A Cease-Fire Isn't Peace

It never ceases to amaze me how, in the midst of a vicious war between two hardened opponents, cease-fire agreements are arrived at. Naturally, they are almost always broken, and why not? The war is still continuing. The recent breaking of the cease-fire between the Taliban and the Pakistani government is just the latest example.

I recently saw a show on The History Channel about the Chinese general Sun Tzu and his classic work The Art of War. The premise of the program was that, by showing examples of military conflicts in the past and how they were conducted, the degree of success or failure by a warring side depended greatly on how closely that side fought the war according to Sun Tzu's precepts. One example was the way the U.S. and North Vietnam executed the Vietnam War: specifically, the Tet Offensive in early 1968.

Catching the enemy off-guard is a common tactic of war; one doesn't need to be versed in Sun Tzu to know this. The North Vietnamese gave assurances to the South in early 1968 that the national holiday of Tet, beginning on January 31, would be allowed to proceed peacefully. Going under the assumption that there would be a temporary cease-fire, South Vietnam and U.S. relaxed their guard. But North Vietnam, under their able general Nguyen Giap, had intricately planned a Tet attack for months and struck on a massive scale throughout the South on January 31.

Year after year, we hear about fighting breaking out between Israel and one or more of its militant armed opponents across its border. Inevitably, a cease-fire is arranged and the fighting tapers off. But the war continues.

The problem with cease-fires is that many people equate a cease-fire with peace, when in reality it is a mutually-agreed-upon "timeout" from open warfare. The war is still there; when one of the parties to the conflict deems it to their advantage, they will end it, pure and simple. And usually accuse the other side of violating the terms of the cease-fire. This is precisely what is going on in Pakistan with the surging Taliban.

Both sides have accused the other of breaching the terms of the cease-fire. And lo and behold, they are back at war against each other again. But I hold that this was the purpose for the cease-fire all along: each side used it to carefully reassess their positions and to prepare themselves for success in the next stage of the fighting.

The bottom line on this is that a cease-fire should never be confused with peace. And when two sides are locked together in mortal combat, with their political systems and even the collective survival of their people at stake, the last thing anyone involved is going to worry about is the relatively trivial matter of "honoring" a cease-fire.

Harsh, but true.