PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH

The United States has a history of justifying its unilateral actions based on beliefs in American Exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, and Peace through Strength.  In spite of the semantic argument over whether the relentless bombing of Iran and the growing conflict in the Persian Gulf arena is a war or a military action, it is a unilateral decision on the part of the United States with the aid of Israel to take such action that has and will continue to result in immense suffering and destruction.   The pragmatic reasoning for initiating such a preemptive strike is based on the theory of securing peace through military strength. As pragmatic as it sounds, is it rational?  It certainly sounds like it is until one takes a closer look at the terminology and examines its  history.  First, we need to know whose peace we are talking about, the world's or a nation's?   If  it is not for world peace then there will be no peace.  

The expression of  peace through strength has varied through the centuries.  The Roman Empire had a version of it in the Latin statement "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" ("Therefore, whoever desires peace, let him prepare for war").  George Washington in a State of the Union address in 1793 said, "If we desire to secure peace...  it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."  Neville Chamberlain in dealing with Germany also advocated peace through strength.  NATO was created on the basis that the United States and its allies in Europe could preserve peace through combined military strength.  Ronald Reagan famously made it the foundation of what is known as the Reagan Doctrine.  President Trump and Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth have used it to justify military actions taken this year. 

 AN OXYMORON

When it comes to peace through strength, the message is clear; strength equals military power.  The objective of peace through strength is to maintain peace through fear of military action.  If that is the case, we cannot be talking about a sustainable peace.  Peace through instilling in others a fear of military aggression or war is simply an oxymoron.  In other words, a lasting  peace not only requires the absence of fear on the part of the strong but also a shared absence of fear between all parties concerned.   

In the nuclear age in which we live, peace through strength has led to a tentative sense of peace through the fear of mutual destruction.  Mutual self destruction is not merely a case of two or more nations destroying each other, it is a matter of destroying the entire world.  The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were small compared to the nuclear weapons of today.  Nevertheless, this reality has not stopped wars.  

Since the end of World War II, the Super Powers of the United States, Russia,and China have developed sophisticated weaponry; as in, non-nuclear missiles carrying powerful bombs, drones carrying explosives, and the use of cyber, chemical, biological, and other, unknown types of weaponry.  Peace through strength has not been able to keep peace for anyone or for any length of time.  Rather it has served as a pretext and rationale for developing more sophisticated weaponry.  It is a nothing more than a militant adaptation of  the Darwinian theory of only the strong surviving.

History has proven that peace through strength does not work.  Americans should know this.  The United States didn't come into being because it has a mighty army.  At the start of its revolutionary war, the only military it could count on were colonial militias. There was no standing army.  The continental army relied on paid volunteers for relatively short periods of time.   This ragtag army was up against what was considered the greatest military force in the world at the time, the British army and navy.  What led to the defeat of such a mighty force was great determination by the colonists and the skillful tactics by General George Washington.  A nation or a people do not need military power to defeat its enemies.  All it needs is patient determination. 

Genocide and complete destruction of a people or nations capacity to survive will only plant the seeds for another war.  Wars beget wars. The mother of all modern wars is World War I.  We are still fighting wars whose seeds were planted during that war.  It was a war fought because the countries involved felt that strength was on their side.  It was later believed that it was a war to end all wars.  How long did that last?  Peace through strength is a lie.

ALTERNATIVES

Peace is not only a worthy cause but also an essential goal to the world's survival.  If strength or the fear of war is not a means to peace, what might be?   Peace through...

Worldwide Diplomacy?

Worldwide Economic Security?

Worldwide Disarmament?

Worldwide Understanding?

Worldwide  Commitment?

What would you add?  

Why we need peace worldwide is self-explanatory, the how we attain it is complicated.  Peace requires trust.  Worldwide peace requires worldwide trust.  Not easy during the times we are living in.  

Worldwide peace requires a seemingly unworldly determination on the part of every every nation and every religion to rummage through its beliefs and get rid of anything; any doctrine or dogma that inhibits its being realized by all.

Until next time,

Norm

WHEN HISTORY RHYMES

"History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes."

Attributed to Mark Twain

While I was watching the news this morning (Saturday, February 28, 2026) regarding President Trump initiating a war with Iran, my mind recalled the story of Marcus Licinius Crassus's attempt to defeat the Parthian Empire in 54-53 BCE.   

Marcus Licinius Crassus and the Parthian Empire

Marcus Licinius Crassus (Crassus) was a dominant military and political figure in the late Roman Republic. He served as Consul, appointed by the Roman Senate, and led Rome's legions against the war with Spartacus.   Crassus was also considered the richest man in the Roman Republic and very likely the richest man in the world, at the time.  

His wealth started when he assisted Sulla in winning a civil war and benefitted from the practice of proscription, which meant that enemies of Sulla forfeited their wealth and property to the winning side.  Crassus made much of his wealth through spurious real estate practices; such as, establishing a fire brigade in Rome to fight the frequent fires that broke out in the city. He used this brigade to squeeze the owner of the property to sell his property to Crassus as damaged good.  If the owner refused, Crassus would let it burn to the ground and most likely obtain it at a much bigger steal.  As a result, Crassus owned large sections of Rome. 

Crassus is best known for having defeated Spartacus in the slave rebellion (71-73 BCE).  Pompey, who played a minor role in moping up runaway slaves involved in the revolt, was awarded by the Senate with a Triumphal procession while Crassus was only awarded and much less honor called and Ovation.  Crassus was said to not want any public notoriety such as a Triumph or Ovation because he only defeated slaves.  It is likely he was extremely put off by Pompey who was a Rome's favorite at the time.  Crassus is also noted for helping Julius Caesar rise to power.  In 60 BCE, Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey formed the First Triumvirate, with Crassus being given the purview of the lucrative Roman province of Syria.

What happens next in the story of Crassus is the story of a person who is never happy with what he has and is always looking for more.  Sharing power was not enough.  Winning a war against slaves was not enough.  He wanted to win a major war against a major power, like the Parthian Empire which bordered Syria, on his own.

* * *

The Parthian Empire began in 247 BCE in what today is Iran.  At its height, its range extended from eastern Turkey to western Pakistan and the Persian Gulf.  The Parthian Empire was not a friend of Rome.  The Parthian military was noted for its skilled horseback archers and mounted lancers.  

Crassus, in control of seven Roman legions and mercenaries from Gaul, had roughly 40,000 troops under his command.  He believed he had the overwhelming power to defeat the Parthians.  Unfortunately, Crassus did not do his homework and was not open to the advice of his generals or others.  He did not consider the landscape or distance he would force his troops to go. 

Crassus was no genial commander.  He employed the practice of decimation (cruelly executing one in ten of his own troops in a legion in which troops deserted the battlefield).   He refused the offer of King Atravasdes' offer of safe passage through Armenia, along with roughly 30, 000 foot soldiers and 10, 000 mounted lancers.  Why?  

No one really knows, but one suspects he wanted sole credit for defeating the Parthians.  Instead of going through a more forgiving landscape with and additional 40,000 troops, Crassus took the advice of chief Ariamnes of the Orsorenes to lead his troops through a grueling long march through a desert that Crassus believed would be a more direct route.  Little did Crassus know that Ariamnes was a paid spy of the Parthians.

Knowing that Crassus was on his way with a large force that would being worn down by lack of water and rest, the Parthian general, Surena, with 1,000 mounted lancers and 9,000 mounted archers met Crassus and his 40,000 troop sin 53 BCE at Carrhae in what is today eastern Turkey.  Although outnumbered four to one, the Parthians defeated Crassus, killing approximately 20,000 troops, capturing 10,000, with a remaining 10,000 fleeing the battlefield.  It was considered the worst defeat singular defeat in the history of the Roman Empire.

According to most historians, Crassus was killed in the battle.  Nevertheless there was another, perhaps legendary account, that Crassus was taken captive by Surena.  According to this story, Crassus pleaded for his life, offering to pay the Parthians a huge amount of gold.  The Parthians were having none of it.  Since the Parthians knew Crassus's obsession with wealth, they chose to execute him by pouring molten gold down his throat.   Whether true or legendary, it became a cautionary tale against lusting for wealth, power, and glory.  But like all such tales, they fail to be taken seriously by those who continue lusting for wealth, power, and glory.  

A Rhyme Within Our Time 

I agree with Mark Twain that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.  The mostly lone venture of President Trump to undertake regime change in Iran strikes me as rhyming very much with Crassus' venture to defeat the Parthians. They also share an uncanny personal history of wealth accumulation, a lust for power, and lust for glory.   

The one major difference between their stories is that unlike Crassus, President Trump does not have a similar military background.  Although he is the Command in Chief of the the U.S. military forces, he  lacks personal military field experience and needs to rely on the military expertise of his generals, which does not instill one with confidence he will do so.  After all, he recently cited his own mind (not the input of others) as what guides his actions and his morals.  

While I agree that history does not repeat itself, human behavior is very repetitious.  History shows this to be true.  I sincerely hope things turn out very well for the people of Iran and the region.  If they do, President Trump will be due his laurels,  but he must remember the whisper of the ancient Roman auriga (slave) who stood at the back of the triumphal chariot and held the laurel wreath above a triumphant leader's head and repeatedly said, "Memento homo," "You are a man;" a reminder that in a moment of triumph it is easy to forget one's mortality and humanity.  

If things do not turn out well, let us hope the rhyming ends.

Norm