The Paradox of Denying Violence: A Critical Examination of Biden’s Alleged Aversion to Violence
In the wake of the January 6th Capitol “riot,” the President of the United States has repeatedly emphasized that “violence is never a solution.” While this statement resonates with a moral high ground, it stands in stark contrast to the role of military action in global politics and history. The denial of violence as a solution is, in itself, a misleading narrative that overlooks the practical applications of military force throughout history. This article examines the inherent contradictions in such declarations and the implications of ignoring the role of violence in solving human conflicts.
Military strategists like Carl von Clausewitz have long argued that war is merely the continuation of politics by other means. This perspective highlights that military action, often involving significant violence, is an integral tool for achieving political objectives. Throughout history, nations have resorted to military force to resolve disputes, protect interests, and impose order. To assert that violence is never a solution is to ignore these historical precedents and the strategic realities of international relations.
The 20th century, in particular, witnessed unprecedented levels of violence, with two World Wars, numerous conflicts, and genocides contributing to a staggering loss of life. The death toll from these events surpasses any other era in human history, underscoring the fact that violence has been a dominant force in shaping the modern world. Acknowledging this does not glorify violence but rather recognizes its profound impact and the need for responsible and informed discourse about its use.
Recent events further illustrate the paradox of denying violence as a solution while implicitly endorsing it in specific contexts. For instance, former President Trump recently faced threats where opponents called for putting him “in the bullseye.” This rhetoric, which he has himself used in various contexts, underscores the pervasive role of violence in political discourse and action. It highlights the inconsistency of denouncing violence broadly while engaging in or condoning violent rhetoric and actions when deemed necessary or advantageous.
The entire existence of the military is predicated on the disciplined application of violence to solve problems. From deterring aggression to executing strategic operations, the military’s purpose is intrinsically linked to the use of force. As the Commander in Chief, the President oversees this institution and must reconcile the practical realities of military action with the broader ethical stance against violence. This duality is a fundamental aspect of leadership that requires a deeper understanding of both the power and the consequences of military force.
To live in denial of these facts is to live a lie. The discourse surrounding violence and its role in solving human problems must be grounded in historical context and strategic understanding. Simplistic declarations that dismiss the utility of violence ignore the complex dynamics of global politics and the historical evidence of its effectiveness. A more honest and pragmatic approach is essential for addressing the challenges of the present and future, ensuring that decisions are informed by a comprehensive understanding of the past.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA