An excellent article on war in general versus diplomacy

Can be found here on AlterNet.

Here is an excerpt, so you can see what I mean:

"...When President Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon after nearly 300 Marines were killed by militants in 1983, Reagan wasn't condemned as a gutless appeaser.

When IRA terrorists were in full swing there was no 'shock and awe' bombing of Belfast. What happened? To oversimplify, IRA leaders and British officials sat down at the negotiating table. Has IRA terrorism increased since then? Nope. In fact, just last week the IRA declared an end to their 36-year campaign of coercive violence against Britain to pursue a nonviolent political path.

Jonathan Schell, in his incredible book, The Unconquerable World, provides a historical example that calls into question the narrow, hawkish view of appeasement by raising an important question for any war planner: What is defeat?

In 1812 Napoleon invaded Russia. 'Napoleon won every battle on his march to Moscow. The Russian forces retreated steadily, until he finally occupied the city, which then burned in a great fire...Were the Russians beaten? In fact, as all readers of Tolstoy's War and Peace know, the will of Russia was intact. It was Napoleon who was on his way to ruin,' Schell writes..."

current music: "Creeping Death" - Metallica