Two more touchstone wars need to
be tested. One is America's
first, the American Revolution. It was fought for the partial right of
independence and self-determination. It was a clash between two privileged
classes 3,500 miles apart. It did not save the Indians. It led to their
decimation and subjugation. It certainly wasn't against racism. And it
certainly was not for a democracy of, for, and by all the people. Had
the war not been fought there might have been a negotiated settlement
eventually or British control would have eventually dissipated, just as the
"Mother Country" eventually lost all of its other colonies, and an America of a
less militant nature might have eventually emerged.
The second touchstone is the
Civil War, the most deadly for Americans of any military interventions launched
by a U.S.
president. Zinn makes it clear in his book that President Lincoln provoked the
attack on Fort Sumter that launched the Civil War not
with the primary purpose of freeing the slaves but "to retain the enormous
national territory and markets and resources." [11] Lincoln, in other words, was an early
practitioner of imperialism by deadly military means.
After reading Zinn I did not
remove the image of the Washington
statute of our 16th President that is displayed on my website, www.uschamberofdemocracy.com. I
like the looks of it. Before reading Zinn I had written an iconoclastic piece
about President Lincoln in my book on which the site is partly based. It was in
reference to the rash of states around 2002 rushing to pass laws declaring
states' rights in defiance of federal regulations. Here are some extracts of
what I wrote: "What if they left the Union and formed their own---There might
be two Americas
and two smaller corpocracies instead of one monstrous one. ---President Lincoln
may have made a colossal mistake in entering the Civil War. Slavery probably
would have ended peacefully without [it] ---because plantation owners were
beginning to realize that share croppers were economically a better option than
slave holding and thus emancipation would not have been forced by the Union on slave holders. Concomitantly, racial hatred and
prejudice might not persist to this day---With two Americas so divided each
would not have been strong enough to do much warring around the globe. And with
two Americas
so divided, the corpocracy as it exists today might not exist today." [12]
President Lincoln, in my opinion, should have adopted the sentiment of
President Thomas Jefferson who exclaimed "If any state in the Union
will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union ....
I have no hesitation in saying, Let us separate." Most political leaders up to
the Civil War agreed with that view. They thought states had the right to
secede. But so much for reverse history; we can all make of it what we will.
Two final questions need to be
raised about war. First, wouldn't a war of self defense unravel a pacifist's
argument that no war is just? The best defense against modern warfare initiated
against the U.S. is
prevention through the U.S.
having the right kind of foreign policies in place over time. Unfortunately,
the question is less hypothetical than it may seem. As it stands today, the
administrator of our foreign policy, the Department of State is a subsidiary of
the Department of Defense. Our foreign policies are in reality militant
military policies.
Second, what about military
interventions for humanitarian reasons? Are they not just? "As Einstein once
said, "War cannot be humanized. War can only be abolished." There should never
be inhumane means to a humane end. Witness the case of Amnesty International-USA
urging NATO's military intervention in Afghanistan to protect human rights
for women and girls. Rationalizing military interventions as humanitarian
interventions "is a sign of progress," David Swanson, author of War is a Lie
says, adding, "That we fall for it is a sign of embarrassing weakness. The war
propagandist is the world's second oldest profession, and the humanitarian lie
is not entirely new. But it works in concert with other common war lies."
[13] Finding and using a genuinely humane intervention requires ingenuity and a
moral conscience, not military might.
Can America's
endless wars be ended for good?
War is not inevitable. There have
been peaceful periods throughout history here and there in the world. And war
can be ended, possibly forever. Doing so will require changing the personal
characteristics and circumstances of our future U.S. presidents.
As for the four character flaws,
they won't change in a sitting president. They have been crystallized and
hardened during his formative years. We must elect an entirely different kind
of president, one whose characteristics are the mirror image of the four. We
know when the four positive sides exist by looking at the candidate's personal
history. We give ourselves a better chance of electing a candidate having no
character flaws by changing how we elect the candidates and, in the long run by
grooming them early. The way we elect presidents needs to be changed from
winner-take all to an approval voting or an alternative, scored voting. Either
approach leaves the Constitutional requirement of an Electoral College intact.
Besides possessing the four positive character traits, the person ought to be a
female. Not just any female though. Rule out Hillary Clinton, she of the "we
came, we saw, we killed" morality and wife of a man who some argue is an
international war criminal. And rule out Elizabeth Warren, the brand new U.S.
Senator from Massachusetts.
She apparently believes Iran
is a significant threat to the U.S.
and is too closely allied with AIPAC, the American/Israeli lobby group
reportedly just itching to get the U.S.
into a war with Iran.
Future candidates need to be groomed through training, mentoring, and being
down-ballot candidates and office holders for progressive, non-imperialistic
causes.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
