A neocalvinist dilemma: to fight or not to fight?

This three-way dialogue on pacifism and just war among Byron Borger, Col. Keith Pavlischek and G. van den Bosch posted on Gideon Strauss' blog is worth taking a look at. Reading this exchange prompts two observations:

First, I am pleased that being on active duty in Iraq affords sufficient time for reading and commenting on blogs. We would all be worse off without Keith to keep us on our collective toes.

Second, I wonder whether the use of the term violence in such discussions might not prejudice them already in a certain direction. According to Dictionary.com, violence means, among other things, "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence," and "Abusive or unjust exercise of power." If we are speaking of the exercise of force by a duly constituted government led by the norm of justice, then it would appear that violence is not the appropriate label to use in this context, even if that force is potentially lethal. Is the use of force to restrain the extralegal exercise of violence itself violence? If so, then we might have to conclude that two wrongs cannot make a right and the discussion is over before it has begun.