Third Party & Independents: Archives

We are a culture founded in revolution. After pushing out the French and English, we set about annihilating the Native Americans and invading Mexico, central America and Cuba.We then set about colonizing Indonesia and with the destruction of Germany in WWII expanded our empire into Europe and dominated the economy until recently. With the fall of the Soviet bloc We have continued to disrupt easter Europe and now are destabilizing the middleeast and the Ukraine. We are a warrior culture who wave our “freedom” about like Christianity. Is it all bad? No. Ghengis Kahn wasn’t all bad either. “Free trade” is designed to benefit the wealthy of the U.S and England.

If people are busy hating other cultures, and worrying about their sons being killed they don’t notice that they are being robbed blind. This is the true class war in America.

This was the message of Farenheidt 911 that I thought was the most poignant.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I think that a reasonable combination of both aspects is the way to really be secure. For example, the invasion of Afghanistan, a war in response to an attack by a defined enemy who was actually being supported by that country, was a wise use of force. Similarly, our support for rebuilding and local control, although probably less than it should have been, was a wise use of peaceful means to maintain a friend. However, the war in Iraq, against an impotent enemy who had not harmed us, was counterproductive in almost every way. I think that the solution is to remember that war is a serious action, and not a football game. Military might needs to be an option in the real world, but exercised only under the most certain of circumstances, and when it will actually do us some good.

I agree with Brian. It depends. There is a time for peace and a time for war.

The WWI & WWII example is actually a good argument for both. We need not get into the reasons for WWI suffice to say, it was clearly not the fault of the U.S. We got involved late.

The problem for peace was that the Great War was inconclusive. That is why the Allies determined to demand unconditional surrender in 1945. The Germans were left hurt and angry but with the capacity to take revenge.

Peace movements and appeasement also helped the second war along by the Western powers. They were so afraid of war that they stumbled into the biggest war in history.

Peace doesn’t keep itself. It requires active measures and the application of coercive force, or the threat of it, on occasion. Both extremes of too much reliance on force and too little get us into wars.

Remember also that a completely pacifist stance is morally indefensible unless you believe that God will take care of you in the next life, because that is where you soon will be. Pacifism allows the ascendancy of the most ruthless. The case study again is World War II. The British establishment determined not to fight in the 1930s. As Hitler got more and more aggressive, they just kept on backing down. Until finally they could take no more.

So, when will we begin to build up the Iraqi military?
How much is that going to cost the U.S.?

Democracy or not, an Iraq with little or no military strength will also be a beacon for it’s stronger neighbors. One of our biggest problems will be defending the Iraqi democracy after we leave.

For those of you who do not know their History:

World War I ended in a negotiated surrender. Their were Terms and Conditions which both sides were supposed to follow in exchange for Germany’s Surrender. After surrendering and following the Conditions set forth by the Germans, France and England IGNORED their side of the Agreement. Humiliated and discredited in front of their people, the German Government collapsed. Giving way to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party who gave hope and pride back to the German People.

And let’s not forget when they first started their aggressive tones, France (who was charged with ensuring that they did not do exactly that) attempted to look the other way and negotiate a settlement for peace, because war was not an answer…

Hmmmm

One wonders what would have happened if they HAD been more resolved and willing to use force to enforce the agreements.

The best deterrent to war, is intelligence. The Cold War never became a hot war due to the intelligence game which evolved out of necessity from the Mutual Assured Destruction revelation on both sides.

Intelligence permits one to reveal to an opponent an awareness of its designs and potential and setting before the enemy a clear picture of what the response will look like if such designs and potential are moved to realization.

The Bush Administration totally, utterly, and completely failed in observing this long understood fact of deterrence in the modern world and proved it by the WMD and imminent threat egg it still wears on its face today. The Bush administration chose war before acquiring accurate intelligence. Thus demonstrating the lack of intelligence of the leadership of this administration in every way possible.

Aldous et al

My mother’s family was German and had an interpretation like yours. I heard it all the time I was growing up. It is kind of the “Germans were forced to be nasty” school. It telescopes a decade and a half and ignores a lot of other things in between. The German army was thoroughly exhausted, but the negotiated peace created the powerful the myth that democrats and socialists stabbed them in the back. Hitler played that up. That is the reason the allies insisted on taking the surrender from a military man in 1945.

All that said, there is something to it and I agree with your basic premise when talking about immediate post war. It was mostly the fault of France, that wanted to impose a Carthaginian peace, but was unwilling and unable to follow through. Economically it was also a disaster. John Maynard Keynes famously predicted trouble, although it is interesting that the man Keynes was most impressed with was Herbert Hoover, who, among other things, saved thousands of Germans from starvation through food aid. Proper management along those lines might have allowed a peaceful transition. Many of the junior officers and diplomats of the 1920s learned from this and applied those lessons in 1945. That could have been the time for peace, but the world missed the opportunity.

But by the time Hitler had consolidated his power after 1933, the time for peace had passed. Ironically, the western powers did some things along the lines of what they should have done in the 1920s, but now from a weakened position. This would have been a time to be tougher, but the Europeans were too afraid to challenge Hitler and their peace movements were strong. The U.S. was preoccupied with its internal problems and didn’t even want to acknowledge it was on the same planet. We also learned a lesson from that decade. There can be no peaceful balance without the U.S. and the allies have to occasionally act decisively. This could have been the time for preemptive action, but the world also missed this opportunity.

Anyway, trying to keep the peace at any cost or excessive deliverance are both ways to get in trouble. We should always give peace a chance, but demand results.

In the second last line of my post deliverance should be belligerence. Usually I don’t bother correcting my typos etc, but this makes no sense. Sorry.

“Military might needs to be an option in the real world, but exercised only under the most certain of circumstances, and when it will actually do us some good.”

Military might needs to be the “LAST” option. To be used only when all other means have been exausted.
We went into Iraq because Saddam tried to stick his finger in our collective eye, nothing more.
I’m sure you guys will argue that we went there for “humanitarian” reasons. Bullshit. Sorry guys, there are other places where humanitarian reasons would have been more applicable.
If you want to argue that we went into Iraq because of “Strategic humanitarian” reasons, maybe.
America seems to have a hard time doing anything that isn’t in it’s own self interest.
Saddam wasn’t threatening us.
Did he support terrorism? Maybe.
Did he support Al Qaeda? Philosophicly, possibly. Monetarily, I don’t think so.
Al Qaeda was well known for it’s distaste for Saddam.

Unless we plan on being in Iraq forever, we have done the Middle East a huge disfavor. We have done more to destabilize the region than anything else.

I’m glad you brought this up, Adam. But I wonder if you could expand or elaborate on what implementing the Ideology of Peace would look like in terms of real world policy. For instance, if America were to fully follow such a policy how should we have dealt with the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11?

The ideology of peace teaches that our violent reactionary responses to terrorist attacks create more instability and poverty in regions which breed future terrorism. This ideology teaches it is that very instability and poverty which fills the signup rolls, and the bloody example of war which instills the cold hearted resolve of suicide attacks. The violence creates the illusion of stability and peace, which in the end erupts into more violence.

For that matter, what about a Nazi regime as it rolls across Europe and bombs England into submission? When does the ideology of peace decide a little force is necessary?

Eric,
What was it Teddy Roosevelt said?

Oh, yea, walk softly and carry a big stick.

Nobody said anything about not kicking ass. Let’s just make sure we kick the right ass, at the right time.

Clearly, an ‘ideology of peace’ is preferable to one of war. Just as clearly, there are times where the latter becomes a matter of necessity. In the case of World War I, an ‘ideology of peace’ could have prevailed. Unfortunately, the ruinous economic reparations exacted from Germany played a major role in the following hyper-inflation, and fall of their republic. In addition, the failure of the US to participate in the League of Nations proved equally disastrous.
The time for an ‘ideology of peace’ in Iraq slipped through the hands of the US. We missed the opportunity, because the decision to attack, to follow an ideology of war, had been made long ago; a decision not just to contain, not just to seek regime change, but to attack. Our country ignored the results of UN inspections, and invaded.
Perhaps another opportunity for an ‘ideology of peace’ to prevail was also missed in the period immediately after the conquest. The US delivered contracts to it allies and preferred multinational favorites. Plans proceeded to establish permanent military bases. The CPA followed the advice of the Iranian spy, Chalabi, financially and in disbanding the Iraqi military. The US treated Iraq as if it represented the spoils of war. It would have been difficult advocating an ideology of peace after invading, but if the US could have engaged the UN…

Could have… would have… should have…

We haven’t even seen the really interesting part yet. Will the US continue fighting as the Shia’s proxy in their civil war with the Sunnis, or withdraw, and let the Shias and the Sunnis get on with it? Will the Kurds opt for independence?

A problem for liberals involves the use of force to prevent genocide. Most would argue a peaceful country has an obligation to prevent this kind of slaughter. What would be the right thing to do in Iraq?

Saddam Hussein held Iraq together by sheer brute force. Bush #41 recognized this, and left him in power after the First Gulf War. Now the US finds itself in a similar role, but unwilling to go quite as far as Saddam. Given the long history of enmity between the Shias and Sunnis, and the unlikelihood of the Sunnis accepting a politically brokered peace, at what point does the US withdraw? Do we stay… forever… and act as the Shias proxy in a civil war? Do we abrogate our moral responsibility, walk away, and let the Shias and Sunnis have at it, with the prospect of genocide a distinct possibility?

It seems to me that the outcome will be the same, whether we stay or leave. If we stay, we’ll be fighting the Iraqi Sunnis for a long, long time, at an economic cost of over $4 billion a month. If we leave, there’s a small hope of a political reconciliation, but a good chance of a horrendous civil war- with the Shias fighting the Sunnis, instead of us.

Well said, Jack.

I do believe it was the economic situation that allowd Hitler to rise. If you subjugate a populus to poverty they will rise up in revolt. Even the American Revolution was in part about heavy taxation and economic repression.

There was a real fear, too that the Hoovervilles during the Depression would lead to revolt.

Sadly, rallying a populus to war can focus their anger and frustration away from their own governments faults. Cutting off Japan lead us into WWII. I don’t happen to think that was an all wrong strategy, but is was also a reality that Roosevelt wanted us involved in WWII for numerous reasons.

Sometimes, I do think that Iraq was at least in part about redirecting an angry populus away from Bush’s failures toward an enemy with which he had an old score to settle. Machiavellian leadership is nothing new to this country nor exclusive to Bush.

Rocky,

Please name a country that does NOT act in it’s OWN self interest.

—-
Maybe the people who said that Al Queda gained recruits and became a bigger threat because the U.S. was weak - that we turn tail and run at any threat - were wrong.
Now there is a claim that the Al Queda recruiting machine has gained strength due to the fact that the U.S. actually showed force and decided not to sit back and take it anymore.
Two different reactions = same threat ?

Looks to me like the threat is very real and needs to be dealt with using a combination of peace, force, the threat of force, and helping the people of the Middle East gain strength through education and jobs so they can get rid of their own suppressive governments.

All of this cannot be done by peaceful means or forceful means alone.

This isn’t a plan where tomorrow we engage in total peace. It’s just past time to work towards it. The “war against terror” is not the way to work towards peace. We sadly must clean up after ourselves for a bit and keep our protection strong, but through real coalitions and negotiation, we can stop forming new generations of tyrants and madmen. It’s a big job, but it’s been said that the journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step. When are we going to take that first step?

Rocky:
“Military might needs to be the “LAST” option. To be used only when all other means have been exausted.”

This is what sane people believe. Neo-Con’s are crazy - both in their overwhelming greed, and in their casual attitude toward using war as a tool to get what they want.

“We went into Iraq because Saddam tried to stick his finger in our collective eye, nothing more.”

That, and getting a chance to control the oil.

“I’m sure you guys will argue that we went there for “humanitarian” reasons. Bullshit.”

Great steaming piles of it.

“Sorry guys, there are other places where humanitarian reasons would have been more applicable.”

Definitely.

“America seems to have a hard time doing anything that isn’t in it’s own self interest.”

Tragically true. And a hard time understanding that our own self-interest would very often be better served by acting far less like a greedy and sneeringly xenophobic behemoth, and much more like a powerful, yet benevolent paragon of diplomatic virtue, still firmly wedded to our founding ideals.

“Unless we plan on being in Iraq forever, we have done the Middle East a huge disfavor. We have done more to destabilize the region than anything else.”

Yeah. [Sigh]
To me it seems like we’re completely screwed - dammed if we do or don’t stay. And now there are murmurings about air strikes on Iran…
Whichever way you look at it, it seems these Neo-Cons are going to be the death of us all.

Dawn,
A country with a soul sometimes needs to act when it is not nescessarily in its best interests, when there is nothing to gain.
When it is just the right thing to do.