Simon has an interesting argument with respect to the "famous debate in 1933 the Oxford Student Union conducted over whether it was moral for Britons to fight for king and country." Simon informs us that "In short, the best-educated young people of their time could not tell the difference between the deficiencies of their own nation, in which liberty and democracy were cornerstones, and a dictatorship founded on racism, tyranny and fear." Presumably this has some relevance to present company, but the cognitive dissonance is deafening. Apparently Indian massacres and African slavery don't constitute tyranny and racism. Again, what motivates the argument? If it sounds familiar, it's because it's a minor repackaging of the good vs. evil construct we hear from both Bush and Bin Ladin. The misguided Oxford students failed to grasp that one's own affiliation is self-evident -- embarrassing historical facts not withstanding.

I hope we can all agree that we ought to hear a wide range of perspectives on the subject of war. It's a disservice to the discussion to dismiss a philosophical viewpoint without even entertaining it in the first place. Scott Simon positions himself as a pacifist straw man in a former life and then sets fire to his past. It hardly seems credible let alone enlightening.