Having The Guts To Keep The Peace

In the first of two today from proper conservatives who don't believe in tax-guzzling military-industrial complexes or in morally and socially disruptive wars, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne writes:

In the course of the last week the following people, by my count, have been described in the public prints as 'gutless': Gordon Brown for being soft on China; President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel and Barack Obama for being soft on Russia.

In all the above cases gutless was a wholly inappropriate adjective. For whereas gutlessness, or cowardice, may usually explain an individual's unwillingness to engage in physical confrontation, it scarcely ever explains an unwillingness to confront politically.

This is particularly true, of course, in international politics, where in almost every case it takes more guts to be pacific than warlike; more guts, too, to be a conscientious objector than to join up.

It is profoundly important to remember this, when there is a real danger of politicians on all sides, in an effort to appear gutsy, saying and doing things which might lead to a world war; even in present circumstances ¬ and this needs to be said ¬ to thermo-nuclear war.

Obama is accused of gutlessness for refusing to lambast Russia. In fact, of course, resisting the political advantages of lambasting Russia at this juncture is precisely the course which does require guts.

Nothing today is more important than keeping the peace. In recent years and months Nato, prodded by the United States, has been dangerously pushing its luck in Eastern Europe; almost challenging Russia to have the guts to react.

Russia has reacted and the gutsy thing for the West to do would be to stop sabre rattling, and sit down to talk. But what western statesmen will have the guts to risk being called an appeaser?