U.S. history shows war can lead to better world

The inscription marking the entrance to the National Archives in
Washington, D.C. reads, “What is past is prologue.”

Eloquent in its simplicity, this reminder should serve as a
haunting admonishment for those emboldened to continue protesting
military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime. History
repeats itself. We now stand at a crossroads where our course of
action will decide which of two historical paths we further extend:
appeasement or confrontation. The past may be prologue, but which
past will we choose to follow?

For those who care to examine history, the answer is
unambiguous: appeasement leads to increased suffering and abuse,
while confrontation leads to freedom and future alliances. If we
let history’s data serve as our empirical guideposts,
it’s disquieting to observe categorical opposition to war in
Iraq ““ especially within the context of recent terrorist
attacks. Moreover, it’s astonishing when war protesters act
as if they have a monopoly on compassion and the desire for
peace.

In all their worldly experiences they have yet to interact,
condescend or let alone speak to those in our nation’s
military who could aptly be described as “reluctant
warriors.”

The cause of the anti-war crowd is truly a strange mixture of
domestic hubris and global cowardice.

Where were the protesters in 1998 when we launched 78 cruise
missiles at Iraq? That’s 78 more than the current Bush
administration has launched.

Where were the demonstrators leading marches to oppose the
military efforts in Bosnia?

Maybe anti-war protesters, rendered logically impotent by their
animus toward the Bush administration, are secretly concerned that
the imminent military operations in Iraq will be the generational
death knell of their anti-America campaign. If executed properly
and to its desirable end, vanquishing Saddam Hussein may be the
foundation for future alliances between the United States and
burgeoning democracies in the Middle East.

Such a plausible result puts pacifists in a bind. How does one
reconcile opposing a war when the resulting victory produces
improved diplomatic relations, freedom and ultimately peace?

History shows us that when we have attempted to appease
dictatorships, our inaction resulted in continued suffering for
citizens of those countries and increased hostility toward the
United States, as it did with Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

In stark contrast, when we have displayed the fortitude to
confront totalitarian regimes and see the war through to the
complete destruction of our enemies, the outcome has fostered
diplomatic alliances and the propagation of freedom as it did with
Great Britain, Spain, the Confederacy, Germany, Italy, Japan and
Russia. All these nations were once enemies. Although the degree of
diplomatic alliance varies within this group, we are now economic
partners and democratic brethren.

John Adams once said, “facts are stubborn things,”
and the aforementioned facts are difficult to ignore.

Such examples are bound to make proponents’ purely
peaceful diplomacy uncomfortable. But then again, taking action to
make the world a better place is not a strong suit of those on the
left; it’s much easier to give sermons at swanky Hollywood
events and indoctrinate college students with dreams of a
people’s paradise.

An illustrative corollary to the Bush doctrine would be,
“You’re either with the United States, or you’re
probably a celebrity or student.”

Despite concerted efforts of revisionists to rewrite history and
reconstruct a more malleable reality, the past has proven sometimes
war does serve a moral good.

We were right to confront Nazism, Fascism, Imperialism and
Stalinism. Although loathe to admit it, many on the left now know
Ronald Reagan was right to call the Soviet Union “the evil
empire.” Now we face new “isms”: terrorism under
the aegis of radical Islamism. In the past, America has
demonstrated the resolve to silence her critics and confront evil.
Let us pray that past is prologue.