Anti-war

Why is opposition to war automatically supposed to mean weak on national security? A war might be the worst possible move for national security in a given situation. Look how we dodged direct conflict with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, and how we tiptoe around China today. Come on, you pro-war wussies, if you believe in it, you believe it all the way.

Maybe the hawks just like to pick on people they perceive as weaker. In the propaganda leading up to the desired war you can play up the threat, but if you seriously thought you might lose you start talking about diplomacy.

Defensive war, or reactive war, is a different matter. World War II, widely praised as the American military's finest hour, was purely a reactive war. We didn't jump in until jumped upon. Then we whooped ass, but we had to be dragged into it.

The use of force remains an option, but anybody who is enthusiastic about it belongs on a bar stool in some dive bar, waiting to pick a fight at arm's length, not running the most powerful nation on Earth.

Give me anti-war leaders. If war is thrust upon us, we should not shirk it, but let's not trash-talk. We should be bigger and more self-confident than that. If our leaders aren't confident enough to be in favor of peace maybe they have let the country get weaker than they wish to admit. But by making peacefulness contemptible they are admitting more than they might intend to.