Are Negotiations Always Better than Force?
Many of us feel that it is better to talk things through and work out a compromise rather than to use force. But what if talking just leads to more talking while damage and even death occurs? Is using force to set clear boundaries a moral option? Do we sometimes get things wrong and engage in catastrophe thinking because of a strong bias toward "talking" and "compromise". How do we know that compromise is even a solution? For a deterrence through strength argument see:
How the West got the Israel-Iran war so wrong
The sentiment betrays the Western delusion: that process is always preferable to power. That negotiation, however one-sided, is morally superior to pre-emption. But pre-emption is not always a moral failing. When executed with precision, intelligence and legitimacy – as it was in this case – it prevents greater wars. It reinstates deterrence. And it spares civilians, infrastructure and economies the toll of prolonged conflict.
This is the paradox many in the West struggle to accept: restrained power can be more humane than endless diplomacy. Especially when that diplomacy serves only to delay the inevitable, embolden aggressors and paralyze allies.
So where does this put us? Tip one way and we have endless war, tip the other way and we have instability and terrorism. Peace through strength has been around a long time, but so has fear of escalation.
What do you think?
**************************************************************
Please disregard the message about forwarding below.
