Peace: the absence of conflict (and presence of justice)?

How is "peace" defined in the 21st century?

This is a question that many around the world have asked and most have made up their minds regarding. I would like to offer some historical perspective and remind those who have forgotten what war in the cause of turning back oppression has done.

We'll begin with the latter and go no further than Nazi era Germany. In the name of Germany, Hitler decides to annex the German speaking portions of Czechoslovakia and all of Austria (who vindicated Hitler by voting to approve the annexation). Czechoslovakia was intended to be a buffer between Germany and France after WWI and up until now there was still peace in Europe by the classic definition. Yes Hitler was gobbling up land but he was doing it "peacefully" through treaties and world bodies. There was peace in Europe leading up to the invasion of Poland but was there justice? Of course not. Countries were being absorbed by a ruthless tyrant who was no better to his people at home. It took the invasion of Poland for Britain and France to declare war on Germany (the U.S. was in isolation mode and would not declare war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor). Where is the peace? Yes, for a time there was no fighting with guns and bullets but is that more important than those living being denied justice?

To bring this home, the soil you are standing on was fought for and won on this idea of justice. It wasn't the founding fathers goal to simply go out and start a new country just to see if they could do it. Their original goal and intent was separation from and ultimately justice for England and the ruling monarchy. They knew they could govern themselves better than a distant government and were willing to fight and die for it. It was something worth dying for then and it is worth dying for today.

Of course the most current and controversial example is the war and continued occupation of Iraq. What gives the United States the right to invade a sovereign foreign country on the basis of a perceived threat and furthermore does the U.S. have the legal authority to maintain an occupying force beyond the point of regime change?

To build upon my conclusion above the answer is yes and yes but for two very different reasons. It is my contention that any democratic country has the right and the responsibility to enact regime change in a country ruled by an oppressive tyrannical dictator. This includes overthrowing the oppressive government and also nurturing democracy through whatever means are applicable.

I say this knowing a few things about freedom. First, free countries are just countries and full of justice by definition. Those bearing the consequences of the governments actions are the people who voted the government into power and can thus hold the powerful accountable.

Second, free countries do not go to war with each other. They know it would do no good since the actions of the government are generally acceptable to its citizens.

As for occupying a foreign land and establishing a stable government by, of, and for the people, this is the most important and most difficult simultaneously. It has been said that democracy is messy. This is inherently true because everyone has a say. However, it does not make it less important because it is more difficult. Had George Washington given up at Valley Forge we would undoubtedly be a different country today.

When thinking of the power of freedom, try a simple analysis of your life. Every morning when you wake, you make choices based on chosen objectives you've established for your life. You probably fit into 1 of 2 scenarios: 1.) you work to live or 2.) You live to work. Either way you made a choice.
As with democracy, there are inherent truths in dictatorial regimes. Under an oppressive dictator, life is not about your happiness, it's about his. Sooner or later, these are going to conflict and the citizen will lose. September 11, 2001 was the result of this conflict.