Man carrying child’s body in Gaza. Fars Media Corporation.  Attribution 4.0 International license.

“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will,” Union general William Tecumseh Sherman wrote in an 1864 letter warning the citizens of Atlanta — which his advancing army had just occupied — to evacuate. “War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.”

Over the last two years, Sherman’s words come to mind whenever an opponent of Israel and/or supporter of the Palestinians confidently asserts that the violence in Gaza is “not a war” because it is so terrible.

It IS a war, and that’s why it’s so terrible.

Let us, as we should, acknowledge that the Israeli regime’s goal in Gaza is genocide or, at a minimum, the only slightly less odious project of “ethnic cleansing.” There’s zero room for doubt, given Israeli officials’ open public statements, that they want the Palestinian Arabs now living in Gaza either killed off or exiled en masse to make room for Israeli “settlement” of the area.

That’s the objective.

War is the means of achieving that objective, and war is a process of killing people.

That many of the dead in all wars, and most of the dead in this one, are civilian non-combatants, doesn’t turn those wars into non-wars. It just turns them into worse wars. It’s right there in the terminology. The killings of civilian non-combatants aren’t just “crimes,” they’re “war crimes.”

One dodge the “this isn’t a war, it’s [insert term of opprobrium here]” crowd often resorts to is a claimed disproportion in the size and power of the forces involved.

By that criterion, there’s never been a war in all of human history. In every war, all sides attempt to bring overwhelming force to bear on opponents they hope won’t bring as much. “God,”  Comte de Bussy-Rabutin observed, “is usually on the side of the big squadrons against the small.”

That truth applies at both the tactical and strategic levels. In the attacks of October 7, 2023, for example, Hamas attempted to take on a bigger overall opponent in smaller parts through the tactical element of surprise.

To which Israel responded with overwhelming force at all points, because it had the people and weapons to do so. And still does — the supposed “ceasefire” has barely reduced its tempo of operations and hasn’t changed its clear objectives.

Trying to separate war from the genocide and ethnic cleansing that often accompanies it is cheap moralizing for propaganda points.

War, again per Sherman, is all hell.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Back in June, I attended the first “No Kings” rally in Gainesville, Florida, On October 18, I attended the second.

Positive differences:

While crowd estimates always vary, this rally definitely turned more people out than the last one. Part of that might have to do with University of Florida students having been home for the summer in June, but back in class now. Then again, this was also football homecoming weekend at UF, so “No Kings” was only the SECOND-biggest event in town. At both events, the crowd age definitely trended much older than “college kids.”

This event also seemed more heavily focused than the first on opposition to the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda and its military misadventures (both direct and by proxy, both abroad and with occupations of American cities at home). Not only are those issues where I tend to agree with most of the “No Kings” crowd, but they’re also more germane to the theme.

Negative similarities:

The first “No Kings” rally, I wrote then, was largely a Democratic “campaign event for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Those of who oppose Trump but aren’t Democrats came along for the ride. Our support was co-opted whether we liked it or not.”

If anything, the second event took on an even more “vote — and by the way, vote Democrat” tone.

Despite the increased and welcome focus on Trump’s foreign military misadventures and domestic martial law moves, there was still plenty of “Yes Kings” signage and sloganeering.

One speaker, believe it or not, even devoted a minute or two to praising Joe Biden’s (and before him, Donald Trump’s) COVID-19 monarchical pretensions and decrying the “No Kings” protesters of that era … many of whom, unfortunately, reverted to their own prior “Yes Kings” advocacy on January 20, 2025.

Quite a few of the protesters seemed upset by the current “government shutdown,” and intent on recovering “their” government funding for … well, insert pretty much any activity here and I saw it supported.

And, of course, I heard a lot of talk about “democracy,” which in American practice tends to resemble monarchy on steroids. As Mather Byles asked in 1773,  “Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?” We’re not going to vote our way out of this mess.

The rally was a good time with a positive vibe, and I’m glad to see Americans coming together in opposition to one tyrant.

But until and unless we start coming together in opposition to tyranny itself — the state per se — and in support of liberty for all, the only question is how much more kingly and despotic our next ruler will get than the previous one got.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder last month, a rush to canonize — and demonize — the conservative influencer was only to be expected. A very public assassination, especially one with political overtones, naturally dominates multiple news cycles, offering a convenient platform for everyone to flaunt both their best and worst character traits.

More than a month later, though, certain people seem determined to keep the emotion-fest going well beyond its natural shelf life, dancing in Charlie Kirk’s blood to score political points with their political bases (or, perhaps, bosses).

Among those people, it seems, are US secretary of state Marco Rubio and/or the government employees he supervises.

The US State Department “continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk,” it boasts in a post on X.

The thread offers a  list of unnamed people saying mean things about Kirk, each followed by the pompous pronouncement: “Visa revoked.”

Yes, even in the middle of a “government shutdown,”  the State Department apparently has staff and resources available to:

1. Monitor social media for negative opinions about ONE GUY;
2. Determine whether the people expressing those opinions are abroad or in the US;
3. If the latter, determine whether those people are US citizens/residents or visitors; and
4. If the latter, revoke their visas.

I can’t help but think we’ve found a good place for Donald Trump to implement those permanent “Reductions In Force” he recently promised as a “shutdown”  measure (unfortunately, a federal court has those layoffs on hold via temporary restraining order).

Charlie Kirk’s murder, like all murders, was an evil and ugly thing. We don’t all agree on that … but we should.

That he was murdered for his political opinions and his political speech should move us to more zealously guard everyone’s rights to political opinions and political speech, whether we agree those opinions and that speech or not. “Everyone” includes holders of, and applicants for, visas to visit the United States.

The desire to turn Charlie Kirk into a national saint, or a “good riddance” poster boy, isn’t a basis upon which we should allow Marco Rubio to condition the issuance, non-issuance, or revocation, of visas.

Rubio’s job, as an executive branch secretary, is to execute laws passed by Congress, and the Constitution forbids Congress to make laws “abridging the freedom of speech” … of anyone. There’s not, nor should there be, a “visa holders’ opinions of Charlie Kirk” exception.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY