Unilateral Peace

A Code Pink member had a sign at the inauguration today that read "Yes we can, can end the wars!" (Code Pink is a women's antiwar protest group with a penchant for pink garments and flair for the dramatic.) It reminded me how much the concept of unilateral peace bothers me; that a war can be ended by only one participant in the conflict. Its not a divorce. A war has at least two participants but one army can't just tell the other its moving out of the house, taking the kids, and asking for a cease-fire. If one side stops fighting, the other side doesn't automatically become a harmless bunny rabbit. This is especially true if one combatant group has sworn to rid the planet of their infidel enemies. Think killer rabbit from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

Let's run through the logic for a moment. We the (dare I say) good guys, a.k.a. infidels, stop fighting a war. Then, the opposing forces, having been shown the error in their jihad-ing ways by our magnanimous gesture, decide to find a new vocation after centuries and generations invested in hatred and the dream of a globally oppressive utopia. Not to mention the multitudes of virgins awaiting all good little martyrs on the other side. Oh sure, its extremely unlikely that Islamic fascism would rule the world someday, but why start handing out rope hoping no one tries to hang us.

Call me crazy... but it seems to me that if we stop fighting and the bad guys don't get the memo, the battlefield only changes locations, perhaps following us home to the U.S. like some sadistic lost puppy. And then, its our civilians facing the business end of a death wish, since our military stopped warring and is off planting flowers or something. The danger doesn't end just because we want the world to be all lollipops and rainbows and we tell the bad man to stop.