[Peace-discuss] Pander-Bear...Ack!

[John W.]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

The Financial Times, to my mind the best general English-language newspaper
> today, points out that -- despite rhetorical divergences -- there are no
> major differences in general Mideast war policy among Obama, McCain, Clinton
> and Bush.  From the article cited above,
>
> "...For all the difference in temperament and outlook between them, many
> analysts and insiders say there are important points of continuity between
> the three main presidential campaigns' policies on the Middle East, despite
> the many controversies in the region.
>
> "...Even on Iraq, the great divisive issue in US politics, some observers
> caution that, in the end, there might be less difference between the
> candidates' approach than first meets the eye."
>
> Two points seem clear:
>
> [1] In the US, policy -- particularly foreign policy -- is largely
> insulated from politics.  The permanent government follows a consistent
> policy, however nefarious, and regularly scheduled elections function more
> as a distraction from it than as a process of decision about it: we think
> we're making public decisions (as in the elections of of 2006 and 2008), but
> in fact the possibilities are so carefully constructed that they will make
> no difference in the general policy.  But it gives the electorate something
> to do.
>
> [2] The current wars in the Middle East, far from reflecting he peculiar
> ignorance or stupidity of George Bush (as Gore Vidal seemed to argue on
> Democracy Now! this morning) are well within the (narrow) policy spectrum
> discussed within the American government for generations, if at one end of
> that spectrum.  And -- as the House Democrats admit by funding the war well
> into the next administration -- the new president will intend no real
> change, whoever s/he is.  On war, the election of 2008 is like the election
> of 1968 -- regardless of its outcome, the new president will continue the
> war, with at best tactical changes.  --CGE


So why aren't we still fighting in Viet Nam?  What exactly caused the change
in policy that resulted in Nixon pulling the troops out, rather
precipitously, citing "peace with honor"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080514/1285b834/attachment.htm