geeky
In our review of Presidential peacemaking, we learned that sometimes, discretion was the better part of valor, as some chief executives looked for peaceful solutions as an alternative to a war that could not be won. For example, James K. Polk flexed his military muscles and talked tough to Great Britain over where the boundary to the Oregon territory should be, but he soon realized that war with such a strong nation was not a good idea, since he already had one war on the go with Mexico. Similarly, when faced with the Trent Affair in which two Confederate envoys were seized off of a British ship, Abraham Lincoln chose to give his regrets to the British over the incident rather than pick a fight with them. "One war at a time" was what Lincoln is reported to have said. Thus sometimes, peace has been the product of pragmatism.
Other times, Presidents who had witnessed the horrors of war firsthand, such as Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower, purposefully steered the nation on a course of peace. "Let us have peace" is what Grant famously declared, and the same is inscribed above his tomb. James Monroe toured the nation spreading goodwill in the "era of good feelings" following the disastrous War of 1812. Although he had performed bravely as a soldier, Monroe realized that there were times when it was better to be a lover than a fighter.
Some Presidents have made peace their mission and have been rewarded for it. Jimmy Carter reached out to the enemy camps in Egypt and Israel, hoping to bring about peace in a seemingly impossible situation involving nations whose hostility dated back to biblical times. Although perceived as pugnacious, Theodore Roosevelt brokered a peace between Russia and Japan. Woodrow Wilson hoped that the First World War would be the "war to end all wars" and that his League of Nations would prevent the recurrence of such conflict. All were rewarded for their peaceful pursuits with the Nobel Peace Prize at a time when the recipient was judged by accomplishment rather than intention.
Peace is not always good politics, though given the state of modern weapons and the potential for massive loss of life in modern warfare, it seems implausible that the public today would cry out for a call to war. This is not always the case, as demonstrated by the national call for vengeance after the September 11th attacks, when very few in Congress opposed the war in Afghanistan. Would the news networks today call for a president to take the nation to war the war that the Hearst newspapers did when William McKinley was encouraged to declare war on Spain? One would hope not, though it is difficult to predict the limits of modern political polarization and its resulting media outcry.
So what has been learned from our look at Presidents at Peace? The modern day variable of terrorism has made the old rules or war largely inapplicable. War in the 21st century is less a contest between nations and more a clash of ideologies. Often modern warfare is not between nations, but within nations. The unique nature of each conflict makes the application of one-size-fits-all rules of engagement impossible. There will be times when peaceful solutions will be called for, and times when they will not adequately address acts of terror, genocide or other significant injustices. As President Barack Obama said in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, "We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified... Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies." Once again, we are reminded of the importance of a courageous and principled Congress as well as an informed electorate to serve as a system of checks and balances in order to ensure that when armed conflict arises it is for valid and principled reasons for the protection of human life, and not founded on motives of economics, purely political interests, or manipulated and manufactured alarm. This is a tall order, one which reinforces the importance of the selection of the chief executive.