Neocon Principles: #4 Ceasefires are only desirable after our military objectives have been accomplished

Ceasefires should only occur after our enemy has been completely vanquished. Any ceasefire short of achieving our military objectives is a bad ceasefire. Only the enemy's surrender should signal a ceasefire. A ceasefire prior to the achievement of our objectives will only give the enemy an opportunity to rearm and resupply himself. It will only encourage the enemy to continue fighting at some future date.

Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means.  Neocons say that politics is a less desirable means for the continuation of war than war itself. Indeed, there is no need to see war as a continuation of politics which is to say something that is pursued only when diplomacy breaks down. For neocons war is the primary value in itself.

Consider the following:

...one might well ask whether the military thought of Carl von Clausewitz, developed over a hundred and seventy years ago, has anything relevant to offer to soldiers of the 21st century. Indeed, one author has recently argued that Clausewitz's wake is long overdue: "[Future] war will be fought not to pursue national interests, but to kill enemy leaders, to convert opponents to one's religion, to obtain booty, or sometimes, for simple entertainment. Thus the core of Clausewitz's philosophy of war--that states wage wars using armies in pursuit of political objectives--will disappear."... Other writers have maintained that nuclear weaponry, transnational constabulary warfare, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotrafficking, and the increased compartmentalization of political and military leadership evident in modern states have rendered obsolete Clausewitz's definition of war as an act of policy, and with it his tripartite conception of war. ...We are further told that the value of Clausewitz's masterwork, On War, is diminished because of its failure to address war as a cultural phenomenon: It not only fails to explain why wars occur, it views war from only a single perspective, from within the Western nation-state paradigm.

Thus war is the primary undertaking itself not just a means of achieving political objectives. Sometimes it is even pursued for its "entertainment value." Peace is undesirable because it's boring; the emotions go into hibernation. Only the violence of war spurs men on to glorious pursuits. As Nietsche said, "A good war hallows any cause." Nietzsche went on: "You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I say unto you: it is the good war that hallows any cause. War and courage have accomplished more great things than love of thy neighbor." In  other words, you can achieve glory through war, and peace is for weenies.  Peace, neighbor love and other sissy sentiments will never achieve the grand and glorious things that war can and will achieve. As Rush Limbaugh says:  "Peace follows victory." There can be no peace until war has achieved a complete and total victory, and we have beaten our enemies into complete and total submission. Anything short of victory such as a "negotiated peace" can not possibly produce a state of affairs with which real men can be satisfied.

Neocon of the month: Elliott Abrams.

As assistant Secretary of State to Ronald Reagan, Abrams was deeply involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. Inexplicably appointed by George W Bush to oversee the Palestine-Israel conflict. Flew to London under the pseudonym Mr. Kenilworth and asked the Sultan of Brunei for a $10 million donation to the Iran-Contra startup. Plead guilty in 1991 to witholding information from Congress. Pardoned by George H W Bush for his Iran-Contra crimes. In 2005, appointed by George W Bush as Deputy National Security Adviser.