How often have we heard that war should be a last resort? It is even exceedingly difficult to find a conservative who disagrees with that statement. The fact of the matter is that such a philosophy would allow Hitler to continue to kill the Jews and in modern times it would allow our enemies to prepare to destroy us while feigning along at the UN.
Ultimately, negotiation can always be resorted to until one is already doomed to an eventual loss. With only a modicum of research, even a schoolchild can find that the forces that seek to end freedom do not come only as a swift slashing talon but also as a silently undercutting saboteur. The utilization of our own freedoms to attempt to destroy the Constitution has been well-documented.
From the ironically violent opposition to war in Vietnam to the unending scandal revelation at the UN to clear violations of the Treaty of Versailles being responded to with calls for negotiations, the damage to freedom by the talk first mentality is incalculable. Right now, we are seeing in Mosques across the United States, the drumming up of support for our clear enemies such as Iran and Venezuela. Are we to wait until the common support has left America to fight these nations solely because some people are uncomfortable with war?
Make no mistake, the reason nearly everyone wishes to see negotiation beaten to death multiple times before ever rolling out a treaded vehicle is because they are uneasy with reality. It is an emotional crutch for people who cannot deal with the truth to say that any action to save a life at the moment is the best choice. If saving ten lives right now means condemning freedom in the future then negotiation is the absolute wrong choice.
Primarily, the notion of going to war before seeing if negotiation can prevent war is flawed. The purpose of war is not to prevent itself. The purpose of war is to stop atrocity and the annexation of freedom. If one sees atrocity and wishes to stop it then only one fact must be understood and that fact will determine whether or not war is a first resort.
If the party committing the atrocity has a stance that the atrocity is their right to commit by any excuse (power, land, racism, etc.) then war is the only answer. Negotiation cannot bring about morality. It may bring about a slowing of the onset of socialism but being happy with slowing the progress of socialism is like being alright with the one round in the revolver taking a while to turn into the firing chamber. It is putting off the inevitable. Negotiation may bring a temporary cessation of atrocity but such a cessation normally comes about by purchase and never stops atrocity permanently.
We have seen this in recent conflicts between Israel and Lebanon. In order to purchase a clearly temporary, unstable and sometimes nonexistent cessation of conflict, Israel had to give up certain lands it has controlled for dozens of years. (On that note, next time there is a World War, the loser should have to keep France)
The point of fact is that one cannot expect to dissuade evil by word nor by threat. Direct force with the sole intention of eradicating evil is the only way to ensure its ultimate inability to commit acts of hate and crime.
This is not to say that negotiation has no place but keep in mind that there seems to be no thought that war has any place but only after exhausting years of time, advantage and effort on negotiations that were largely doomed from the get-go.
Fourteen years were spent after the Gulf War to try to bring an evil man, Saddam Hussein, to reason. Resolution after resolution received great support from the mighty mouse United Nations and negotiations were none too scarce. Even with economic pressure on the WMD using, Kurd slaughtering dictator there was nothing to show for it. Still many called for negotiations and many still now say negotiations should have led the way.
In summary, I contend that negotiation can be a coupon to buy more time for evil to have its run at mayhem just a little bit longer and if used improperly, negotiation can destroy freedom entirely. If atrocity is acceptable to a government then that government is morally bankrupt and not eligible for exemption from military defeat.
