme, ruthless violence must be resisted. A few diehard pacifists, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, stuck to their principles and refused to defend their country in any way, while the vast majority of people played their part in overcoming Hitler. The pacifists were then happy to enjoy the benefits of a free society, which they had done NOTHING to defend.