Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson   Red Bluff Daily News   4/14/2015

    Peace, peace but no peace comes

There are Old and New Testament iterations of the “peace, peace but there is no peace” (searchable on the Internet) quote. I found myself pondering those verses upon reading last Tuesday’s column by Jason Stanford, “I had forgotten peace was still possible.” In what seemed to be idealistic profundity, he expressed optimism over President Obama’s—and Secretary of State John Kerry’s—announced “framework” for a treaty, or “nuclear deal” in diplomatic jargon, with Iran and other Western nations.

While his family visited the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, his son read of the efforts to resolve violent disputes, wars if you will, between the Irish Republican Army and the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, as well as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict roiling the Middle East. His point seemed to be that the pursuit and implementation of peace treaties between enemies overrode other concerns and issues.

While peace is usually preferable to war, it is simple-minded to place faith in any document, treaty or memorandum of understanding that promises to implement a cessation of violent conflict. Mr. Stanford correctly pointed out that friendly nations with mutually beneficial relations rarely engage in international violence. An effective state of war, as in Northern Ireland, can be converted to peaceful status if both sides, perhaps aided and advised by outside influence, see peace as beneficial and preferable to continued bloodshed and destruction.

All-out wars produce peace when the aggressor nation(s) are forced through military defeat, to accept terms of peace. Contrarily, peace in Vietnam came about after the retreat of the good guys, America, and the subjugation of South Vietnam by the evil communist forces of North Vietnam. A non-peaceful but mostly calm tension exists between armed-to-the-teeth North and South Korea.

Low-grade disputes can remain peaceful, such as between China and the United States, while serious efforts are made and played out regionally to wield influence based on respective priorities—all the while backed by the implied use of military force. The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. contained similar nonviolent efforts as well as hot conflicts between surrogate nations and militaries, all the while under the devastating cloud of nuclear weapons aimed at each nation’s cities and military installations. President Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” military buildup and “we win—they lose” policy ended the Cold War; peace between America and Russia prevails to this day, so far.

I’ve quoted Winston Churchill’s chilling assessment of the options for peace or war with an implacable, violent enemy determined to prevail militarily. You can fight when your victory will be assured with relatively minimal losses; you can wait and hope for the best but ultimately fight when it will be bloody with horrendous losses sacrificed to secure peace; or you can wait further, telling yourself that the proverbial wolf at the door will lose interest in killing you, eating and destroying your possessions—and then have to fight because it is preferable to die on your feet than to beg in subservience on your knees.

I suspect that increasing numbers of Americans, particularly on the progressive left represented by the Democrat Party and its leadership, may in fact be inclined to accommodate the kind of evil represented by Iran, al Qaeda terrorists, and Islamic State fighters as long as they think the cost will be tolerable. Democrats have said that they disapprove of America being the world’s sole superpower; Democrats have said that the fear and concern for Islamic terrorism is overblown and, against all evidence, not religiously inspired.

Many millions of Americans drawing benefit checks might even find it acceptable that our government be under the sway of foreign forces as long as the money keeps coming from someone else’s taxes. Never forget that the 911 Commission report stated that, before the September 2001 terror attacks, radical Islamists were at war with us but we weren’t at war with them. Witness Emperor (or is it Supreme Leader) Obama and his hack mouthpieces dismiss Iran’s “Supreme Leader” calling for “Death to America” as intended for domestic consumption. It is a disturbingly relevant comparison to Neville Chamberlain waving Hitler’s signed promise of nonaggression while pronouncing “Peace in our time”.

“Complacency is an understandable response to peace and security. Some problems do go away if you leave them alone. But the world is not the Rose Garden, and the consequences of nuclear attack or nuclear war would be far worse than bug bites (citing Obama telling children that menacing bees would go away if ignored). Sometimes it’s right to worry, to be afraid, to have the flyswatter nearby. The hornets will strike, and when they do it will be more painful if we have let our guard down.” (Matthew Continetti)

Inform yourself by going to www.donpolson.blogspot.com and clicking on the “Iran” label. The offenses, misery, death and destruction directed by Iran toward America call for the toughest possible sanctions until its leaders beg for relief and promise to verifiably relinquish nuclear ambitions and support of terrorism.

Ezekiel: “So my hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations…because they have misled my people, saying ‘Peace,’ when there is no peace…” 1Thessalonians: “While people are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them…”