<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Pragmatically, the antiwar movement needs all of the help it can get. The question is whether one can have a successful movement when some of its allies are unprincipled in their professed opposition to war, wars, or a war. In relation to left-libertarian alliances I don't see this as a problem, although apparently some do, because libertarians are by-and-large principled opponents of foreign intervention. In relation to Coulter, etc., I do see it as a problem, since they only admit to the "mistakes" of fighting a particular war, but essentially support the notion of intervention and militarism, on "principle." What does the anti-war movement become when it allies itself with those who are essentially pro-war? Certainly, it loses analytical clarity in relation to the value of human life.
Does the end justify the means? "Pragmatic" opposition to the Vietnam War contributed to ending the war, but it perpetuated the foreign policy "principles" that led to subsequent wars.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>DG<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Morton K. Brussel <mkb3@mac.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thu, January 20, 2011 11:28:11 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] Be careful what you assume…<BR></FONT><BR>I would guess that most people who cite Eisenhower's speech cite it<BR>not as evidence that Eisenhower was a wonderful human being, but<BR>rather because the fact that *Eisenhower* said it gives it greater<BR>weight. So it's almost the opposite. I suppose that it could be argued<BR>that the citing has some residual effect of making people feel more<BR>positively about Eisenhower. But, seeing as he is long dead, any<BR>social harm caused by this seems
minimal. If you could shut down one<BR>foreign base, cancel one weapons system at a cost of inadvertently<BR>discouraging people from hating Eisenhower as much as they're supposed<BR>to, it seems like a small price to pay.<BR><BR>There are a lot of arenas where someone's usefulness as an authority<BR>is almost inversely proportional to one's opinion of their intrinsic<BR>moral worth. Some pacifist denounces the war in Afghanistan: great.<BR>George Will and Ann Coulter denounce it: now you got something. If I<BR>point out that Ann Coulter has denounced the war in Afghanistan, am I<BR>guilty of Ann Coulter-promotion?<BR><BR>On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Morton K. Brussel <<A href="mailto:mkb3@mac.com" ymailto="mailto:mkb3@mac.com">mkb3@mac.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> I too have used Eisenhower's words in hopes that they be taken literally<BR>> from someone who understood the perils of militarism, but Wolff explains why<BR>> to do this is to
give a false image of Eisenhower.<BR>><BR>> Eisenhower's "warnings about military overreach were couched, it's usually<BR>> forgotten, in passages insisting on the need for a military of unprecedented<BR>> size." The famous final warning about the military-industrial complex is the<BR>> best example: It was immediately followed by words that are typically<BR>> ignored: "We recognize the imperative need for this development [of the<BR>> complex].... Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action" because the<BR>> communist threat "promises to be of indefinite duration."<BR>><BR>> <A href="http://www.truth-out.org/how-one-paragraph-a-single-speech-has-skewed-eisenhower-record66953" target=_blank>http://www.truth-out.org/how-one-paragraph-a-single-speech-has-skewed-eisenhower-record66953</A><BR>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Peace-discuss mailing list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>> <A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Robert Naiman<BR>Policy Director<BR>Just Foreign Policy<BR>www.justforeignpolicy.org<BR><A href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>