I was writing a comment on another blog when it struck me, the Nobel Peace Prize is, outside of the Pulitzer, probably the single most inappropriately awarded prize in history. No, I am not referring to politically motivated snubs, such as the Carter nomination. Even when the prize is awarded as intended, it is still given to entirely the wrong parties.

The problem, as I see it, is that the Peace Prize is given to, for lack of a better description "peacemakers". That is, it is given to those who insert themselves at the end of a conflict, gather up the parties who have been exhausted by conflict, and draw up the final terms. Or else it is given to those who establish "do gooder" groups, groups which make a lot of noise about the good they do, but whose impact, outside of the realm of PR, is doubtful.

Let us look at one event to see what I mean. The Egyptian-Israeli peace accords. In the popular mythology, this was brought about by Jimmy Carter and his tireless efforts for peace. But as I pointed out several times, the peace itself was already in the cards. Not to mention the point raised by the WSJ's Best of the Web that Carter opposed any bilateral peace and only jumped on the Egypt-Israel accords at the last moment.

But that is not to say that Sadat and Begin deserve the credit. Begin may deserve some, as his policy of settlement made the Arab powers worry about a permanently enlarged Israel, which made them more open to negotiations, as the alternative was even worse. But even then, those two may have signed the accord, or, in the case of Begin, created policies which helped create policies which brought the two parties to the table, but that still overlooks the main actors.

The real creators of the Egypt-Israeli peace accords Yoffe, Sharon, Tal and the IDF troops who took the Sinai in 1967. Had Israel not shown that they could defeat Egypt in the battlefield, Egypt would have continued to harbor suspicions that they could take land from Israel, and any agreement would have been but a piece of paper (as our present "peace accords" between Israel and the Palestinians show). By showing they could defeat Egyptian troops, and by taking the Sinai, putting troops right on Egypt's doorstep, the Israel troops did more to advance peace in the region than all the negotiators in history.

And that is the truth behind most "peace" accords that the Nobel committee overlooks. Without a military victory, or at least the threat of military action, to back them up, peace accords are often hollow promises. Look at the disarmament clauses of Versailles, did Germany honor them? Why not? Because they felt they had never truly "lost" to France, and thought that should the time come they would be able to hold their own against France once more. Germany may have agreed to the treaty, but they never felt that it was backed with sufficient force to be a credible threat.

A similar situation existed between the end of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The British may have agreed to the independence of the colonies, but they did not truly believe they were to be permanently dispossessed. In the mind of many British they had conceded defeat not to the colonies but to France. As soon as revolution left France in a weakened state, they began to treat the colonials as colonials once more, harassing shipping, impressing sailors, and so on. Until the War of 1812 proved the colonies could defeat the British independent of French aid, all the peace accords in the world could not convince Britain that the colonies were truly independent, at least not permanently.

 Or maybe we should look at the most obvious example of a man of "peace" who brought nothing but conflict and death, and a man of "war" who brought peace. Let us compare Chamberlain and Patton.

Chamberlain, bringing "peace in our times" gave Germany the mountain defenses which protected Czechoslovakia, gutting that nation's defenses, forcing them to grant concession after concession to Germany and emboldening Hitler to make his demands of Poland*. At the very least, had Chamberlain not acted, Germany would have had to fight the allies without Czech armament plants and natural resources, attempting an attack against hardened mountain defenses held by thirty five modern divisions, with a hostile Poland and France on either side, and without the support of the Soviet Union, as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact had not yet been signed. It is doubtful such a conflict would have gone well for Germany. Not to mention that several Wehrmacht officers were planning to stage a coup should such a conflict begin under those circumstances. Whether it would have happened, and whether or not it would have succeeded we cannot know, but by folding and giving in to Hitler, the man of peace managed to prolong a brutal dictatorship and helped plunge the world into a six year war that left tens of millions dead.

On the other hand, Patton, through countless victorious campaigns, brought about the downfall of Germany and Italy, liberated tens of millions and caused the final destruction of the Nazi philosophy as a viable political threat. His campaigns did more to spread peace throughout the world than all the treaties on earth. In fact, had we followed his lead and struck against the Soviets while they were weakened by German attacks (and still largely dependent on US aid for supplies**), we may even have been spared fifty years of cold war and hundreds of millions would have avoiding living and dying under communist tyrannies in eastern Europe. All of which makes the "war monger" sound like a much more successful "peacemaker***" than the "man of peace".

I could go on in this vein at great length, the way Carter's "peace" approach, cutting missile stockpiles and ABM development allowed the Soviet union to avoid major outlays, and emboldened them to invade Afghanistan and otherwise adopt an aggressive stance as they were sure Carter would not react. Or the way Reagan's "cowboy diplomacy" actually caused the Soviets to scale back their activities, and how his military spending eventually bankrupted the "evil empire". I could even go back and contrast "peaceful" Nicias and "war monger" Cleon, and show how the man of peace brought disaster to Athens while the "warmonger" won a victory which could have brought peace, had the "peacemakers" not wasted the opportunity. Throughout history it has been the "men of war" who have truly brought peace, while those who talk most about the peace they hope to create have just brought suffering, destruction and death.

I could go on, but why bother? The truth is obvious for all to see, and more examples will only become repetitive. My argument is already clear, that those who win the Nobel Peace Prize, by and large, do not deserve it.

So, in order to correct this situation, I would like, in this informal forum, to make my own nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize. I am nominating the US military. I doubt the luminaries in Stockholm would ever consider them, but ever since the war against the Barbary pirates all the way through the current conflicts in the middle east, the military has done more to bring peace to this world than anyone else. Think back to 2003-2004, in the immediate aftermath of our invasion of Iraq. What happened? Syria loosened their grip on Lebanon and Libya gave up their weapons programs. Years of negotiation by "men of peace" had never brought freedom to Lebanon, nor disarmed Libya, but one single military action accomplished both. That is not an accident.

For those accomplishments alone the military deserves the Peace Prize. When you add in "defeated fascism and national socialism" , "held back the spread of communism" and so many other accomplishments, it should be a foregone conclusion. Yet, somehow I doubt I will live to see a Peace Prize given to even a military leader, much less the military itself, no matter how much it deserves one.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

* It is arguable whether Hitler made his move on Poland early because he was emboldened by earlier success. Some Wehrmacht officers thought the push on Poland was to come in 1945, but much evidence shows Hitler expected to act sooner. However one must think that the ease with which he absorbed the Saar, Austria and Czechoslovakia made his think that at least the Danzig corridor would be given to him without a fight as well. And, given the situation in Germany, when his demands were not met, it was inevitable he would attack, as backing down would have likely brought about an uprising in the Wehrmacht, which supported him fully only as long as he won. So it is not far fetched to argue, at the least, that Chamberlain made Hitler anticipate an easy victory concerning Danzig.

** It is one of the triumphs of Soviet propaganda that they are credited with being equal partners in defeating the Germans. But for US aid the Soviet Army would have been as ill supplied as the tsarist armies of the first war. Stalin may have moved many industries beyond the Urals, but judging from the famine and shortages of the USSR before the war it is unlikely those industries he saved could have maintained anything approaching the level of supply he achieved thanks to US shipments. (The other great propaganda victory is the attribution of deaths due to purges to the "tens of millions" war dead. Somehow few ever question the lumping of the victims of Stalin in with the victims of Hitler.)

*** Samuel Colt's name for his famous pistol was not an accident, nor was it a cynical or sarcastic name. At the time many recognized the simple truth that a well armed populace is a free populace, and that armaments create both peace and freedom. While current dogma argues that disarmament creates peace, that is a modern idiocy. Historically the disarmed, such as the Spartan Helots, were slaves, and lived not under peace but in terror of their masters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Welcome readers from Crawfish's Swamp and AllMilitary.com. Please explore the blog and let me know what you think. I know both of those blogs linked to this post, but there is probably at least one other post you will find interesting (and maybe one or two that will tick you off), so please have a look around.