10 votes

Peace Through Strength: Where's the Peace?

Peace through strength is that term prodded out by the interventionists, essentially calling forth a massive military establishment to promote peace. It has been generally used since the Reagan administration and is still in use today, primarily by the neoconservatives. My contention is this argument does not hold true. As Andrew Bacevich has stated, “[A] belief in the efficacy of military power almost inevitably breeds the temptation to put that power to work. ‘Peace through strength' easily enough becomes 'peace through war.'"

In proving the “peace through strength” statement false, I want to list all our military engagements since the Reagan administration.
1. Beirut—1982-1984
2. Grenada—1983
3. Panama—1989-1990
4. Persian Gulf War—1990-1991
5. No-Fly Zones—1991-2003
6. Somalia—1992-1993
7. IFOR—1995-1996
8. Yugoslavia—1999
9. War on Terror—2001-present
10. Afghanistan—2001-present
11. Philippines—2002
12. Iraq—2003-present
13. 2004 Haitian rebellion
14. Libya—2011-?

Where’s the Peace?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You forgot all the hidden Wars of our nation...

To save time you might list the places the CIA and NSA haven't been...

the moon.

SteveMT's picture

Haven't you heard?: War is Peace

The sheeple unfortunately no longer know the difference.

Every moment counts


LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Where's the Peace?--Where's the Strength?

The US government has the US dollar (once the world's reserve currency) on borrowed time. It is only a matter of time when the Trillions of $$$ in unfunded and unsustainable debt come home to roost, when holders of US treasury Bonds (and other dollar denominated assets) can no longer AFFORD to hold them, when Americans can no longer afford to buy goods from China, Japan OPEC, etc with increasingly worthless dollars, and when the money to pay for the endless, pointless, and useless wars overseas, and the governments allied with the drunken spendthrift in DC no longer exists! The money to pay for State and Municipal pensions, for merchant-of-Death Pentagon boondoggles won't be there any longer, and even the Army and Navy personnel will have to wait weeks or months for their scrip paychecks (Generals and Admirals, like Congressvermin and Cabinet ministers, on the other hand will somehow be taken care of during this collapse). There won't be funding to pay for the immense overgrowth of prisons, jails, and 'publik skoolz" which characterise American democrazy today, and new alternatives--totally independent of, and hostile to-- Washington DC--will have to emerge!

The abovementioned wars have grown a hugh number of embittered, unemployable, and badly damaged veterans who will certainly NOT fight for the government that has ruined their lives, and the lives of their nearest and dearest ones! When the s**t hits the fan, I wouldn't want to be anyone closely connected with the DC regime near them or their friends!

Peace through Strength"! "Where is the Peace?" is a good question? Where is the Strength(?), as this thoroughly criminal and degenerate DC regime finally collapses,like the old Soviet Union, and for the same reasons, is another!

David K. Meller

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be attacked successfully, it is to be defended badly". F. Bastiat

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, finally they attack you, and then you win"! Mohandas Gandhi

All actions not "war"

Afghanistan and Iraq were "wars of aggression" by the US. Helping a freedom movement on the verge of annihilation is
not the same. France was an aid to the American Revolution – should General Washington have refused the French help?

If we were being bombed and strafed by the US Government would aid be refused or not requested? Not by me.

Trevor Lyman's picture

France and England were at

France and England were at war almost all the time. from wiki: "France was not directly interested in the conflict, but saw it as an opportunity to contest British power by supporting a new British opponent." The French intervened to weaken an enemy with which they had an ongoing declared and undeclared war.

In this country, no matter what the reason, congress must give authority for war. This is to prevent the rise of a military dictatorship and empire - like we have now. So even if some military actions could be argued as good, you still have to go through the process in order not to damage our country. So all of these wars or whatever you want to call them are illegal and have no place in our history.

It is not worth taking military action in any part of the world if taking that action destroys what our nation stands for and the protections it is duty bound to provide us here at home.

reedr3v's picture

First, your reply appears to assume that

NATO is in the conflict out of humanitarian reasons. Utter nonsense, they ignore most humanitarian crises all over the world and only act to further their own powers. Incidentally it may occasionally give a boost to local rebels, as in Afghanistan where the U.S. armed the locals to help them fight off the rival Soviets. Ahem, of course the U.S. is still there dominating the locals.

The Libyans will be lucky to ever see the end of us; the one thing they have going for them is that the U.S./French etc. governments are already reeling from economic profligacy, so the citizens may demand a shorter duration for the action. Don't count on it though, unless people wake up to the deceptions of the Western powers both in foreign policy and economic policy.


It seems rather strange, that when – maybe by accident – the US Government/military is aiding a freedom movement, that so many individuals are getting super technical regarding the Constitution and "war". And at the same time not many seem to be concerned about the freedom folks - I am. Maybe some of the courageousness of the Libyans could rub off on the rest of us, for putting an end to our own massive government domestic abuses – like in Police State.

When US troops are brought home from around the would, and the military is reduced to "defend" only, I'll go along with not helping freedom movements succeed. Until then, removing the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq seems a better use of Constitutional Righteousness than protesting helping (limited) someone wanting freedom from oppression.

We were asked (pleaded) for the aid we are giving in Libya. In time, we'll know if the effort "saved the (freedom) mission".

+ 1

Ralph Nader had a good name for it during his speech at the White House protest March 19th --
military industrial congressional complex.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Military intervention

We have a long history of military intervention (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html). It is disingenuous for proponents of a larger military to claim that it would somehow lead to less intervention. In fact, one of the themes on the Sunday news shows today was - now that were there, Qaddafi must go or he'd be seen as a David vs. our Goliath. The European proponents of this war have many ulterior motives for this action and are using the rationale of humanitarian protection to accomplish those goals. I believe one reason Sarkozy is heading this call to action is to distract from his many problems at home. Peace can not be their goal when war is used for political motives.


My contention, as was warned by the Founders, is a large military establishment will be used more often in wars, rather than as a deterrent. This is not just theory, but fact. We have been engaged in military exploits for years and years. When do we have peace? "Peace through strength" has proven to be more wars, not peace.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

War is a good business to be in

if you are part of the military-industrial complex. That's the bottom line. They have every president's ear, and encourage constant war because it is their livelihood. Until we get a leader who tells them the shut the hell up, and actually chooses peaceful relations with others, we will continue to have constant wars - simple as that.

It's a good idea

The basic premise behind "peace through strength" is that if you are strong and tough enough no one is going to mess with you. That way you will be able to live in peace. Worked well during the Cold War since we never came to blows with the Soviet Union.

It's been bastardized of course by those who want to use that strength in order to bully others.

"What I want most from the government is to be left alone." GWT