Should Taxpayers Fund A Department Of Peace?
By Michael Nevin (04/16/03)
The war in Iraq will soon see its final days. The coalition forces have moved with precision and dominance. Although we have many challenges on the horizon, it is not too soon to describe our imminent military victory as extraordinary and unprecedented. The cheering Iraqi crowds welcoming their liberators, put a human face on the importance of our actions. Recent polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of Americans support the war effort, and the President’s approval ratings have climbed.
However, the war’s success is ephemeral to certain legislators. Several lawmakers led by presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, have proposed a new bill that would create the Department of Peace. It would be headed by a Secretary of Peace and other officials whose duties would include domestic peace activities, international peace activities, peaceful coexistence, and nonviolent conflict resolution. The bill also would create a Peace Academy as an alternative to the military service academies and designate January 1 as Peace Day in the United States. One of the backers, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California, proclaims: ''I believe war is an outdated concept and only a result of failed diplomacy, and we have to do something about it.'' Woolsey also hopes to reintroduce legislation to scrap our entire nuclear arsenal.
I guess Sun-Tzu, Machiavelli, and Livy should not have spent so much time dissecting the human mind and examining warfare. Some liberals think they have it all figured out as they discount or try to rewrite history. These self-serving folks haven’t yet figured out that they are wrong. Crass leftists ride on the coattails of brave service men and women but rarely give them credit. They are incredulous to the importance of our military, and they fail to understand or appreciate antiquity. The only thing outdated and tiresome is the ignorance on the left. If the leftists had their way we would perpetually be at war or worse, and would eventually fail to exist as a nation. Hopefully, these misguided ideas will be revisited during future elections.
This new Department of Peace, which is meant to rival the Department of Defense, won’t see the light of day. Other than giving employment to professional protesters, the Peace Department would serve no viable purpose. The State Department already serves as the primary diplomatic tool in our government. Should taxpayers be asked to fund more liberal cronyism with the Peace Department?
If one lesson has been learned from recent events it is this: Only through force or genuine threat of force can you deal with despots like Saddam Hussein. ''Peace Through Strength'' was a popular phrase used by Ronald Reagan and it clearly has meaning today.
What some naïve lawmakers fail to comprehend seems so simple: The Department of Defense IS the greatest promoter of peace. It is an insult to suggest that our military is incapable of using diplomacy and goodwill to promote peace. Our soldiers are the ambassadors who brought hope and life to the Iraqi people. Their selfless acts are an example for future generations. Some paid the ultimate sacrifice to make peace possible. They fought honorably to confront a threat and ensure our safety at home. Dennis Kucinich can dream of the Peace Department; I’ll take a Marine. Some people will try to conceal or dilute the success of our military, but the Iraqi people will continue to tell the world that what our brave soldiers did was right.
First published on ChronWatch.com.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Michael Nevin
