Black Knight #4

In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a very sensible principle is established: anyone seeking the office of the Presidency should, under no circumstances, be allowed to hold that office. Someone needs to be President, this is true; but no one who will devote the massive resources necessary to attain that power can be up to any good.

War is a similar conundrum. Anyone who would eagerly start a war should probably never be trusted to judge when one is necessary. Reluctance to take human life, even human life you consider "evil," is a hallmark characteristic of any moral person anywhere on the planet. War means death.

Inaction, however, can also mean death. The failure of the United States to act in Rwanda caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, and that's just an example in the last fifteen years or so. So don't be confused into thinking that I am suggesting a sort of pacficist's suicide pact; that we refuse to use force under any circumstances necessary.

So what are some useful criteria?

Certainly self-defense.

Certainly to defend those who are unable to defend themselves.

And always, I would hope, with the knowledge that winning a war is inconsequentially easy in comparison with winning the peace that follows.