[Peace-discuss] Right and Left Oppose War and Empire

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Despite some questionable history & an objectionably 'pragmatic' tone, this 
piece is surely correct on the elementary point of the need for opposition to US 
war & empire from left & right (and that the resistance comes typically from "a 
co-founder of Progressives for Obama"...!)  --CGE]

	February 24 2010
	The United States Needs a Broad-Based Anti-War Movement
	Can the Right and Left Work Together to Oppose War and Empire?
	By Kevin Zeese

There has to be a better way to stop wars and reduce military spending. Polls 
show U.S. voters at worst divided on current wars and more often show majority 
opposition to them. Yet, when Congress “debates” war the widespread view of 
Americans is muffled, not usually not heard.

For the last decade, with President Bush in office the peace movement has been 
politically left and Democratic leaning. The right wing has been kept off the 
stage as a result the anti-war movement does not reflect the breadth of American 
opposition to war. For too long the peace movement has been like a bird with 
only a left wing. It can barely fly and when it does it seems to go in circles. 
Perhaps a bird with two wings will fly better?

This past weekend Voters for Peace sponsored a meeting of 40 people from across 
the political spectrum who oppose war and Empire. The people attending see the 
U.S. military as too big and too expensive and recognize spending $1 million to 
keep a soldier in Afghanistan for one year is a symptom of mistaken militarism 
that weakens U.S. economic and national security.

The purpose of the meeting was to see if we could work together. Could we put 
aside our differences on other issues and focus on reducing American militarism 
and in the long run ending reliance on war?

The conversation began with discussions of the history of anti-war advocacy in 
the United States and what we can learn from it. One point repeatedly made by 
people on the left and right was that historically there have been conservatives 
who opposed war and empire. Today those voices are heard in a whisper, if at 
all. Before the Spanish American War, World War I and World War II, strong 
opposition to foreign intervention not only came from progressives but also from 
traditional conservatives rooted in the recommendation of George Washington’s 
farewell address – ‘avoid foreign entanglements.’ How can we re-awaken that 
common sense conservatism and forge a broad based anti-war movement?

What would a broad based anti-war movement look like? Some of the conservatives 
in the room warned against this 21st Century movement looking like the 
anti-Vietnam war protests of the 60s. Many on the left and right acknowledged 
that the mass weekend protests against Iraq were large in size but ineffective 
in result. While there is a role for such protests, they are not sufficient for 
the task at hand. Some conservatives warned against describing the United States 
as imperialist – that would get up the hackles of many Americans. But, they were 
comfortable describing the United States as an Empire.

Personally, I found that of interest. Americans never hear discussed in the 
media whether or not our country is an Empire. And, if we were to have such a 
discussion the critical questions would be is Empire good for us, for our 
national security, for our economy, for our democracy? Having those questions 
debated would be a breakthrough in political dialogue.

It is hard to deny the American Empire. The U.S. has more than 2,500,000 DoD 
personnel deployed across the planet and 761 military bases on foreign soil not 
counting more than 100 in Iraq and more than 400 American and NATO bases in 
Afghanistan. U.S. troops are now stationed in 148 countries and 11 territories 
according to DoD’s “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area 
and Country.” America has spawned a military network larger than the Roman 
Empire, which at its height had 37 major military bases, and the British Empire 
which had 36. More bases are planned; billions spent building bases in far off 
lands while large swaths of American cities degrade into impoverished zones and 
the infrastructure of the nation crumbles.

When the Cold War ended, rather than reducing troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, 
Italy, the Philippines, and so many other nations; ending the NATO alliance 
which was designed to combat the now non-existent Soviet Union; and shrinking 
the weapons and war budget, the U.S. decided to seek to become the sole 
superpower on Earth. U.S. military spending is now as much as the whole world 
combined. The U.S. Navy exceeds in firepower the next 13 navies combined. When 
all the budgets are accounted for – the Pentagon, the wars, the 16 intelligence 
agencies, the super-sized embassies – total Empire spending is more than $1 
trillion annually.

And, the Empire has deep roots. General Smedley Butler, the most decorated 
Marine in history joined the Marines in 1898 and served 34 years in China, 
Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, Mexico and other nations as part of the early American 
Empire. When Butler retired and thought about his career he described himself as 
a “racketeer” for U.S. business interests around the world and said “war is a 
racket.”

But, this massive Empire is not discussed. It is the elephant in the living room 
of American foreign policy. And, the entrenched military-industrial complex that 
President Eisenhower warned us about in 1961 is now so powerful that cutting the 
military budget is off the table in Washington, DC – despite cost over-runs of 
hundreds of billions in weapons contracts, the GAO consistently describing the 
Pentagon as un-auditable and budgets filled with waste, fraud and abuse. The war 
budget grows and grows despite a fragile if not collapsing economy at home.

After a long day of discussion it became evident that people from across the 
political spectrum, despite differences on other issues, could in fact work 
together to challenge American militarism. Some in the room who had been working 
on these issues for forty years thought such a coalition was decades past due. 
Some of the students in attendance had their eyes opened to the history of 
traditional conservative anti-war efforts as in their lifetimes it had not been 
heard from.

In discussing this publicly, so far I have only heard from one person on “the 
left” who opposes it. He was a co-founder of Progressives for Obama and he lumps 
everyone on the conservative side into what he calls “racist populism.” Such 
broad stroke descriptions of people are prima facie evidence of prejudice and 
certainly not consistent with people I have met from across the spectrum. But, 
his opposition shows the challenge on “the left” – too many are unwilling to 
stop their support for the Democrats and Obama.

The challenge on the right is also difficult. The Neocons have taken over almost 
all significant conservative organizations. How can we attract traditional 
conservatives to anti-war advocacy? The day after the conference, the surprise 
land slide victory of the anti-war conservative, Ron Paul, at the CPAC 
convention gave hope that there were more right wing peaceniks than we may have 
imagined.

While our task is urgent – something which the 1000th death of a U.S. soldier in 
Afghanistan and the weekend’s killing of two dozen more civilians in an aerial 
attack brings home – our job is immense. Undoing a century old Empire that is 
larger than any that ever existed, is no easy task, but for citizen patriots it 
is an essential one for the survival of the nation and the benefit of the world.

To join our efforts sign the Voters Pledge at www.VotersForPeace.US and get 
involved.

Kevin Zeese is executive director of Voters for Peace.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.