No doubt Atkins' bright vision is based on the wild surmise that this world-controlling "multinational peacekeeping force" will be led by "morally responsible" leaders (perhaps even by, say, Nobel Peace Prize laureates), and that the nation-crushing operations of this global army will be carefully targeted, limited in scope, minimizing collateral damage whenever possible, and accompanied by humanitarian relief and civics lessons for the survivors, etc., etc. But if, like Atkins, we make human history our argument, how likely is it that we would see a more peaceful, less miserable world under the iron rod of such a force? Perhaps in answer we should adapt his own shrugging dismissal of all other alternatives to armed interventionism, and say that, "sadly, a study of human nature from before civilization to the modern day tends to disprove the hypothesis that [this] will lead to world peace."
Atkins strains for grandeur in his big finish:
"At this point in our evolution we're still as overgrown toddlers playing foolishly with loaded guns in a grand, modern technology version of Lord of the Flies. Turning an isolationist eye of indifference toward all of this will not prevent bloody conflict for stupid reasons from enveloping humanity. It will simply guarantee it."
Once more, I confess that my non-large brain cannot follow the logic
here. In our present evolutionary state, we are as toddlers. Or hairless
monkeys. Or lemurs with sideburns. Or something. In any case, we are
physically, genetically incapable of stopping our primitive urges to
form in-groups and engage in bloody conflicts for stupid reasons. This
is our nature. We have not yet gone beyond this point in our evolution.
But if this is so, then how can we possibly form an armed Super In-Group
without collapsing into the same pre-determined pattern (again, unless
some of us have somehow taken a step up the evolutionary ladder)? And
how can questioning the notion of military intervention be seen as the
equivalent of turning an "eye of indifference" to the problems of human
conflict? Are there no other alternatives? Things less grand
than a tightly-binding war machine, perhaps, but less destructive? Less
tyrannical? More humane?
I must say that reading this has prompted me to my own historical recollection -- the famous passage from Tacitus: "They make a desolation, and call it peace."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).