War, Pacifism, and Negotiation

Negotiation, even with extremists, is hugely preferable. While I wouldn't expect such negotiations with extremists to be particularly practical by way of avoiding conflict, I would expect the nation’s local civilians to be increasingly sympathetic to our ability to find a peaceful means of avoiding conflict. Even with extremists, or any kind of violent opponent, you have to understand what their motives are. You cannot fight an effective war with an enemy you cannot claim to understand and predict.

Canada has always had a typically and fundamentally pacifist approach to war and conflict. To us Canadians, the best war is an avoided war. Dialogue and negotiation is always preferable to conflict and violence. But when, then, is violence acceptable?

Canada and India have similar non-violent roots in this respect. Even the great man and renowned pacifist Mahatma Gandhi had a principled exception where armed conflict was preferable: He would support violence if the only other route was cowardice. True pacifism, in his view, was never a sign of weakness. It was a sign of strength and moral superiority! Inaction however, cowardice and apathy; these did not amount to pacifism.

The key moral, I believe, to take from this is this: Is that violence or inaction must never be motivated by fear. Fear is hugely corruptible in both these respects.

It is a brilliant model that Canada should follow, and often has in its past. One could come up with exceptions such as the 1st World War, but in general Canada has joined Switzerland as being far more a peacekeeping nation.

When we do, after all things are considered, commit to a war or conflict of great scale like that of Afghanistan, once our troops are committed the entire nation needs to share their sacrifice. Tax increases on those who can afford it, very clearly labeled as needed for shared sacrifice; are necessary to pay for increased military expenditure. With label such as 'Defence Tax', those who bare the increased tax burden may easily expect it to be gone once war debts are paid off.

War debts too, then, may well be a necessary supplement if tax increases are not enough. Once troops are overseas, they must be afforded all the equipment they need no matter what the immediate cost.  You might expect me to say a thing or two about cutting wasteful spending during times of war, but that is honestly a government objective that should be pursued during times of peace and war regardless.