Lately I've been seeing some people react to the recent announcement of Usama's death with lament, from a pacifist perspective. Posting MLK, Gandhi, or Jesus quotes and bemoaning the loss of even one human life. (I'll reiterate that I thought he was already dead, but that's beside the point.)
I understand where they're coming from, really. Even with all the assumptions of his guilt and his still being alive, I'm not a fan of hunting people down for purposes of vengeance. A family member of mine was murdered, and frankly, I don't really want the perpetrator to get caught. I just want to him abandon the gang lifestyle, maybe find some kind of helpful religion or something and get on a good path in his life, trying to atone for his sin.
That said, I want to pick at a logical flaw in pacifism. Just as strongly as I oppose vengeance for the sake of vengeance, I support physical means to defend against present danger. If I had been there, that night in Annapolis, I would have done EVERYTHING to stop that pointless attack. If I had to kill a man with my teeth to save my cousin, I would have. It's too late, but I know I would have. We can't all be everywhere, but there's bound to be at least one person almost anywhere. If you are that person, and you see unfair, pointless violence about to happen: intervene. In ancient anglosaxon culture, every able-bodied man considered himself a "police officer." If someone was being robbed, or a woman felt like she might be assaulted, the potential victim only had to yell: "Partisans!" and any able-bodied man within earshot would come running. I think we can improve on that in the modern context: women can also be included. This appeals to some anarchists, because this idea can work whether or not there's a government. I think it's relevant to point out that this is how violence was dealt with for 99% of human history. Notice that this is also the 99% of human history that was much, much more peaceful than the current 1%. Poor, nasty, brutish and short my ass. If ancient hunter-gatherers heard about Stalingrad they'd promptly grow back the fur, climb back up the trees and revert to a diet of fruit and bugs.
This also applies In the context of military policy. If we have to have this giant, overfunded military, I think we'd be keeping people a lot safer by applying the current defense principle rather than the vengeance principle. The air force as it stands is essentially designed to destroy a nation in 36 hours. When it ends up being the wrong nation, and you end up with bewildered and pissed off survivors, the US military is making US citizens less safe. I'll say it again: The US military is making US citizens less safe. I don't think there's any sensible, intelligent way to analyze the situation and come to a different conclusion than that one. Maybe a better idea would be to have ALL the jets stationed around cities, ALWAYS ready to shoot down an incoming hijacked plane. It sucks for the people in the plane, but it's really a much less deadly outcome that otherwise. (It would help if magical spells weren't cast that made steel-framed structures full of workers collapse free-fall after burst from bottom to top could be seen coming out all four sides. Magic is the only explanation for a plane doing that, but that's another issue.)
So, in conclusion, if we see someone getting unjustly beat up and turn away saying "I don't do violence," you're kidding yourself. Turning away is an act of violence.
Now that's an activist.