A Word on “Surrender”

August 9th, 2007 by Edmund Snyder · 6 Comments

White Flag from Surrender of Cornwallis
From the Wikipedia entry on surrender:

Surrender is when soldiers, nations or other combatants stop fighting and become prisoners of war, either as individuals or when ordered to by their officers. A white flag is often used to surrender, as is the gesture of raising one’s hands empty and open above one’s head.

Surrender may be conditional, if the surrendering party promises to submit only if after the victor makes certain promises. Otherwise it is unconditional surrender; the victor makes no promises of treatment other than those provided by international law. Normally a belligerent will only agree to surrender unconditionally if completely incapable of continuing hostilities.

…

Entire nations can also surrender in an attempt to end a war or military conflict. This is done through the signing of an armistice or peace treaty.

This article is in reply to all of the neo-conservatives who attempt to castigate Rep. Ron Paul for his stance on the Iraq conflict. As most readers already know, Rep. Ron Paul is running for the Presidency as a Republican. In opposition to every other Republican in the race, Paul has taken the principled stance that we should remove our troops from Iraq immediately. His position is supported by those of such greats as Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe.

In Washington’s farewell address he said:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

In his treatise, Common Sense, Paine established many of the non-interventionist policies that would become the keystones of the American body politic for many years. His arguments are as germane today as they were when he wrote them and are the foundations of conservatism, yet there is only one Republican in all of Congress that still holds to them. This proves that neo-conservatives are not conservative at all–unless the only principles of conservatism are that the government should tell individuals who they can love, what they can consume, and who they can trade with. If you don’t accept their premise, then there’s only one candidate who is worthy of filling the shoes once worn by Washington and Jefferson.

When confronted with the logic of non-interventionism, neo-conservatives fall back on one argument. It may come in several forms, but it always comes down to this: we must fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here. Yet this ignores the “terrorists” own statements that the only reason they attack us is because of our history of entangling alliances that has resulted in the starvation, sickness, and death of so many of their compatriots.

But the brunt of neocon confusion comes in the form of their misuse of the word “surrender.” Watching the Republican candidates’ debates, I quickly lose count of the number of times I hear the word in reference to leaving Iraq. Well, it is not surrender to leave someone else’s country. It is not surrender to stop supporting regimes that want nothing better than to fight and kill each other.

As a matter of fact, we won the war in Iraq way back when GW Bush flew onto the USS Lincoln and announced that the mission was accomplished. We had ousted Saddam, the purported reason for going there in the first place. Instead of doing the smart thing, announcing our win and establishing reasonable terms for our withdrawal, Mr. Bush instead decided that some nation building was in order. That became our new objective–to establish a pro-Western regime in the region. Although some still claim that we are there to fight a war on terror, fighting against tactics is never going to accomplish much.

Because we didn’t have a Constitutional Declaration of War with a stated objective, President Bush has managed to turn a win that was as quick and easy as all of the cheerleaders said it would be into a complete disaster. Guess who voted against giving the President carte blanche to enter Iraq without a goal or exit strategy? If you said “Ron Paul” you win. Guess who submitted a bill to declare war with a stated objective? Again, that would be Ron Paul. Henry Hyde called Dr. Paul’s Constitutionally-based arguments “anachronistic.”

Yamada Surrender during WWII One thing that surrenders throughout history have in common is an armistice or peace treaty, usually these involved the losers giving up concessions to the winners. Pulling out of Iraq immediately would involve neither an armistice nor a peace treaty. Pulling out of Iraq immediately is not “surrender.”

Tags: Ed's Articles · Political

6 responses so far ↓

1 University Update - Ron Paul - A Word on “Surrender” // Aug 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm

[…] Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article ron paul A Word on “Surrender” » Posted at Flada Blog » An individualist’s […]
2 Corie // Aug 18, 2007 at 3:05 am

This is a fantastic post! I have told my neo-con Romney supporting friend that this is required reading for him, haha.

Speaking of Romney, someone should tell HIM to read this post as well, considering his response to Ron Paul’s claim that we should, “just come home” was, “Have you forgotten about 9/11?” … Clearly not, Romney. Have you forgotten about all World/American history long prior that suggests entangling alliances have BROUGHT us to this point?

James Madison said that if tyranny came to America it would be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy …..
3 Edmund Snyder // Aug 19, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Corie,

Thanks for your positive response to my post. Some of my most popular posts have been those supporting Dr. Paul. To me, it all comes down to a question of the purpose of government, and like Dr. Paul, I believe the purpose is pretty much what Thomas Jefferson outlined in the Declaration of Independence. To wit, protecting the people from foreign or domestic aggression. I’ll also tip my hat to Ayn Rand and others who noted that the government also has the legitimate function of resolving disputes and maintaining a justice system.

Good people can disagree about whether or not committing so many resources to supporting one group over another in Iraq contributes to “protecting Americans.” I don’t believe that it does, and don’t really believe that was ever an objective of the current administration or those in Congress who empower them.
4 Michelle // Aug 27, 2007 at 1:04 pm

I have been a big fan of Dr Paul for awhile. And if we were in peacetime, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.

But….

Just as Pearl Harbor changed the US’s isolationist/non-intervention policies, 9/11 has changed our policies regarding terrorists/terrorism. Failing to respond to multiple terrorist attacks on US interests, including one on American soil in 1993, only served to embolden the terrorists and led directly to 9/11. And the claim that it is our meddling in the ME that has brought forth their wrath is misleading at best, and certainly not a justification for the murder of civilians and innocents. And to believe that if we leave them alone they will be nice to us is naive. It’s a matter of cultural hatred, “not a get off my lawn” thing.

Here is an excellent essay on the subject of why “they” hate us: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html

And it is germane to the discussion.

We also have to consider that with the fall of the Soviet Empire, the US is the only “superpower” left. Are we prepared to adopt a non-intervention policy and let the world go to hell in a hand basket? Do we not have some responsibility?

And finally, you can’t unspill spilt milk. We can debate the merits of going into Iraq all day long, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are there. We’ve made our bed, right or wrong, and now we must sleep in it. Do we really want the blood of millions on our hands (again) when Iraq dissolves into civil war? Do we really want to postpone the inevitable and deal with a more powerful, better oraganized, better funded, better equipped, better ‘propagandized’ middle eastern threat in 30 or 40 years (if that long)?
5 Richard // Sep 6, 2007 at 11:09 am

Michelle: America has sold billions of dollars in the middle east, propped up dictators and ‘freedom fighters’, and did it all for the purpose of control and resources. That is going to tick a few people off. Why, bin Laden was America’s friend a while back, fighting Russia with American backed support. Meddling in the middle east led to him becoming an enemy. Same thing with Saddam. Not to mention the Shah in Iran. If, over in the middle east, they had barely heard of America, and America had nothing to do with them, do you think that people would still drop their plows and pick up guns to terrorize people an ocean away? Perhaps they’d be after someone else, but America has sown the wind, and now reaps the whirlwind. This is the result of the aformentioned foreign policies, not because the people their ‘hate freedom’ or some other sappy rhetoric.
6 Michelle // Sep 7, 2007 at 11:38 am

Richard,

I never said anything about “hating freedom”. If you read the essay I included in my post, the author discusses the disillusionment and lack of direction among young, poor Muslim men and the manipulation of them by the Muslim clerics and leaders. If you think the unrest in the ME is limited to the last 50 years or so, think again. And if you think for a moment that if we lay down our arms, come home and ignore them that they will be happy to leave us alone, you are dangerously mistaken. It goes much deeper and far beyond “blame America first” or some other sappy rhetoric.