[Peace-discuss] Be careful what you assume…

[David Green]

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.

DG




________________________________
From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
To: Morton K. Brussel <mkb3 at mac.com>
Cc: Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 11:28:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Be careful what you assume…

I would guess that most people who cite Eisenhower's speech cite it
not as evidence that Eisenhower was a wonderful human being, but
rather because the fact that *Eisenhower* said it gives it greater
weight. So it's almost the opposite. I suppose that it could be argued
that the citing has some residual effect of making people feel more
positively about Eisenhower. But, seeing as he is long dead, any
social harm caused by this seems minimal. If you could shut down one
foreign base, cancel one weapons system at a cost of inadvertently
discouraging people from hating Eisenhower as much as they're supposed
to, it seems like a small price to pay.

There are a lot of arenas where someone's usefulness as an authority
is almost inversely proportional to one's opinion of their intrinsic
moral worth. Some pacifist denounces the war in Afghanistan: great.
George Will and Ann Coulter denounce it: now you got something. If I
point out that Ann Coulter has denounced the war in Afghanistan, am I
guilty of Ann Coulter-promotion?

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Morton K. Brussel <mkb3 at mac.com> wrote:
> I too have used Eisenhower's words in hopes that they be taken literally
> from someone who understood the perils of militarism, but Wolff explains why
> to do this is to give a false image of Eisenhower.
>
> Eisenhower's "warnings about military overreach were couched, it's usually
> forgotten, in passages insisting on the need for a military of unprecedented
> size." The famous final warning about the military-industrial complex is the
> best example: It was immediately followed by words that are typically
> ignored: "We recognize the imperative need for this development [of the
> complex].... Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action" because the
> communist threat "promises to be of indefinite duration."
>
> http://www.truth-out.org/how-one-paragraph-a-single-speech-has-skewed-eisenhower-record66953
>3
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110120/b1431d9b/attachment.html>