Dr. Thomas Sowell, who ranks high in the pantheon of modern writers that I read as frequently as they write, recently put a brief discourse on Townhall.com entitled "Morally Paralyzed." In the article, he compares our current lack of response to the growing threat of Iran to the appeasement of "Herr Hitler" by Britain’s Neville Chamberlain in the early 1930s. I suppose he has taken the "first strike" pose to his argument. For one of the first times in my life, I must disagree with Dr. Sowell and disagreeing with a man I hold in such high esteem is not an easy thing.

I would pose the following question to Dr. Sowell and all those war hawks that responded on Townhall to his article: Exactly what is it that we are to do about the development of technology - for good or evil - by other countries? Yes, I am well aware that Iran has professed ill-will toward the United States and, even more vehemently, Israel. Yes, I know that since 1979 when Iranian radicals took 63 Americans hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran and held them hostage for 444 days, they have been sworn blood enemies of the United States. Yes, I concede that we backed Iraq’s secular leader Saddam Hussein in his war against the Islamic fundamentalist regime of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeni from 1980 to 1988. Clearly, Iran and America are the Hatfields and McCoys of the world theater. Clearly, if based on nothing other than recent history, the enmity that prevails between our two countries will not change in mine or Dr. Sowell’s lifetime.

But, I ask again: what are the options, really? Are we to raise the battle flag, sing the National Anthem and charge at every windmill that rears its ugly head on every distant horizon? If that is the proposed solution, I fear we are going to have our hands full (and our pockets empty) for some time to come. While our own Rome culturally burns, we would set fire to the globe were we to pursue this Don Quixote approach to diplomacy.

North Korea and Kim Yong-Il (and his father before him) have been baying at the moon for decades and what, precisely, have they accomplished in their quasi-rage against the West, in general, and American in particular? Not much, as far as I can see. And they, as opposed to Iran (who are, by all intelligence, merely in the earliest stages of enriching uranium) have a delivery system that, if not entirely accurate, at least can get their primitive nuclear devices airborne.

If we, as a nation, are to strike out against any and all threats that could possibly disturb our national repose, we are in for a very difficult and busy time. As mentioned, it is rare that I take issue with the learned and much-admired Dr. Sowell. But, reluctantly, I must do so now. I freely admit that fanaticism exists in the modern world and will continue to threaten our culture and national interests. Equally, I admit that much of this fanaticism - be it Communist, Islamic or merely "anti-American" in its many guises - will continue to demand our scrutiny. I will also predict that, eventually, hatred of America and its people will visit tragedy once again to our shores. I do not, however, believe that diplomatic engagement and reasoned discourse is equivalent to Chamberlain-ism. Diplomacy, from a position of strength, is not submissiveness nor is it a "sign of weakness."

We, as country, have assumed, egocentrically, that negotiation and statesmanship is equivalent to appeasement. It is not. Likewise, I do not believe that, just because we possess the power (as one observer replied to Dr. Sowell’s article) to "bomb Iran back to the Stone Age," that should be the position of our national policy.

As any regular reader of these discussions can easily surmise, I am not a liberal. I am quite conservative in my thinking, politically and personally. I do feel, however, that war - as reasoned so eloquently by some of the greatest conservative thinkers from Burke to Kirk - is to be avoided at (almost) all cost. It is disruptive to national order and almost always leads to augmentation of central governmental power. Since Woodrow Wilson in World War I through Roosevelt in World War II up to President Bush in our current conflict, martial activity has invariably led to expansion of federal power and incremental infringements of personal freedoms. That statement is irrefutable. We lose not only youthful, unfulfilled lives in war but also small pieces of our constitutional liberties. Thus, for conservative thinkers, the "war-state" is anathema to liberty.

Furthermore, to this observer, it strikes a tragically discordant note in the symphony of national affairs that the only way to unite our country is by banging the drums of war. Are we so cultist and isolated as a people that national identity can only be summoned forth by pointing to external threats? Politicians understand well that nothing can pull a diverse people together - or captivate their attention - like war but are there not other interests that can unite us? When Clinton had Lewinsky, the natural reaction was Operation Desert Fox and Operation Allied Force. Nothing distracts the American attention from domestic crises like a war that places lives at stake. It is no small irony that a movie depicted just such a staged crisis orchestrated by the Presidency in response to a sex scandal. When, precisely, did preemptive war supercede cautious and reasonable statesmanship in the public opinion sweepstakes? Was it when Lyndon Johnson’s flagging popularity brought about the fateful Gulf of Tonkin fiasco?

Regardless of exactly when the "fog of war" became a domestic weapon for public opinion, we must, at some point, reassume a posture of governmental allegiance nurtured not by war but by inspiration to higher ideals and a clear sense of community purpose. We should harken back to the halcyon days when America lead by example and not by being a wrathful overseer, whipping the unsubmissive. Our leaders should be statesmen first and faux-Generals only as a costume of last resort. Only when reason has failed should we "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war."

Lest you think me liberal or, worse, a quisling, allow me to say this in my defense: appeasement be damned, and let us recall "Millions for defense and not a penny for tribute." But, though unceasing in our preparations and perpetually vigilant, statesmanship should be first and foremost in the arsenal of a truly conservative republic. Diplomacy is not dead, she is only sleeping. Perhaps, her stout-hearted prince will soon come to awaken this desirous maiden from her long slumber. In these trying times, we surely need her counsel.