The Dogma of Pacisfism

We have come to a point in our society where some categories of philosophical inquiry are propped up so high that they are apparently above criticism. Pacifism, in particular, is a worldview that has staked its ground in our status-quo as a nearly perfect moral philosophy. For evidence of this, see the esteem in which we hold pacifist figures like Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, and Mother Teresa. When criticism is able to reach the pedestal on which it sits, it nearly always revolves around the practical ramifications of holding such beliefs. It almost never described as an explicitly immoral position, which I believe it is.

Pacifism may be perfectly reasonable when the stakes are low, but in the end pacifism is merely a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the hands of the world's murderers. It is significant to note that a madman, armed only with a knife, could exterminate an entire city of pacifists. It is clear in this context that violence is a requisite for the maintenance of civil society. This may seem paradoxical, but I assure you it isn't. All it takes to recognize this is a willingness to admit that there are bound to be people in our world who are simply beyond the sort of non-violent methods we may use to prevent them from causing suffering. As the author Sam Harris puts it: "When your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become another weapon in his hand."

When the stakes are high, pacifism can be highlighted even brighter for its shortcomings. Gandhi was known to say that the Jews should have committed mass suicide as a remedy for the Holocaust, because it would have drawn attention around the world to Hitler's violence. The obvious question here is: what would a world full of pacifists have done once its attention had been raised? This question brings to light another shortcoming of pacifism, in that in many cases it requires for its maintenance the presence of people who are willing to use violence. We may wonder where a pacifist position would leave Middle Eastern Jews in their conflict with the Muslim world, given the murderous rage a significant number of Muslims feel at the presence of infidels in "their" holy land. It would leave them either at the mercy of the West for their protection, or at the mercy of the Muslim world to suddenly realize that killing in the name of Allah isn't really a moral precept.

Needless to say, if these are the choices pacifism offers, Israel has done well to throw it on the philosophical trash heap. A worldview that in itself is not self-sustaining should be a red flag to us. Especially given the world in which we live in, where the push of a button can cause the abject suffering and death of thousands. When nuclear and biological weapons are factored into our ethical equations, pacifism simply ceases to be a possible solution.

To digress for a moment, even if pacifism were somehow worthy of the status it has gained in our discourse, it would still not lend merit to the idea that it is beyond criticism. To put it plainly, nothing should be beyond criticism, if only for the reason that any belief worth subscribing to should be able to stand up to conversational analysis. Pacifism has been branded with a rectitude seemingly so impenetrable, that it remains largely unassailed as an ethical tenet. I invite you all to join me in pulling it down out of the clouds of false righteousness.

The Crux of the Conflict

I'd like to address the misrepresentation of the real problem we face in the Middle East. There seems to be a mainstream belief that the cause of Muslim violence against the west are for political grievances. The culprit, many say, is an oppressive American occupation in the region. This is an idea that seems to be conventional wisdom among the left, and even subscribed to by some on the right (see: Ron Paul).

First of all, say what you will about American foreign policy in the Middle East. It is important to notice that violence against the west would be accepted here whether the United States was involved in the Middle East or not. To believe that American foreign policy is the issue is to believe that malcontent in the Middle East is driven by civic complaints. The problem with this idea is that it would require people in this part of the world to organize themselves around a nationalistic attitude. We can see very quickly, however, that this is not the case. Just who are we fighting? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Afghanistan? No. We are fighting Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Notice that these groups do not organize themselves around political grievances. They have theological issues against Israel and the west. Do they want to push Israel into the Mediterranean because they covet their land? No. They want to push Israel into the sea because it is populated by infidels that threaten the holy sanctity of their religion.

In the final analysis, there is nothing that explains Muslim terrorism better than the tenets of Islam. We should not be afraid to consult Occam's razor here. The Muslim world has a religious identity, not a nationalist one, so we should characterize their intentions accordingly. If we can recognize that we are dealing with a region that adheres to the tenets of Islam, how can we ignore the words of the Qur'an when we evaluate reasons for Muslim violence? "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 2:191). Why isn't drivel such as this recognized in the west as the root cause of the problem? It would be good for the Middle East to arrange itself in a national identity that fought for sovereignty, but it is important to realize that as of now this is not what they fight for.

This conflict is not based on American misadventures in the Middle East, or western colonialism, or western foreign policy in general. It is based on the fact that the Muslim world has more than its fair share of bad ideas. It is an ideological struggle, and the Muslim world recognizes this. Americans refuse to. We are losing ground in this struggle every second we fail to admit this. Our credulity is costing us precious time in meeting bad ideas with the might of liberty and democracy before they spread beyond our control.