My father retired after serving in first the Navy and then the Air Force, and my brother currently is on active duty with the Air Force. I attempted to join the Air Force myself following college. (The Air Force, in a moment of great wisdom, looked at the results of my physical and wished me well in civillian life.)

 Therefore, the idea of loss and sacrifice are not abstract concepts to me. In similar times in the past, my father could have been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. Now, it could be my brother, and this is without counting all the others I either know or know of that serve our nation with distinction in the military. The idea of learning that any of them might be lost in battle is a source of a fair amount of internal unrest.

 However, the main piece for this issue of One Man Watching was one that I nonetheless felt compelled to write. When it comes right down to it, when there are people like Adolf Hitler of a past generation or Saddam Hussein of today, the risks of sacrifice are there whether we are prepared to fight or not, and a case could be made that, if we are known to be unwilling to fight in our defense, the risks become greater, not smaller.

 So I write this as one who hopes and prays for peace but honors those who are willing to fight if it becomes necessary because desiring peace is not enough. When evil men are about, we must be willing to do without peace in the short term if we hope to have any in the long term. 

Brad Pardee 
Editor

P.S. As I read the draft of this to my wife, she suggested something that I cannot help but agree with. It is her suggestion that, no matter what position we might personally hold regarding the possibility of war, we all join together to pray for wisdom on the part of our leaders.

The weight on their shoulders is much greater than we can imagine, and they possess gathered intelligence and information that we do not. It could be that, if we knew what they know, our own positions might differ, either pro or con, from where they are now. God, fortunately, is not faced with that limitation, and if His wisdom wins the day, it bodes well for the day and the days to come.

 A ruthless dictator confronts the world with a difficult situation. This man has a history of repressing his own citizens. The world still remembers the last time war was waged with this nation, and although there are those who believe that he again threatens his neighbors, nobody is eager for war to happen again.

 Consequently, a world leader takes the course of peace. He meets with this dictator as a diplomat and statesman. Some sacrifices must be made to reach a compromise, but in the end, an agreement is reached which will preserve the peace. The statesman is hailed upon his return home and the world rests somewhat easier, having averted a war.

 Does this sound familiar to you? Perhaps, like me, you think that this sounds like the wishes of many who have spoken at peace rallies in recent weeks. If only this story could be truth instead of fiction.

 Ah, but it is truth. It is history. And six months after this history agreement, it was broken when Adolf Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia.

 You see, the story I told was not about Iraq but Nazi Germany. The statesman was not George Bush or any other modern leader but British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

 On the steps of the Prime Minister's residence at 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Chamberlain read a statement which said, "We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe." He added, "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

 History has shown us that Adolf Hitler had different ideas. Within a year of the aforementioned "peace", Hitler had moved beyond Czechoslovakia and his armies were crushing Poland. The combined rhetoric of an impotent and ineffective League of Nations did not slow him down any more than the Munich Agreement in which Chamberlain had mistakenly placed his hope.

 If we are to learn from history, then, we should perhaps go back to another time, about 170 years earlier than Munich. Patrick Henry of Virginia stood before the House of Burgesses and said, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House."

 He went on to describe the British troops gathering in the colonies and asked, "What have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?"

 After discussing the British response to colonial efforts, he concluded, "In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.....It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-but there is no peace. .....Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

 Similarly, I think we can legitimately ask what there has been in the conduct of Saddam Hussein and the government of Iraq to justify the hopes of peace that ring out today. What new things can we debate with the Iraqis which have not already been debated? Is peace really THAT vital to us that we are willing to sacrifice all else to achieve it?

 Perhaps the words of Patrick Henry ought to be remembered as well as the tragic lesson learned by Neville Chamberlain. Certainly peace is a noble end, desirable to possess and worth working for. Certainly, if we are going to go to war with Iraq, we must do so with good reason and without rushing blindly into battle. However, peace, however desirable it may be and however fervently we might work for it, is possible only when both parties desire peace. Patrick Henry understood that where Neville Chamberlain did not. When today's statesmen and leaders are remembered, which model will they be remembered for having followed?