I think a better reply to Sowell would be that he is making an invalid generalization. Wether or not a cease-fire is in the interest of peace depends on the circumstances. I have not read the column, but I am guessing, having read a recent, entirely theoretical column of his, that he didn’t address the circumstances.

But, if I were to analogize the situation, I would do so as:

Sowell: Chemo doesn’t cure cancer every time and it has side effects, so we shouldn’t use it.

I would reply: Chemo is a necessary step to curing some cancers some of the time, and so in some circumstances you should tyr.

Anyway, I think I’m starting to come around to your interpretation of that column after re-reading it a few times with the clear head of Sunday afternoon.

Oh, I’ve read the article now. What garbage. The US was opposed to the British use of force in the Falklands War because Argentina was a friendly country in Latin America. That was diplomacy, not pacifism (pretty disgraceful diplomacy, but I’m British). His conclusion is ‘”Peace” movements don’t bring peace but war’ Gabriel, what do you mean “We all understand what he meant …”? Thomas Sowell doesn’t seem to be included in that ‘we’. The West, as you say, has peace movements. Neither Iran nor Iraq, as you also note, had. They had a long, bloody, and fairly pointless war.

Some people call for lots of trepanations in the treatment of headaches. But we had a lot of trepanations and instead of health we see a dead patient.

Moreover, “peace movements” DO in fact hamper policy in countries with democratic government thus relatively empowering the war-bent dictators or authoritarians. Try having an unofficial peace rally in Iran and see how long it takes for you to get beaten in a basement.

Anyway, after reading the whole article, I still don’t think your critique is on point. Ultimately his argument is, “peace movements don’t preserve peace, but military strength does.” Put in terms of one of your analogies, it would be as if someone said, “These magical beans cure cancer,” and Sowell replied, “No they don’t, but chemotherapy does.”

In other words, he’s not arguing that peace movements “cause war,” but create conditions under which would-be aggressors don’t fear full retaliation and are therefore more likely to start wars. So it isnt that peace movements “cause war,” but that they are an ineffective means of “preventing war” (or at least less effective than balls-out military retaliation).

Whether he’s right about that or not, I have no fucking clue, but I don’t see any logical problem with the argument.

In other words, his argument wouldn’t amount to “attempts to quit smoking cause addiction,” but “some particular attempts to quit don’t work, and people end up smoking again.” And not, “medical care causes illness,” but “some types of medical care don’t work to cure some types of illness, so people stay sick.”

Perhaps it’s unjustified respect for Sowell based on his life’s work talking here, but I can’t imagine he’s stupid enough to buy the argument you ascribe to him.