Morality vs. Material Interests Myths of Our Time (VIETNAM, IRAQ) By Paul Craig Roberts

[Demeter]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23958.htm

It is conventional wisdom that it was the draft that ended the Vietnam war. According to this explanation, cowardly college students subject to the draft and their unpatriotic families, forced an end to the war. This is Karl Marx’s explanation. Material interests, not empty morality, are said to have brought the war to an end.

That fact that in those days the US still had an independent media of sorts that sometimes framed the war in moral terms is ignored. Are we sure, for example, that the film of the naked little girl running in terror down the road burning with napalm was ineffectual in arousing moral opposition to the war? Are we certain that it wasn’t an aroused moral conscience that brought about the end of the war but was college students’ fears for their lives and limbs?

If we ascribe ending the war to material interests, it makes ending the war look as unworthy as the war itself.

Yet, virtually every conservative columnist, commentator, newsperson and politician, as well as today’s antiwar protesters and apparently the Pentagon, believes that a military draft would reduce Americans’ toleration for wars because of body bags coming home to middle and upper class parents. Apparently, the lower class doesn’t mind its kids coming back in body bags.

Those in thrall to this explanation, which derives from Marx’s materialist explanation of history, do not notice that Vietnam was our longest war. It apparently took almost forever for the material interest of students and their parents to realize itself and stop the war.

Why are we afraid to say that the war stopped because American troops and the American population got tired, offended even, from killing women, children and noncombatants? Vietnam had not attacked the US. The US had interjected itself into a civil war in a far off place, as it has done in Afghanistan....

MORE AT LINK

[Jim__]

1. I sympathize with his sentiments, but I don't believe this is an either/or issue.

Someone may disagree with a war. They may well disagree with it on moral grounds. But, whether or not they will protest the war depends on how strongly they feel. Morality is indeed abstract, and opinions that decisions made by national leaders are wrong always contains a certain amount of uncertainty. That lessens the probability that someone morally opposed to the war will actually protest.

Now, add to someone's moral opposition that, against their will, this person or a family member will be forced to risk their life in the war. Suddenly, the abstract moral question becomes very personal and very concrete. I think the draft definitely gives the average American a bigger stake in any war. They pay a lot more attention and are more likely to engage in protest against wars they find immoral.

[Demeter]

2. I'm Sure He Agrees With You

I think his point is that, even if one has NO personal interest in the process or the outcome, it is an immoral war and on that basis alone the troops should come home.

It shouldn't require middle class economic or personal pain to drive the peace movement. And I think from the start, the peace movement has been middle class, even without a draft, and driven by the immorality, and the economic and political costs at home, in the target country, and in general.

This war makes no sense, unless one is an oil company. And we should not go to war for oil companies, who don't even permit us to collect taxes from them to fund their wars of choice, wars of gain, wars of plunder.