A paradox. Several ex-generals (Schwarzkoph, Zinni, etc.) have counseled against war with Iraq, and the "peace" movement eagerly seizes upon this as a certitude that only men who have been to War have the right to recommend it as an option.
Never mind for the moment the hash this makes of one of the central tenets of democracy: Civilian control over the military.
What this overlooks is that men who spend their lives training for and participating in War would then have no concept of, nor much expertise in Peace.
So how then should we value their opinions on politics, diplomacy, policing, or the other scutwork of Peace?
Seems to me that they're in a bind. They can either be for War or . . . nothing. They can't say that Peace would be more pleasant, or less risky than War, because they don't know what Peace is.
Then, to mirror the original argument: Civilians can't decide for War, so must stand for Peace, or . . . nothing.
This leads to an equilibrium of sorts, but I just don't know what it is.
Stability, sure, but also paralysis.
I don't know which is scarier. War, or . . .