On Selective Pacifism & other Oddities was Re: [PEN-L:20020]

[Max Sawicky]

Over on PEN-L Michael has (I think sensibly) indicated that this thread
has lost its usefulness there, but it raised a number of questions I
thought worth pursuing on a list not focused (as Michael keeps hoping
PEN-L will be) on economics. In an earlier post in the thread I
indicated that the phrase "selective pacifism" was simply bad writing.
(Max disagreed, and he can re-express that here if he feels it useful.)
My argument is that _most_ objections to this or that war are not
pacifist objections at all: for example (to explore ancient history) it
would have made perfect since in the mid-19th century to both vigorously
oppose the Mexican War (which Grant called the most unjust war ever
fought by a large nation against a small nation, but of course Grant
didn't know about the current war) _and_ to have _supported_ with equal
vigor the War to Suppress the Insurrection of the Slave Drivers. (The
usual names, Civil War and War Between the States seem to me to distort
the nature of that war.) Pacifism or anti-Pacifism has nothing to do
with it. The phrase "Selective Pacifism" is sloppy writing, in fact I
would say intellectually corrupt, because it obscures the sharp
distinction between vicious wars fought for vicious and/or stupid
purposes and wars in defense of legitimate causes.
Carrol

Clearly there is nothing wrong in and of itself with picking and
choosing which wars one approves of.  Most people do that.
I certainly do.

What I object to is the invocation of universal principles in
opposition to particular wars.  In particular, to criticize the
U.S. interventions in the Balkans and Afghanistan because
there are civilian casualties or "war crimes" is bogus unless
you oppose *all* wars, since all result in civilian casualties
and "war crimes."  I put the latter in quotes because I would
guess that violations of the rules of war (executing P.O.W.'s,
for instance) are ubiquitous in war, though I would be happy to
be corrected on that.

Objecting to the Afghani intervention on the grounds that it
ratifies a U.S. intention to slaughter civilians wholesale is
a different matter.  Anyone making this argument is either
uninformed or dedicated to insupportable polemic.

My impression is that most opposition to the U.S. intervention
here and on PEN-L is founded on factors like:  opposition to the
use of violence, per se ("violence never solves anything");
rejection of any mission that creates innocent civilian
casualties; and inferences of ancillary motives on the part
of the U.S. (i.e., oil, hegemonism).  My critical label
"selective pacifism" refers to the invocation of these
arguments *as if* they applied uniquely to the Afghani
conflict, whereas in fact they apply to nearly all.  The
arguments fail my "Civil War Test."  So if
you invoke universal principles but have your own list,
however short, of just wars, then you are a selective
pacifist.  As to personalities, I have gone no further then
to say this bespeaks confusion. I haven't said anybody is vile.

mbs