For what do we fight? Cincinnatus versus the Death Eaters

As one of my friends so trenchantly expressed it when forwarding this link, "Kerodin's campaign to subvert the Three Percent movement into a cult of Death Eaters continues." I have neither the time nor the inclination to pig wrestle at the moment, but fortunately a friend forwarded me this critique, which I present below.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

The Purpose of War is a More Perfect Peace

The purpose of war is not battle; it is a more perfect peace. To attain peace, a belligerent must break the will of the enemy people to wage war. No nation goes to war to fight; it goes to attain its national purpose. It may be that a nation must destroy the enemy’s army to achieve this purpose. But the destruction is not the end; it is only the incidental by-product or the means to the end.

If a commander looks at the peace he is seeking at the conclusion of war, he may find numerous ways of attaining it by avoiding the enemy’s main force and striking at targets that may destroy the enemy’s desire or ability to wage war. -- Bevin Alexander, How Great Generals Win, p. 30

It has been widely acknowledged that only some just purpose could give meaning to the death and destruction caused by war. Grotius approvingly quoted Aristotle’s view that “the purpose of war is to remove the things that disturb peace.” Augustine believed that peace “is the purpose of waging war. . . . What, then, men want in war is that it should end in peace.” This view of the ends of war is also held by more recent commentators. Even the one whom we remember for his declaration that “war is hell,” William Tecumseh Sherman, in a speech delivered in St. Louis in 1865, said, “The legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace”. Echoing this tradition, the British military strategist B. H. Liddell-Hart wrote, “The object in war is a better state of peace.” Clearly there has been a consistent acknowledgment of the importance of securing in war “a more perfect peace.” -- Jus Post Bellum: Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace, p.3., Robert E.Williams, Jr. and Dan Caldwell; Pepperdine University

Observations on Kerodin’s ‘Random Thoughts’

The proper consideration and application of ‘jus ad bellum’ (the moral reasoning that justifies the resort to war – the ‘why’), ‘jus in bello’ (the legitimacy of the means used to wage war – the ‘how’), and ‘jus post bellum’ (the justness of the resultant peace* – the original ‘why’ expanded to creating a just peace following a conflict) are each essential if the twin blessings of society and liberty are to be achieved. War engenders much horror, much that is in fact, in normal times, both evil and immoral. Yet there are some things that are illegitimate in peace that become legitimate in war (see “Just War Theory” for a detailed exposition of these considerations.) However, suffice it to say that the attitude “anything goes”; that there is “no moral high-ground” is counter-productive to achieving the ends sought – a better peace.

A regime has to be seen as an occupying power, unresponsive to the will of the populace, resting on arbitrary rule unconstrained by due process, relying instead on intimidation and use of disproportional force—home invasion in particular, networks of anonymous accusers, checkpoints and humiliating searches which can't be predicted or avoided, indefinite detention and lack of genuine avenues for redress. This is the stuff of illegitimacy. -- Ole Remus at The Woodpile Report.

Which brings me to the problem of legitimacy. Any civil war fought between the present ideological factions in North America will have at its core the necessity of establishing and/or maintaining “legitimacy” among the population at large. Else the restorationists are nothing but a bunch of criminals. Most of our fellow countrymen are politically non-aware of our present crisis of liberty. Living their day-to-day lives in ignorance, comfort is their goal. Presented with a political-economic-social crisis, they will gravitate to government leaders for government solutions (to government induced problems, to be sure). This is the default setting – regardless of the inroads which the tea Party has recently made on awakening the electorate from its normal state of political insomnia.

The restoration movement must seek to demonstrate that its view of day-to-day political-economy is the historically American, valid view, and that a return to normalcy (“a just peace”) is more likely, reasonable, and certain once the authoritarian hand of grasping and overweening government is cast off. Absent development of such an understanding by a significant portion of the electorate - legitimacy, with all the tacit support that it engenders, will be lost… Absent a significant identification among the electorate of the restoration movement as ‘legitimate’ in its aims, ways and means, violence – even if directed against perfectly suitable authoritarian targets – quickly becomes counter-productive.

The object is to secure a more perfect peace.

Restraint is sometimes warranted on the journey.

And - the Iroquois Confederation were not fellow colonialists; they were not part of a society and community riven by violent, ideological faction, as is America, circa 2012. The Iroquois Confederation were foreign belligerents which Washington needed to knock out of the war to focus operational strength against the British main force.

This distinction matters.

The restoration movement must have, at its core, a broad understanding of the American Credo, along with an appreciation for turning that creed of liberty into practical applications on “why we fight” – jus ad bellum, “how we fight” – jus in bello, and “securing a just peace” - jus post bellum. Targeting every minion of federal, state and local government for elimination is perhaps a bit counter-productive to obtaining political legitimacy. Scorched earth destruction of the means and mechanisms of economic wherewithal are perhaps counterproductive to establishing a viable, post-war society. Application of ‘excessive force’ – among members of your own society, in the furtherance of the cause of liberty – is perhaps contra-indicated as a mechanism for establishing a ‘just peace’.

When contemplating ideological conflict within a society, judgment, restraint, and a consideration of the resultant state of political economy matter a good deal. Not just ‘anything can go’ – if you want a society that is worth being a member of.

-- Cincinnatus.

* “A just peace is one that vindicates the human rights of all parties to the conflict.” There are four extant principles to a just peace: 1) restore order; 2) establish economic reconstruction; 3) restore sovereignty, or self-determination; and 4) punish ‘human rights’ violations related to the war and its origins.)