By Katie Kieffer
The Allegory of War and Peace by Pompeo Batoni
Our country is at war in Iraq. We hear of potential terrorist threats on our country on a daily basis. I can’t remember the last time I went to the airport and the Homeland Security Advisory System’s “threat level” was lower than “High” or “Orange.” We are continually bombarded with signs of war and violence. Consequently, it’s easy to become numb to war when most of our daily activities are peaceful. Aloofness puts us in danger, however, of risking the very peace we enjoy.
This past weekend, I went to The Art Institute of Chicago. One of the paintings that jumped out at me was Pompeo Batoni’s painting, The Allegory of War and Peace. This is a famous work of art that can be interpreted in many ways. Here are my takeaways as a young professional on how we can achieve peace in the U.S.:
- Notice War’s physical strength compared to the soft and delicate look of Peace. Reagan promoted a policy of “peace through strength.” Reagan knew that by increasing spending on defense, he would be able to eliminate or lesson violence. Reagan tried it, and it worked. There’s a reason bars keep bouncers at the door – their strength and stature keeps people in line. Likewise, a bouncer can typically control the atmosphere at the bar without having to lay a hand on anyone – he just has to be himself: strong and intimidating. The most peaceful way of allowing as many people as possible into a bar without performing complicated background checks is to simply have a strong presence at the entrance.
- Winston Churchill described appeasement – the opposite of Reagan’s theory – this way: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.”
- Winston Churchill described appeasement – the opposite of Reagan’s theory – this way: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.”
- An investment in defense is an investment in peace. Notice the protective shield that War holds over Peace’s head in the painting. Without the armor of defense, Peace would not be able to stand there and hold the olive branch. Peace is, by nature, vulnerable. Her vulnerability is one of her greatest attributes, but since humans are inclined to envy, fighting, hatred and other forms of vice and violence, she needs the protection of War’s strength.
- This is not a battle scene. This painting illustrates the fact that we don’t necessarily need to engage in brutal battles to stay at peace. Rather, during times of peace, we need to invest in and possess the defensive and strategic systems and tactics that will show our neighbors that: Anyone – who comes in peace – is welcome into our country. At the same time, the scene isn’t a bread-breaking. War’s shield safeguards Peace, and his sword is at his side, should anyone try to attack her. Peace gently touches War’s hand – urging him to resist an actual battle – yet, she does not refuse his protective battle shield. Peace also does not take the sword from War’s hand – she merely advises it from unnecessary use. Diplomacy alone won’t keep our country safe: Bouncers rarely keep random, intoxicated visitors in line by passing out candy, smiley face stickers and free drinks. The proven way to achieve national security is through the interaction of smart, strategic defense with the goal of protecting the olive branch of Peace.
Just as a healthy, “peacefully functioning” body is dependant on strong bones, tissues and muscles, there is a delicate balancing act between maintaining peace and having a strong national defense system. All too quickly can we forget the dependence of Peace on military strength, and this painting is a gentle and timely reminder.
This is a well-articulated post, but I do disagree with the general thought that military buildup and strength are sufficient deterrent to enemy attack. It has been a general fallacy throughout history that strength alone is sufficient to deter enemy attack. While this has at times been true, this has only been the case when the military force in question was so vast it could not possibly be rivaled. Even during the height of the Roman Empire the vast legions could not win every battle or prevent every war.
Please remember that Chamberlain’s appeasement plan was meant to buy time to allow him to build up the British military to fight Germany; not to simply make peace at any cost. Chamberlain miscalculated greatly, and his soft demeanor and appearance only encouraged Hitler to march to war. But the cause of war was not appeasement – it was the flawed and broken foreign and economic policy that sprang from World War I.
America’s military might did not stop September 11, 2001. Nor is it designed to. The roots of that attack are mired in our alleged economic imperialism. Our armies are but one tool in the might arsenal of democracy. Does America benefit from the finest military in the world? Absolutely. A nation in a position as ours needs the strongest, brightest and best soldiers ever known. But American strength is tied as much to our economic clout as it is to our military strength. We should foster that as much as we do our military might.
What does that mean? If America wants to continue to lead the world, we need to build our economic ties with other world powers. We need to reduce the political and economic incentive to go to war – not just hold to the fact that no world power can currently win a war against us. Again, throughout history wars have been won by those who change the rules. We do not want to encourage our rivals to change the rules. We want them to join us in building a better global society.
Reagan and Bush I were awesome. They were un-apologetically tough, but kept a dialogue with some enemies just in case.
An investment in defense is an investment in peace.
To a point. But dollars are dollars. There comes a point where paying for nearly 50 percent of the world’s defense is sort of nuts. We’re a great country, but if it’s crazy to pay for Germany’s health care, why is it not as crazy to have soldiers sit there? And why is it okay to not have businesses compete for military contracts? These things drive fiscal conservatives (like GOPer Tom Davis in that linked report) crazy…
The proven way to achieve national security is through the interaction of smart, strategic defense with the goal of protecting the olive branch of Peace.
Nice. Awesome post — awesome writing.