This web site is dedicated to helping build a large, effective, and powerful antiwar movement in the US. It is motivated by the question I have been asking everyone I know since the day after Barack Obama was elected President in 2008: "How are we going to stop these wars?" Your ideas are welcome; please feel free to post summaries of anything you have been doing to help build peace and end our government's ongoing wars in distant lands.
Yours in Peace,
Geoff Young
Lexington, Kentucky
The Genuine Hard-Headed Realists
ReplyDeleteIt is the movement that is trying to end all our wars and close all our military bases in foreign countries who are the hard-headed realists at this time in history, not the neoconservatives who seem to want our foreign wars to go on forever. It might be tempting to call the neocons the true "idealists," but in my mind that word has too many positive connotations and does not express how ignorant and vicious the neocon ideology is.
The neocons seem to think the USA can be the world's policeman. The antiwar movement realizes that some tasks are far beyond our capability, and that the rest of the world has little or no desire to be policed by us.
The neocons seem to think that we can promote the rights of Afghan women by waging war in their country. Antiwar activists realize that flying drones over people constitutes a form of high-tech terrorism, and that when we fire missiles from those drones and kill civilians, as we frequently do, the people who live there are likely to hate our guts for the rest of their lives.
The neocons seem to think we can afford to police the world. We antiwar activists realize that that is the fastest possible way to drive this country into national bankruptcy and cause other countries to dump the dollar and replace it with the Euro or a basket of non-dollar currencies.
The neocons seem to think that we can coerce the Iranians into overthrowing their theocratic government by threatening to bomb Iran, imposing economic sanctions, paying separatist groups to commit terrorist acts inside Iran, and, if we deem it necessary, bombing their nuclear facilities with Israel's help. Antiwar activists realize that threatening someone usually hardens their resolve, strengthens the hard-liners among them, undercuts their reformers, moderates and dissidents, and makes regime change much less likely.
The neocons seem to think that we can protect the American people against terrorism by killing a lot of Muslims in foreign countries year after bloody year. Antiwar activists realize that the best, quickest, simplest, and most reliable way to get Muslims to stop killing us is to stop killing them. After all, we started these wars and decided to wage them on their territory. (And no, I am not forgetting about 9-11.)
All of these points can be summed up even more simply: Neocons believe that the way to achieve peace, stability, and security is by waging wars that never end. Antiwar activists realize that that kind of "crackpot realism" is the height of ignorance, arrogance, and hypocrisy. We hold the realistic, often-confirmed idea that waging war and fomenting hatred almost always leads to more war and hatred. Waging war without end leads to endless war and ever-increasing hatred.
How about if we give peace a chance for a change? We've tried war again and again, and it has failed, failed again, failed yet again, is failing now, and is almost guaranteed to fail in Af-Pak in the future. A proven record of failure upon failure might suggest that we try something different. That is, unless our nation has already passed the point of insanity (defined as intensifying one's efforts in the face of the repeated failure of those efforts to achieve the desired goals).
The Democratic Party Cannot Be Reformed or Saved
ReplyDeleteI have been politically active since the mid-1970s, and I first became aware that antiwar Americans were trying to reform the Democratic Party around 1968. We have been trying to move the party to the left for at least four decades, and despite our efforts it has moved steady and decisively to the right.
When we look at most of President Obama's policies, in particular those realted to the war, the military-industrial complex, and the surveillance state, it is almost impossible to detect any differences compared to the Cheney-Bush regime. On this critical set of issues, Obama represents - tragically - Cheney's and Bush's third term in power.
It logically follows that both the Democratic and Repub Parties need to be replaced.
From that it follows that we need to spend at least part of our limited time, effort, and money building a third party that offers a real alternative to the "one party with two right wings" that we have now.
I feel that the Green Party is the best hope to save this country and much of the world. Here are some Green Party links:
Home page: http://www.gp.org/index.php
Platform: http://www.gp.org/platform.shtml
Ten Key Values of the Green Party: http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
There is presently no Green Party chapter in Kentucky, although each state that borders Kentucky has one. We need a strong, active Green Party if we are going to stop these wars and dismantle the military-industrial complex.
Good post about Neocons versus antiwar activists. That definitely explains a lot about the ideology what got us into the wars and about what has kept them going over the past several years. What is keeping us there now though? Obama and the current majority in Congress aren't Neocons.
ReplyDeleteThe current buzz phrase is, "ending the wars responsibly." It is hard to tell exactly what that means in practice, but it appears to possibly mean, wait for and strategically work towards a moment for the political coast to be ripe enough for us to exit in a way that we can take a maximum amount of credit for having improved things (following the neocons failures) as well as ripe enough for us to be able to maximize our ability to deflect any criticism (from the neocons) that will arise based on any increased chaos or disintegration that may come about in the countries following our departure.
Other than the goal of making democratic leadership look good, and making neocons look bad - and deflating their ability to criticize, what are practical reasons for the current multi-year-long exit strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that Barack Obama and many other Democrats aren't actual neocons by temperament, I believe they have failed to challenge certain central assumptions of the neocon ideology and world view. These assumptions aren't necessarily easy for any American politician to challenge, but they need to be challenged anyway - by someone. If not by our politicians at this time, then by the peace movement. If the people lead the way, the politicians might someday follow us.
Here's my understanding of the unspoken assumptions that form the foundation of the neocon ideology: "America is always right and good, Muslims and Arabs are evil, we need an even more powerful military than we have now, any war the US military fights is a wonderful thing, torture is an acceptable method for us to use against anyone who we think might be a terrorist, international law does not exist, sooner or later those Muslims will be shocked and awed into seeing and doing things our way if the US and Israel use enough force and violence, and let's kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
The war supporters have stirred up so much fear in the public's mind during the last decade that it would be hard for any politician to challenge the assumptions of the neocon ideology while still hoping to win an election. I feel it would be accurate to say that Bush and Cheney governed through fear and fear alone for seven years. The public has gotten into the bad habit of being fearful, and the corporate mass media have helped establish that mindset.
Bottom line: Although Obama and many other powerful Democrats might not be actual neocons in their hearts, they have absorbed or come to tolerate so many of the neocon assumptions that their actions and policies are pretty much indistinguishable from neocon policies.
One example: Although the Obama Administration would never frame the issue this way, I would say that they are continuing to profit from Bush's and Cheney's illegal invasion of Iraq. Because of our ongoing military presence there, American politicians continue to have a large amount of influence, probably decisive influence, over what goes on in Iraq. US-based oil corporations continue to get preferential treatment when operating in Iraq. By what right? I would say by no right at all - only by might.
I am not interested in exit strategies and never have been. Exactly how and when we get our troops, mercenaries, and drones out of Iraq, Af-Pak, and every other foreign country is not my problem, frankly. My responsibility as a patriotic American citizen is to demand that my government do what is right and legal. The demand I have written on my sign that I show at certain public events reads, "Bring ALL the troops home NOW." I believe that demand is perfectly appropriate in view of the fact that I am not a powerful official in the administration. Figuring out exactly how to dismantle the American Empire and bring the US back into conformity with the law is their job, not mine - it is why we pay them the big bucks.
The midterm elections confirmed my view that the Democrats will continue to lose as long as they refuse to stand up for any decent principle and continue to compromise with failed policies. "Blue Dog" Democrats lost more than typical Democrats. Our own "Blue Dog," Ben Chandler, almost lost to a typical Repub whose positions on most major issues were flat-out unprincipled, hypocritical, and ignorant. It will take a strong and growing Green Party, in my opinion, to demonstrate how intellectually and morally bankrupt both dominant parties have become.
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't, please read Twain's, "War Prayer." A kindred spirit in many respects.
ReplyDelete