Why I'm not a pacifist

Violence is natural. When an animal feels the need, it will threaten or employ violence on others. The same will happen if an animal feels threatened -- no matter the size of the aggressor.

As humans, we pride ourselves on our superior, sapient status. We talk about communication and the ability to reason/imagine which gave rise to civilization. So I guess the question is: "Should a civilized creature ever resort to violence?"

I would argue that pacifism, as a political ideology, wasn't given a face until the early 20th century -- after the brutality of WWI. Pacifism had existed as a religious ideology since the time of Christ or before. It wasn't until the early 1900s that pacifist movements (as a political statement) were organized. Mahatma Gandhi's passive resistance movement, for instance.

The interesting thing about Gandhi's movement was that it actually worked. It worked only because the Indians were able to make Britain look like a bully in the world's eyes. Gandhi exploited 20th century idealism and put it to his advantage. However, once the "bully" had left India, it was only a matter of months before Indians and Pakistanis were killing themselves by the hundreds of thousands.

So much for Indian pacifism.

Pacifism cannot work unless your enemy constrains himself. The British were constrained by national and international opinion. It also probably helped that India was no longer as vital as it once was (to the British) due to the advent of diesel-powered ships and the opening of the Panama Canal. Realistically speaking, pacifism cannot work where your enemy has no limits. Hitler, for instance, wouldn't have halted his advance if it weren't for the British RAF.

Pacifism is a wonderful ideal. Unfortunately, it is pragmatically impossible except under ideal circumstances. I can think of very few cases where our military intervened in an region of the world where I thought we should not have. I can, however, think of many occasions (Rwanda, for instance) where I wish we had.