The "Cycle of Violence" is a phrase that has become a fundamental part of the liberal lexicon. Its key point is to imply that violence is itself a useless tool for stopping violence, in the process it morally equates all forms of violence, whether it is the police officer returning fire at an armed robber, a soldier firing on a terrorist, or a homeowner firing in defense of his family. The phrase "Cycle of Violence" renders them all equally wrong and equally hopeless.
The two obvious flaws in the premise of a "Cycle of Violence", is that first it presumes that violence cannot be used to stop other forms of violence. This is blatantly false as anyone with even an elementary knowledge of history would understand, after all much of human history was built on the successful use of violence. Secondly it treats violence itself as the key characteristic, while sidelining the political and moral identities of the participants themselves.
By treating all forms of violence as equally wrong, the moral equivalence behind the idea of a "Cycle of Violence" does not distinguish between the relative validity of one side's position, or the relative evil of another's. In the liberal lexicon all sides are presumed to be equally bad for resorting to violence, with the only moral parameter allowed is the relative strength of both sides. The stronger side is presumed to have more alternative options for settling the conflict rather than violence, while the weaker side is presumed to have less.
This premise has run through centuries of revolutionary thinking, justifying the worst atrocities by the "oppressed" on the grounds that they had no choice. From the French Revolution to Native Son, from Hitler and Che to the Palestinian Arab suicide bomber, this element within the cycle of violence demands concessions from the stronger party and none from the weaker party. Accepting the demands of the weaker party then become the means of resolving the conflict and breaking the cycle of violence. Once again, appeasement.
Stripped of all the high minded rhetoric of social and global justice, talk of breaking the cycle of violence, most often serves to reward the aggressor, the terrorist, the warlord, the guerrilla and the thug. It plays perfectly into their essential strategy of bleeding a larger more organized force and waiting for negotiations to begin. The negotiations themselves of course only prolong the cycle of violence, because it is a one sided desire to end the violence that has brought about the negotiations in the first place. Violence then becomes a negotiating tactic, "Give me what I want or the killing will resume." Naturally blame for the violence falls on the stronger party that rejects the offer.
The truth of the matter though is that violence is only a cycle until one side gains a decisive victory. That is why the liberal agenda is to prevent such a victory by restricting the tactics available to the stronger side, through lawfare, boycotts and political pressure; handicapping its offensive capabilities to break the faith of the public and the nation's leaders in its own military, thus leaving them no option but to begin the appeasement negotiations.
Violence is not a hopeless cycle. It is a matter of strategy and tactics. In some situations it is better to make peace, when it is with an enemy who in turn wants peace, rather than concessions, and who does represent an ongoing threat. In other situations it is vital to act decisively and end the violence by waging a comprehensive assault against the attackers.
Violence only becomes a cycle when liberals successfully handicap the military to insure that they cannot win, while leaving the enemy an open field and easy forgiveness for any tactics they might choose.
Yet the most potent weapon on and off the battlefield is morale. The perception of a war as going uphill or downhill is key to the morale of both the public and the troops. It is a tactic that Cronkite and the Viet Cong understood quite well during the Vietnam War. It is a tactic that the Israeli and American left, and Islamic terrorists understand quite well too. Their victory cannot come on the battlefield, only as blows struck against the morale of their First World opponents.
The Cycle of Violence theory is key to creating the perception of an unnwinnable and futile conflict that can only be resolved when we sit down at the table with the barbarians and butchers, and discuss what we can give them to make them stop killing us. And there is no idea that serves the enemies of civilization better, than that war against terrorists is futile, and that it is better to be a live dog cringing at the totalitarian boot, than a dead lion. Better Red than Dead, or better Dead than Red? Better Green than Dead, or better Dead than Green. A civilization that can no longer answer that question properly has already bowed its knees to the enemy, and is only waiting to discuss the price of its own slavery. All to end "The Cycle of Violence."