Foundation. Peace has ever been mankinds desire, and yet throughout history war has been his common practice. Well, consider the major conflicts of just the 20th century in which america has fought; world war i, world war ii, the korean war, the vietnam war, the iraqi war i and ii, the afghan war and, of course, the cold war. In the wake of each war came the question, how can we make and more importantly, how can we keep peace with other nations . Or are we doomed as in George Orwells apocalyptic novel 1984 to a state offer fetch wall war . Perpetual war . One way is peace through strength, a basic principle of the Reagan Administration and a principal reason why the cold war ended at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. Another path to peace is to rely on state craft ground in the principles of liberty and equality articulated in the declaration of independence. Now, sometimes the americans, early statesmen approved limited military and political intervention overseas. They took their lead from the roman adage if you want peace, rare for war. Prepare for war. But how far have we strayed from these principles . Have we become the policemen of the world in our laudable desire to extend freedom . Have we adopted a policy of nation building regardless of the wishes of the nation we seek to rebuild . In his newest book, to make and keep peace, Angelo Codevilla says that our 20th century and 21st century leaders have confused peace and war as well as americas interests and the worlds wishes. They have forgotten, if they ever knew, the lessons of the past and neglected the wisdom of the founders. Dr. Codevilla offers no easy answers, insisting that peace requires that we make friendship with each other at home and avoid the near occasions of war abroad. Our guest is superbly qualified to explore the many dimensions of peace. Professor of emeritus of International Relations at boston university, a former Research Fellow at the hoover institution, a senior staff member of the u. S. Senate select committee on intelligence, exforeign Service Officer and naval officer. The author of 14 books and numerous articles and leading unly cases here and abroad and possessor of one of the sharpest minds in the realm of public policy. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in giving a warm heritage welcome to the author of to make and keeps, dr. Angelo codevilla. [applause] i was moved to write this book by a commercial that i heard on fox news for the Wounded Warrior project, an eminently worthy cause. The commercial, the solicitation was accompanied by a plaintive song that asked us to say a prayer for peace. That got me a bit angry, quite a bit angry. Suppose, i said to myself, that you had been paying plumbers to fix your houses pipes. The pipes still leaked. And someone said to you, say a prayer for your pipes. [laughter] you would say to yourself, well, god has nothing to do with my pipes. I didnt hire god to fix my pipes, i hired those plumbers, and the pipes are still leaking. They didnt do the job. Theres something wrong with the plumbers. Whats wrong with the plumbers . We have, we hired statesmen to superintend our business of peace and war for the purpose of providing us with peace, and instead theyve given us war without end. War which they have no intention of ending or which they seem happy enough to continue superintending. Why . Whats wrong with that . Why dont we have peace . Well, that, of course, is the reason, that they do not have the intention of creating peace. Why dont they . Well, because if you look, if you go to any of the u. S. Governments academic venues, you see that they are, that they, that they preach what one might call the cliff notes version of [inaudible] namely, according to them, that war and peace are not really distinguishable, that International Affairs is a seamless continuum between ordinary business and mutual destruction. That, of course, is not what the dictionaries say. Dictionaries are quite clear about what war is and what peace is. Not so the u. S. Government, not so statesmen, not so, in fact, much of the academic literature today. Hence, it is not surprising that our National Discourse on the subject of war and peace is a sterile confrontation between neoconservatives who see the as president george bush articulated in his 2005 second inaugural is a process be by which we try to secure the worlds freedom and a libertarian illusion that we can somehow avoid the rest of the world. The common sense of the aegis is quite against that. Most recently a wall street journal New York Times poll showed that a Strong Majority of the American People believe that the u. S. Government should be less active in the world, but at the same time the same poll showed that a majority of the American People wanted the u. S. Government to be much more assertive against americas enemies in the world. Now, Mainstream Media read that as a kind of contradiction in the american mind. Well, of course it is no such thing. In fact, the opinions of the American People reflect the wisdom of the ages; namely, that one ought to seek peace, seek to stay out of trouble but that one ought to earn that peace by being terribly assertive, terribly so against our enemies. We have failed to do that, and my book is an attempt to rekindle our attention to the basic fact that the basic objective, the natural objective of state craft is the provision of peace. We do not deal states ought not to be dealing with foreign nations in order to deal with foreign nations, for International Relations is not an end in itself just as plowing fields is not an end in itself but, rather, an end to the p crops that one wishes to produce. The purpose of International Relations is so that we may lead here at home the life that we wish to lead. The purpose of securing peace abroad is to secure peace among ourselves at home. And it just so happens that failure to secure peace, to earn peace among foreign nations really does tend to bring about the loss of peace among ourselves. One of historys more poignant teachings from the pell by nice war is that sparta and athens destroyed their own domestic peace by failing to fight one another with the purpose of somehow bringing that fight to an end. The purpose of the natural purpose of any activity is the product of that activity, and so the natural purpose of international [inaudible] of the most active part of International Affairs which, of course, is war is the securing rest and peace. Y now, my book begins with a, with a clarification about the nature of peace; namely, that there is no such thing as peace simply, but there are only such instances of peace from time to time as anyone, as any nation is capable of earning for itself. Yi all instances of peace are somebodys peace against somebody elses version of peace. And they are maintained only insofar as those who establish this are willing to maintain it. Again, there is nothing permanent about peace just as there is naturally nothing permanent about any war. Now, the understanding that peace is a natural priority is not natural to mankind. Mankind is really no stranger to the animal kingdoms tendency to regard other members of its species as troubles or natural prey. Only a few civilizations have understood that only one civilization really, our own, the judeochristian civilization has understood that peace is preferable to war, that rest is preferable to constant movement. And that understanding comes from an understanding that hand hand that mankind is one. The differences between peoples is considerably smaller than the difference between any human being and any member of any other see cease. See cease. See cease. Species. That understanding has both christian and classical greek intellectual roots. em bodying that embodying that understanding in state craft, of course, was a, was and continues to be a struggle both intellectual and moral. The clearest elaboration of the proposition that the natural end of state craft is peace, of course, is a christian one. You see it in, of course, most clearly in jesus reply to pilate about his kingdom. His kingdom, he said, is not of this world. Jesus gods kingdom is not of this world. St. Augustin elaborated that point. Christians, he said, should be indifferent to the fate of the rohan em ire, because the fate of individual souls is far more important than what happens to any group of people. Hence, the primacy in christian thought of peace which is the condition most conducive to men pursuing their highest potentiality, the highest purpose of which theyre capable; namely, contemplation of service to god. In the same way, greek thought predisposes us to follow what it understands to be mans naturally highest and most peculiar purpose. That is also to be pursued most easily, most conveniently, most naturally in a state of peace. Now, that embodying that insight into practice, structures and practice of state craft, as i say, has been the work of ages. We, there has always been a contrary tendency even within our civilization beginning in the 15th century, the rise of europes kingdoms tended to equate goodness with the success ofb mnj monarchs, monarchs who pd their open primacy their own primacy ahead of peace. nr hence, monarchs conceived of themselves as in a natural state of war against one another. Had earn political thought beginning with machiavelli and hobbs imagined nothing but a natural state of conflict and did not see any goodness in the pursuit of anything other than primacy. Whereas, of course, the objective, the natural objective of state craft ought to be the pursuit of peace. Why . Well, because, again, peace is what allows human beings to concentrate on that which makes us most peculiarly human. Now, this does not mean that the laws of nature and natures god prohibits selfdefense because, of course, the laws of nature and natures god involve, certainly, include the fact of human freedom. And human freedom, of course, implies the capacity the fact that some humans will be rapacious toward with others and, of course, makes it necessary for people to defend themselves violently more often than not. So, but what it does do is, again, to highlight what christian thought does and, again, what classical thought does is to focus on the natural purpose of state craft. The American Revolution was, in fact, a revolution against both the absolute power of government and against the violent priorities of most governments. This really must be very clearly understood, that the American Revolutions intention of establishing limited government went hand in hand with the American Revolutionaries primacy of, with the primacy of peace in the American Revolutionaries thought. Some arguments have been made by some neoconservatives that american statesmen, the american statesmen of the founding era were concerned with peace because they were not Strong Enough to prevail in a war, that had they been stronger, they would have, in fact, used that strength to force their understanding of the right way to live upon other nations. There is zero, precisely zero evidence for that this in the tt of early americans. The declaration of independence is very clear that the revolution was to secure for americans rights which are common to all men in all places including the right to selfgovernment regardless of the nature of that government. The americans were also clear that they considered themselves especially this is clearest in the thought of john adams they considered themselves peculiarly blessed in having the kind of moral habits which made possible that way of life. They did not expect that those habits would spread quickly, if at all. In fact, they noticed that even indigenous efforts to spread that form, the american form of government foundered on the fact that the rest of the world was really not, not attuned to american, to the kinds of moral habits that the American People had enjoyed and that these habits, these moral habits were, existed precariously among americans. The american focus on peace went along with a thoroughly conventional and, let us say, proper understanding that state craft requires like Everything Else in life requires a clear and jealous [inaudible] of ends and means. That one must make sure that one has the means to secure whatever claims one makes and that one ought to make no claims other than the claims that are, that one is able to support. This, of course, is no different from the notion that one ought to have in hand the money necessary to pay for ones purchases. [laughter] that, to presume to have certain goods without the ability to pay for them is at the very least quixotic. The, so both of these, of these insights, the necessary combination of ends and means and the priority of peace really werexnc behind the paradigm of International Relations of the founding generation most clearly supported by John Quincy Adams in the Monroe Doctrine and in the explanation therefore. The Monroe Doctrine, contrary to contemporary misunderstandings thereof, had nothing to do with asserting any kind of sid ranty over the americans, but rather itc was a statement of priorits on the part of the americans, a statement of priorities that came not from John Quincy Adams, but which John Quincy Adams shucked up on behalf of the founding generation of which he was the last member. That consisted of the realization that what happened on the other side of the oceans would concern the United States relatively little insofar as it concerns what simply concerned them. Of course, John Quincy Adams was perfectly aware that of the argument made at the time that were, that had napoleon been able to consolidate his mastery not only over europe, but over england as well and had been able to dominate the oceans as well as the european continent, that would have posed a tremendous danger to america. And had europe as a whole, had the Holy Alliance been able to control all latin america, that would have posed a tremendous danger to the United States. But he believed that there was no danger of that happening, and, in fact, that the, the Monroe Doctrine was premised on his confidence that this could not happen and that there were enough contending interests within europe to keep that from happening. Had it been otherwise, his formulation of the Monroe Doctrine would have been different, but it was not. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated on the basis of his near certainty that no single power could dominate eurasia and, therefore, threaten and the americas and, therefore, threaten the United States. Abraham lincoln who would have been a follower of John Quincy Adams during his one and only term in the house of representatives and whose secretary of state, william seward, literally worshiped John Quincy Adams knew in his bones that the actually stated in 1838 all the powers of the, of europe disposing of the worlds treasures, our own accepted, can could not be force make a track on the blue ridge or take a drink from the ohio in a trial of a thousand years. The problem, as lincoln saw it, the problem that america would face would be not so much the threat of foreign nations, but rather the growing enmity, the enmity that was growing among americans, the tendency of americans to regard each other as enemies. The issue of slavery, of course,ing with the greatest of course, being the greatest of the causes of the pretext for that. But realizing that, as had George Washington, that there are many, many causes for or occasions for strife among our own people. Of course, George Washington had pointed out, he had experienced that americans divisions over Foreign Affairs were a major cause of this loss of this fatal loss of this always potentiality fatal loss of friendship among the American People. And so Abraham Lincolns policy domestic and Foreign Policy regarding peace and war always was aimed primarily at safeguarding and then somehow restoring this friendship among the American People. Of course, he faced that problem in the worst of circumstances when, in fact, doing so required defeating the one part of the american polity which had taken arms against the other. And yet, and yet we see from especially from his second inaugural that Abraham Lincoln aimed above all at the unity of the country as restoring that friendship. Unfortunately for america, the people who governed america after lincolns death engaged in a very different policy, one which can best be described as americas First Venture in nation building, remaking the defeated south. First of all, considering the defeated south as a defeated nation which lincoln was absolutely loathe to do. And then reshaping it according to some thought, some ideal or at least better way of life. That, of course, turned into an occasion for continuing violence and continuing ill dealing among american ill feeling among americans. Ill feeling which lasted a hundred years and which some in our time are att