from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

Posted: 19 Jul 2009 07:12 PM PDT

The "Cycle of Violence" is a phrase that has become a fundamental part of the
liberal lexicon. Its key point is to imply that violence is itself a
useless tool for stopping violence, in the process it morally equates all
forms of violence, whether it is the police officer returning fire at an
armed robber, a soldier firing on a terrorist, or a homeowner firing in
defense of his family. The phrase "Cycle of Violence" renders them all
equally wrong and equally hopeless.

That is where "Breaking the Cycle of Violence"
comes in. Since the phrase itself presumes that violence cannot stop other
forms of violence, only keep the violence going, the cycle can only to be
broken by agreeing to an end to the fighting... on any terms. The more
popular word for this is known as appeasement.

The two obvious
flaws in the premise of a "Cycle of Violence", is that first it presumes
that violence cannot be used to stop other forms of violence. This is
blatantly false as anyone with even an elementary knowledge of history
would understand, after all much of human history was built on the
successful use of violence. Secondly it treats violence itself as the key
characteristic, while sidelining the political and moral identities of the
participants themselves.

By treating all forms of violence as
equally wrong, the moral equivalence behind the idea of a "Cycle of
Violence" does not distinguish between the relative validity of one side's
position, or the relative evil of another's. In the liberal lexicon all
sides are presumed to be equally bad for resorting to violence, with the
only moral parameter allowed is the relative strength of both sides. The
stronger side is presumed to have more alternative options for settling
the conflict rather than violence, while the weaker side is presumed to
have less.

This premise has run through centuries of revolutionary
thinking, justifying the worst atrocities by the "oppressed" on the
grounds that they had no choice. From the French Revolution to Native Son,
from Hitler and Che to the Palestinian Arab suicide bomber, this element
within the cycle of violence demands concessions from the stronger party
and none from the weaker party. Accepting the demands of the weaker party
then become the means of resolving the conflict and breaking the cycle of
violence. Once again, appeasement.

Stripped of all the high minded
rhetoric of social and global justice, talk of breaking the cycle of
violence, most often serves to reward the aggressor, the terrorist, the
warlord, the guerrilla and the thug. It plays perfectly into their
essential strategy of bleeding a larger more organized force and waiting
for negotiations to begin. The negotiations themselves of course only
prolong the cycle of violence, because it is a one sided desire to end the
violence that has brought about the negotiations in the first place.
Violence then becomes a negotiating tactic, "Give me what I want or the
killing will resume." Naturally blame for the violence falls on the
stronger party that rejects the offer.

The truth of the matter
though is that violence is only a cycle until one side gains a decisive
victory. That is why the liberal agenda is to prevent such a victory by
restricting the tactics available to the stronger side, through lawfare,
boycotts and political pressure; handicapping its offensive capabilities
to break the faith of the public and the nation's leaders in its own
military, thus leaving them no option but to begin the appeasement
negotiations.

Violence is not a hopeless cycle. It is a matter of
strategy and tactics. In some situations it is better to make peace, when
it is with an enemy who in turn wants peace, rather than concessions, and
who does represent an ongoing threat. In other situations it is vital to
act decisively and end the violence by waging a comprehensive assault
against the attackers.

Violence only becomes a cycle when liberals successfully
handicap the military to insure that they cannot win, while leaving the
enemy an open field and easy forgiveness for any tactics they might
choose.

Yet the most potent weapon on and off the battlefield is
morale. The perception of a war as going uphill or downhill is key to the
morale of both the public and the troops. It is a tactic that Cronkite and
the Viet Cong understood quite well during the Vietnam War. It is a tactic
that the Israeli and American left, and Islamic terrorists understand
quite well too. Their victory cannot come on the battlefield, only as
blows struck against the morale of their First World opponents.

The
Cycle of Violence theory is key to creating the perception of an
unnwinnable and futile conflict that can only be resolved when we sit down
at the table with the barbarians and butchers, and discuss what we can
give them to make them stop killing us. And there is no idea that serves
the enemies of civilization better, than that war against terrorists is
futile, and that it is better to be a live dog cringing at the
totalitarian boot, than a dead lion. Better Red than Dead, or better Dead
than Red? Better Green than Dead, or better Dead than Green. A
civilization that can no longer answer that question properly has already
bowed its knees to the enemy, and is only waiting to discuss the price of
its own slavery. All to end "The Cycle of Violence."