[lbo-talk] Re: Sexuality Under Seige, or What Else is New?

[Jon Johanning]

On Aug 1, 2004, at 5:47 PM, Nathan Newman wrote:

> Yes, Kerry said he would fight wars if necessary.
>
> Was he supposed to say that he wouldn't defend the US, even if it 
> became
> necessary?
>
> He emphasized the line, which is a complete rejection of Bush's 
> preemption
> doctrine, that the US should never fight a war because it wants to, 
> only
> because it has to.  War as the last option is not war party rhetoric.
>
> Folks may disagree with when the line is when war becomes necessary. 
> Most
> would agree that WWII fits the definition.  Many argue that stopping
> genocide counts; others disagree (both on whether war is then 
> justified and
> whether genocide might have been occuring, as in Kosovo).
>
> People don't want hawkishness, necessarily.  American has a strong
> isolationist streak.  They just want confidence in their leaders that 
> if,
> and it's an important if, it becomes necessary to act to defend them, 
> they
> will act.

Look, I'm definitely voting for Kerry, but only to get rid of Shrub, 
not because I think Kerry's positions, especially on Iraq and military 
affairs in general, do anything but suck.

As a number of people have pointed out, for him to say that he would 
only "fight a war because the US has to" is a meaningless platitude. 
Every leader who brings a nation into a war says "we have to do it." 
Bush and Powell (the latter a raging peacenik in some people's eyes) 
said "we have to do it" before the war, and Kerry and Edwards both 
bought that line, with the hook and sinker attached. If he couldn't see 
through the lies Bush and Powell were telling, he's an idiot. He went 
along with the war for purely political reasons, because he was 
planning to run for president and didn't want to look "weak." He has no 
principles whatsoever as far as I can see. His days as a war opponent 
were long ago, in his misspent youth, and he has thoroughly repented of 
them since.

The only reason there is an "isolationist streak" in the American 
population is that Americans by and large know and care nothing about 
the rest of the world. As I said, that was true 40 years ago (and long 
before that), and it is still true today. This so-called "isolationist 
streak" is light-years away from a true interest in peace, and in fact 
works against it. People who most of the time ignore the world outside 
their borders can turn right around and rampage into battle the next 
day, precisely *because* of their ignorance. A true interest in peace 
comes from a well-grounded knowledge of situations around the world, 
and an interest in finding ways to solve them without war.

The U.S., as I'm sure you know well, doesn't fight these wars like Iraq 
to "defend itself," except in the sense that it needs to defend its 
empire. WW II was ancient history -- nothing like that is going to 
happen. As for "stopping genocide," neither Kerry nor Bush nor any 
other politician who is likely to become president is going to put U.S. 
troops into a situation like Darfur -- why would they? Only if it were 
necessary to the oil industry.

What is Kerry doing to enlighten the public about the real situation in 
the Mideast, or Africa, or the other places where conflicts are now 
raging or will soon? What's he saying about what he will do about 
issues like peak oil and climate change, which will breed terrific 
conflicts in a rather short time and really need thorough public 
airing? Nothing. He's simply put on his Holloween soldier's costume and 
is running around braying about how "strong" he is. He acts as though 
he doesn't have a brain in his head when it comes to foreign policy. 
Why is he doing this, when we know that he is in fact quite smart? It's 
because he knows the American people are incredibly dumb about foreign 
affairs and he can't afford to confuse them in the middle of a close 
presidential race. Will he try to be any more educational if he does 
win? I seriously doubt it. It wouldn't help him get reelected.

Let's vote for Kerry, but please avoid deluding ourselves and build him 
up into some sort of a hero. He's just another U.S. presidential 
candidate out scrabbling for votes.


Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
__________________________________
A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You 
should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest 
and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax