Opposition to Peace: Part One

The rude liberal, Jake, said:

Well, the group's about peace. Unless you're going to provide logical arguments against it or you agree with the cause, I don't see why you've decided to grace us with your opinion at all.

And this was my answer:

There are several different types of peace, but four in particular come to mind: The Peace of the Imperium, The Peace of the Desert, The Peace of the Cold War, and, lastly, The Peace of Tranquilitas Ordinis.

The “Imperium” peace is the peace of an empire or hegemony, where internationally and domestically, order is maintained through military domination and oppression (just like in the good old days.)

The peace of the desert (and this is my term you understand, not an official one) is the peace of a graveyard, where one party annihilates another, removing them as a threat. Unfortunately, this often means genocide.

The peace of the Cold War is the peace of Mutually Assured Destruction. There is a noticeable lack of operational conflict between two hated rivals, and fear is the only thing holding back a world war. (Instead they snipe at each other through all sorts of political warfare.) However, the most important principle to take away from this sort of peace is that the peace itself is merely in the lack of open, operational conflict. In this sort of peace, one must be constantly vigilant, because war is always on the cusp. The last type of peace, and the only true peace, is the peace of Tranquilitas Ordinis, or, in English, the Tranquility of Order. A term coined by St. Augustine, the Tranquility of order implies a society based on, and obedient to the law, who see the importance of civil order. Furthermore, they must have a Harmony of Interests, where they want to cooperate with each other to have a peaceful society. It is the willing, co-operative and well-ordered society that is the most peaceful.

Tranquilitas Ordinis is a powerful concept, because it works at the smallest social stage all the way up into the international. It essentially means, however, that true peace cannot be had while some countries are intent on undermining the law or the social order, or refuse to act with enlightened self-interest.

For instance, Iran continually is trying to undermine the social order in the Middle East so that it can have an easier time exercising Hegemony, and perhaps one day, empire. Their long-term strategic goal is to destroy Western Civilization (us), and replace it an inter-cultural caliphate. This strategy is not conducive to the peace of order, in fact, it is the opposite thereof.

This is why the "peace at all costs" movement is not only stupid and naive, but dangerous. You are willing to accept a tactical retreat from a belligerent actor as peace. That is to say, that if the belligerent party were to back down from a position while engaged in diplomacy, you'd think that it was diplomacy that brought about peace. However, what is actually happening is that the belligerent Country is in fact using the concession as means of manipulating you while it works toward its strategic goal. This is why it is more important to look at the long-term plans and patterns of actions, rather than the more recent, and probably more ostentatious, behavior of a state. Strategy is what will tell you if a nation is peaceful or not.

In order to have peace, then, there must be opposition to nations, and non-state actors, who intentionally get in the way of peace, because they don't see their self-interest in peace. These parties must be opposed, or they will destroy any chance at peace that the rest of us have. Therefore, whether it is the war in Iraq, or a future war with Iran, we must dedicate ourselves to the short-term conflict in order to achieve OUR strategic objective of peace. If you do not do this, all you are doing is assuring that, after the short-term "peace", an even bigger conflict will loom.

What will happen when one day we aren't able to hold back the rising tide, because we lived well for a day, and ignored the writing on the wall?