"Peace -- not war" is but a silly slogan because such are seldom alternatives. If we opt for "peace" in the sense implied by the slogan, we surrender to hostile attack. If we choose war per se, the most we can hope for is a cessation of hostilities, which can only be maintained by a constant state of war.

Among the thousands who have been demonstrating and protesting "the war" are hundreds -- but only hundreds -- who truly desire peace, and this is why they demonstrate. The greater number seem to be those who protest a plethora of "causes," e.g., globalism, free trade, tax-cuts, western hegemony, and even American democracy. Some can be counted on to join just about any protest or demonstration if noisy or exciting enough. Doesn't matter the cause, if any. They are "liberal" and reactionary without knowing quite what is it they are "liberal" about or specifically what it is they are reacting against. I find it hard to learn from violent demonstrations. They seem to contradict themselves. When people are for peace, as they claim to be, how can they demonstrate their profession with violence?

Local television recently had a truly stupid statement by an interviewed high school student: "I think after 9/11, we should just live in peace." I think he was the same kid who grumbled when his mommy didn't pour the milk as well as the cereal into his bowl: "I hate having to fix breakfast for myself."

On the other hand, peace has never resulted from war, only defeat has. The most a war can accomplish is the cessation of hostilities so diplomats have an opportunity to negotiate a truce. A truce is not yet peace. Even diplomats cannot create peace, and the most they can accomplish is to encourage an environment in which people can choose to live at peace. Peace is always a choice, and peace can never actually be "made." Peace is not so much collective good behavior, but an attitude or spirit and a social condition.

Peace is always a choice and people of good will always choose peace if they understand what it is and if it is peace they actually want enough so they are willing to pay its cost. Peace is costly and decidedly inconvenient. It requires us to keep thinking of others and prevents us from concentrating on what we want to do and our own enjoyment. Like protests.

Peace is not a vacuum in international relations but its dynamic. Not that nothing bad is happening at the moment, but that good things are happening. And they don't just happen -- we make them happen.

We should understand peace is not a win/lose happening, but we must also come to understand it is also not a lose/win happening. That is, we don't achieve peace by surrendering to hostilities, because this is still defeat, even if we are sufficiently obsequious to be willing to be those who give in. Genuine victory is a win/win transaction, and it is when everyone is winning that we are at peace.

Present war preparations are not -- I pray to God they are not -- for the specific purpose of going to war. If we actually go to war under present circumstances, it may come to be we will have lost the war. War ought to be a forceful -- not violent -- move toward peace. We threaten war against aggressors to stop their aggression so we can begin to work toward peace.

Anti-war demonstrations, allowed in this country but not in Iraq, ought not be simply politically dramatic but also socially responsible. They should motivate us to work toward actual peace without blunting the impact that threatened war can have as an inhibitor to actual war.