about the universe forum commander Shop Now Commanders Circle
Product List FAQs home Links Contact Us

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

"No Such Thing as a Good War, or a Bad Peace"

One of the most common means of scoring points in a discussion is to cite a quote by someone of some repute that supports the position.

For example, if one were totally opposed to the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, one might cite Benjamin Franklin's quote:

"There is no such thing as a good war, or a bad peace."

Here is one of the founding fathers emphatically stating that getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan under any conditions is the right thing to do. War is bad and any peace is good, right?

This gets you into a disconnect because Benjamin Franklin did all he could to keep the Revolutionary War going. He opposed any peace with Britain short of independence for the 13 colonies. How could he have done so if he believed there was no such thing as a bad peace?

The simple fact is that Franklin said a lot of things in his life, and what he thought and where he stood on things depended to a great extent on just where he was in his life at that time.

He certainly did not regret the founding of the United States of America nor did he ever declare the Revolutionary War as one that should not have been fought to its final conclusion.

Franklin uttered his famous quote about good war and bad peace at the end of the French and Indian War in 1755. Twenty years later his stance on pushing the Revolutionary War to a successful conclusion in defiance of peace offers by the Crown would demonstrate conclusively that he did not think all wars wrong, that sometimes it was right to fight, and sometimes a peace short of victory is a bad peace.

The upshot is that if someone throws a quote at you, ask him or her if they are aware of the circumstances of the quote (and if you are going to use a quote, be certain you know its context as well). Not every quote has the exact meaning that the quoter believes.

Even Ghandi, the man of peace, is known to have said that his movement worked because England was a nation of laws, and against a less law abiding nation violence would have been necessary to gain India's independence.