Have there been any justifiable US wars since WWII? What about pacifism?

[bigtree]

I'm talking about these invasions that we have justified by claiming that we are saving some country or the other, or protecting some US interest.

If your answer is yes, was your choice so personally compelling that you feel others would be cowardly, unpatriotic, or morally wrong to oppose participating in that conflict or oppose supporting the killing and dying that goes along with such an assault or invasion?

Has pacifism been a justifiable stance for Americans as our government has engaged in conflict after conflict in the name of national security, humanitarianism, or national interest?

Does pacifism, although apparently not a position shared by a majority of Americans, have moral equivalency with militarism, or support for militarism?

I think it does. We make all sorts of calculations about the efficacy of degrees of militarism more readily than we would rely on diplomacy. There is a disconnect in our interventions that places more value in intimidation through the force of our military than in our institutions of peace. There is a greater need for pacifism, and for those who would commit themselves to non-violence, than there is a need for more mechanizations of aggression and the wielding of weaponry.

Perhaps we need both. I would not resign myself or others to that rationalization. I would work earnestly to try to achieve a world where war is not an inevitability. I believe that would be well served by our individual commitments against war and aggression, including pacifism. I'm less enamored of commitments to violence and war


Me Book

[el_gato]

1. WwII is not so black and white

Given the fact that U.S. capitalists were big financial
backers of the Third Reich and the fact that
Japan and Germany were both on the brink of collapse
when we carpet bombed Germany and Nuked Japan.

The U.S. was not necessarily the white knight in that war.

[bigtree]

2. Thanks for that

[jobycom]

3. We weren't white

But we weren't the Black Knight, either.

I agree, though, people act as though the horrors of Hitler meant everyone else acted honorably by fighting him. While I would never defend Hitler (for the same reasons I wouldn't defend Bush), the Allies were not so innocent. Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler was broken in spirit by Chamberlain and France before Hitler broke it, and Hitler had reason to believe that England, France and Russia were trying to squeeze him out of existence. No one was dealing on the up and up at that time.

But we were fighting the aggressor, and we were attacked first, mostly (although even in relations with Japan, we weren't that innocent).

Since then, with the possible minor exception of Clinton's actions in Serbia and Kosovo, we have been the agressors, the Hitlers, slaughtering millions in wars we initiated over ideological disputes and corporate profits, or even political games. We have been the Black Knights since then.

I except Serbia/Kosovo only because we were at first invited into that dispute by the participants as gaurantors of good faith negotiations. ALL sides, including Serbia, agreed that we were the enforcers of negotiations, so when Serbia broke the negotiations, we were pre-authorized by them to force them back into line. When Serbia tried to beat the clock and drive the Kosovars out of Kosovo, our role escalated to that of defender against "ethnic cleansing." So that war was defensible. And though some civilians were hit by our bombs, we didn't target civilian populations. For what it's worth, I opposed Clinton's actions there, too. But I'm not sure I was right.

[bigtree]

5. Serbia /Kosovo were caught in a circle of violence that mocked pacifism

I don't know either. There doesn't appear to be any quibble in America about the destructive bombing that the U.S.led war to cage the monster, Slobadan Milosevic. Where is Radovan?

According to author Michel Chossudovsky, MPRI, was helping Macedonia-as part of a US military aid package - "to deter armed aggression and defend Macedonian territory." But MPRI was also advising and equipping the KLA, which was responsible for terrorist assaults. MPRI, in 1999, listed"ninety-one former military working in Bosnia & Herzegovina. http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/choss/ploy2.htm

The military-intelligence ploy was to finance both sides of the conflict, provide military aid to one side and finance the other side and wait for them to weaken. U.S. military advisers operated behind MPRI on both sides of the conflict.

The same group of U.S. military advisers on contract with the KLA was also "helping" the Macedonian Armed Forces. The MPRI -while assisting the KLA in its terrorist assaults - was also present behind enemy lines in Macedonia under a so-called "Stability and Deterrence Program". http://www.state.gov/p/2893.htm

In April 2001, Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa and author of The Globalization of Poverty wrote that, "While supporting the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Washington was at the same time --behind the scenes-- funneling money and military hardware to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which was engaged in a border war with the Macedonian Security Forces."

Professor Chossudovsky thought it a "cruel irony" that Washington was arming and advising both the KLA attackers and the Macedonian defenders under military and intelligence authorization acts approved by the U.S. Congress."

During President Bush's first presidential campaign Condoleeza Rice, proposed that American peacekeepers be removed from the Balkans, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The rationale behind this move was described as a view that American forces were overdeployed and that peacekeeping is not a proper role for U.S. troops. Said Rice, "We don't need the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62966-2000Oct23?language=printer

At the Republican national convention Rice asserted "the United States should not be the "world's 911." There are nearly 55,000 European troops in Kosovo in addition to the American contribution.

U.S. President Bush made it clear when he became president that those countries affording shelter to terrorists would not be spared. But for the Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, Turks and other non-Albanians who have been driven from homes in Kosovo by the Kosovo Liberation Army, that was a hollow and contradictory promise.

James Bisset, former Canadian ambassador to the region, wrote that, "the bombing of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 to stop ethnic cleansing and prevent the Balkans from igniting a European civil war, caused Kosovo to become dominated by Albanians."

The Balkans, since the end of the bombing, have been in a perpetual state of unrest caused by the KLA terrorist activities. NATO allowed the KLA, to keep their weapons, despite the U.N. resolution calling for disarnament.

Bisset writes that, "as early as 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and funds supplied from Islamic countries and individuals, including Osama bin Laden."

Bin Laden had operated in the Balkans since the Bosnian civil wars in 1992-1995. With the help of the United States, arms, ammunition and thousands of Mujahideen fighters were smuggled into Bosnia to help the Muslims. Many remain in Bosnia today and are recognized as a serious threat to Western forces there.

The Bosnian government is said to have presented bin Laden with a Bosnian passport in recognition of his contribution to their cause. He and his al-Qaeda network were also active in Kosovo, and KLA members trained in his camps in Afghanistan and Albania.

DEA agent and author Michael Levine was quoted in the New American Magazine, May 24, 1999: "Ten years ago we were arming and equipping the worst elements of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan - drug traffickers, arms smugglers, anti-American terrorists…Now we're doing the same thing with the KLA, which is tied in with every known middle and far eastern drug cartel.

“Interpol, Europol, and nearly every European intelligence and counter-narcotics agency has files open on drug syndicates that lead right to the KLA, and right to Albanian gangs in this country."


We were being nailed in the World Wars, by nations bent on destroying us. Hitler was determined to kill and destroy with a racist zeal. Japan was the same. We thank God that we prevailed.

Our own daily survival mocks pacifism. We maintain a police force, a military. FBI, CIA. We rightly condem these institutions when their agent's actions exceed legal or moral barriers, but we rightly praise them when they prevent and deter those who would harm us.

In Iraq, however, we are in danger of creating an environment of resentment and reprisals with our continued aggressions of defensive killings of innocents, search and destroy operations, indiscriminate bombings and in some cases, deliberate torture and abuse. This course will only serve to further encourage insurgent violence, from outsiders bent on killing Americans, to Iraqi citizens who have resigned themselves to violent expressions of liberty and self-determination, which we disregard as threats to our consolodation of power.

We have the means and capacity to stand down. We should apologize, and beg the international community to help us put Iraq back in Iraqi hands as soon as possible.

But Bush is determined to conquer, mindless of the folly of offensive war, and those who would violently resist American aggression continue to kill. Circle of violence, mocking Pacifism.

[el_gato]

10. the people of the U.S. were on the right side of WWII

as far as being opposed to Hitler but you know most
people don't know about the amoral behavior of those
who act behind the scenes.

As well, the world of realpolitik, is completely unknown
to most Americans.

[troublemaker]

13. Only after pearl harbor

We were effectively on Britain's side thanks to FDR but there was no great hatred of Hitler among Americans. (Some hated him, a smaller number really LOVED him and most folks didn't much care)

[Baltimoreboy]

25. And helping Britain against Hitler was unjust?

Pardon me, but that's loony.

[AndyTiedye]

9. it runs in the family

>Given the fact that U.S. capitalists were big financial
>backers of the Third Reich

like for example Prescott Bush, W's granddad.

[leftyandproud]

4. pacifism works!

Look at Spain...They elected a socialist government...the new leader announced they were pulling out of Iraq and Al-Sadr ordered his troops to immediately stop targeting Spanish soldiers...Once they announced they would no longer fight, no more were killed...the enemy left them alone...unlike our guys.

[Baltimoreboy]

7. What a laugh

Yes, Iraq is a clusterf*ck, but just because Spanish soldiers pull out does not guarantee Spain or anybody any safety.

As for wars, what about Gulf I, which most of the world took part in?

[Djinn]

14. Gulf 1 is indefensible - a few key points

1) After a long dispute over borders and repayments for Kuwaiti loans to Iraq for the prosecution of the Iran/Iraq war (which was massively helpful for Kuwait - a nation with much to fear from the Ayatollah and no army of it's own) - Kuwait had begun drilling for oil within Iraqi territory and had manipulated the oil market reducing Iraqi profits by half

After a series of meetings to which the Kuwaiti position was generally "we will not discuss borders":

"Hussein called in US ambassador April Glaspie, and asked her what the US response would be to an Iraqi military action against Kuwait. She repeatedly said that the US had "no opinion on . . . conflicts such as your border disagreement with Kuwait"

2) Kuwait is NO MORE democratic than Iraq ever was (arguably LESS so what with being a monarchy

3) Traditionally Kuwait was a part of "Iraq" and is nothing more than a banking protectorate

4) There was NEVER a buildup of troops on the Saudi border

Oh and that 'babies and incubators' story was invented by a PR firm and utilised the "testimony" of a "nurse" who was in fact a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US.

As for "most of the world" taking part - in terms of both a majority of nations and a majority of population this is in fact not true, however the fact the the US is able to bribe, cajole and threaten other nations to do it's bidding is hardly disputed by anyone and certainly does not proove that the attack against Iraq in the 90's was in any way justified...Hitler had allies too.

[Baltimoreboy]

27. The UN, even the Arab world

Supported Gulf I.

I think your logic is flawed. Collectively, we stopped Hussein's conquest. How is that unjust?

[Djinn]

28. so?

the Arab states also supported Hussein??

it was unjust because the ends did not justify the means - it was unjust because unless one intervenes in each and every case of aggression then it is clear the "aggression" had nothing to do with the invasion - why didn't the US invade Kuwait for their aggressive actions towards Iraq?

Sorry but I think your knowledge of the area and it's history is flawed

[bigtree]

17. That war was about oil.

Bush I, who ultimately triumphed in making Kuwait safe for future monarchies, said of his own military adventure in Iraq, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a New World Order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations."

That was utter nonsense. The rule of law that was enforced in the ousting of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was nothing more than the product of a patronage that was forged in the U.N. with U.S. taxpayer-funded payments to Saudi Arabia's King Faud, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Jordan's King Hussein, and others.

The risk to the world community, as stated by the president then, and by this president today; that an enriched Saddam would align with some radical Muslim theocracy, would be in sharp contrast to the campaigns against those very forces in which Iraq had waged war at our bequest and with our eager assistance.

The Bush I administration's stated objective in their Gulf war was to protect the flow of Mideast oil to the U.S. and to prevent Iraq from obtaining a seaport from which Iraqi shipments would supposedly depress an already sputtering world market.

Saddam Hussein had not threatened the American people in his power grab for a greater share of the oil pie. Indeed, the U.S. must have been aware that the overproduction of oil by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia prior to Iraq's invasion was a move to drive the price of oil down, and in the process, weaken Iraq.

Aside from the question of the danger that the expansion of Saddam's dictatorship may have posed to the region, the defense of Kuwait's territorial integrity was a foreign concept to H.W. Bush who had participated in and overseen the ordering of the mining of the Nicaraguan harbor, the invasion of Grenada, the overthrow of the president of Panama and the installation of a U.S. puppet government there, as well as the acquiescence of Britain's invasion of the Falklands in 1982.

The Bush I administration issued a national security directive which listed among its objectives; ". . . the defense of U.S. vital interests in the region, if necessary through the use of military force; and defense against forces that would cause added damage to the U.S. and world economies."

More importantly, the security directive declared that access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key, friendly states in the area were vital to U.S. national security. It was on that basis that President Herbert Walker Bush waged war with Iraq.

The American death-count from that first Gulf war was 346 total from all causes, out of 511,000 troops deployed from August 1990 to February 1991.

The nation's reward for the blood and sacrifice of our men and women in the armed forces in that Gulf war was a further decrease in production by the Mideast oil giants under OPEC- the group which controls around half the world's oil trade. That resulted in the doubling of U.S. oil prices from $20 a barrel to $40 (slightly more than we pay now), and the fostering of a crippling recession.
As the National Security Strategy of 1991 stated, "Economies around the world were affected by the volatility of oil prices and the disruption of economic ties to countries in the Gulf. Egypt, Turkey and Jordan were particularly hurt."
Oil profits for industry CEO's and administration shareholders must have soared. No sacrifice there.

As a consequence of the U.S. hostile presence in the region, radical Muslim groups were able to portray our military invasion and the positioning of our bases in Saudi Arabia as an affront to the teachings of their religion and were able to convince others of like mind to band against what they viewed as groundless U.S. imperialistic expansion; putting America at an increased risk of retaliatory terrorism.

The Bush's routs of Saddam may have made them appear to be warrior kings. But in the context of their overwhelming domination of the inept Saddam and the hapless Iraqi army, they more resemble Don Quixote.

In the classic tale of the ideal vs. the real, Quixote battles windmills that appear to be giants, and sheep that look to him like armies. He believes himself the victor, comes to his senses, only to be trapped by his delusion; forced to play the conquering hero.

[Djinn]

29. Well said bigtree

far more eloquently than I did - the amount of people who should know better who continue to spout the state sponsored proganda in relation to that war is pretty scary.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. Poppy Bush is a lot smarter than his dolt of a son...

...at least he had enough brains to form a full-fledged coalition with UN backing.

But Gulf I was purely about oil, just like the current fiasco.

[IrateCitizen]

8. You're actually describing isolationism

And it DOESN'T work.

Please, for the love of all things good, stop using the term "pacifism". It instantly frames the debate in negative terms for those who reject violence. Their is nothing "passive" about nonviolence. It is confrontational, and it can be very dangerous.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. Yes. Pacifism is so Grand.

Let's all go jeer the warmongers for getting rid of Franco!

[IrateCitizen]

6. Your post raises some deeper philosophical questions

First of all, what do you mean precisely by the term "pacifism"? I ask this because Gandhi, King, etc. never referred to their strategy as "pacifism", IIRC. Rather, it was consistently referred to as "nonviolent noncooperation".

The term pacifism is derived from the word passive. This often leads to misleading characterizations, hence the more accurate term "nonviolent noncooperation". Nonviolence does not mean non-confrontational, as is implied by the term pacifism. In fact, nonviolent non-cooperation often means a great deal of confrontation, and sacrifice, and danger of harm.

Also evident in your post appears to be the allusion to a form of strict pacifism -- the complete denial of violence in any/all instances. Such a philosophy does not exist in reality. Anyone who tells you that there is absolutely no instance in which they could conceivably use force is either delusional or lying. However, what is implicit in the realm of nonviolent non-cooperation is that violence is never productive, and that much more can be accomplished through nonviolent confrontation than through violent confrontation. But at its essence, it is STILL a confrontation, and the potential for physical harm always exists.

Taking up your question of militarism, I personally find militarism to be an infantile and morally-bankrupt attitude. It is much more deeply rooted in the most basic fears of humankind, combined with hubris, and has nothing to do with higher thought processes. I say this as someone who is speaking from within the confines of the current military system as well, viewing first-hand the way in which militarism has come to infect much of the senior leadership, and that the exercise of military force is no longer viewed as a necessary evil to be taken up when no other options remain, but rather that the exercise of that force itself is to be glorified an viewed as noble righteousness in its own right.

But I would ask you, first of all, to reject the term "pacifism". It's a misleading term, and it frames the terms of debate as "active" (militarism) vs. "passive" (pacifism). Instead begin using nonviolent noncooperation or nonviolent confrontation to describe the philosophy to which you're referring.

[eatstomach]

11. Would it be safe to say only the wars Dems started were OK?

Works for me.

[troublemaker]

12. Yeah, like Vietnam and World War I

There's no real partisan angle here until quite recently. As Bob Dole infamously noted (in a really crass moment from the 1976 VP run), Democratic presidents were in office at the beginning of our involvement in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Okay...a couple of corrections/adjustments...

Eisenhower sent the first military advisors into Vietnam in 1954. 1956 marked the year that the first Americans died in combat in Vietnam, also under Ike's presidency. JFK didn't take office until January 1961, and signed NSAM 263 in October 1963 that ordered the first 1000 troops to withdraw from Vietnam. That changed four days after LBJ took office with his signing of NSAM 273 which escalated our involvement in the Vietnam War. No credit.

WWI began in 1914...the U. S. reluctantly declared war in April 1917, after Wilson's second inaugural address in March. The U. S. sent 42 divisions of troops in May 1917, but did not commit the troops to combat until very late that same year. WWI ended in November 1918. Wilson did everything he could to keep the U. S. out of WWI, but bowed to political pressure from the rightwing after being elected for the second time. Half credit.

Yes, FDR did maneuver America into WWII. Full credit.

Yes, Truman did send troops to Korea as part of the UN police action. Full credit.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eatstomach]

16. What the hell are you talking about?

Are you trying to disrupt?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. You have a grand total of...

...11 posts on this board. People here tend to look rather suspiciously at posters hurling hand grenades and then telling other posters that they're being disruptive.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[JohnLocke]

19. Korea.

[bigtree]

23. I found this article to be close to how I view that conflict

Years of Stalemate

July 1951-July 1953

The first twelve months of the Korean War (June 1950-June 1951) had been characterized by dramatic changes in the battlefront as the opposing armies swept up and down the length of the Korean peninsula. This war of movement virtually ended on 10 July 1951, when representatives from the warring parties met in a restaurant in Kaesong to negotiate an end to the war. Although the two principal parties to the conflict-the governments of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea)-were more than willing to fight to the death, their chief patrons-the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union on the one hand and the United States and the United Nations (UN) on the other-were not. Twelve months of bloody fighting had convinced Mao Tse-tung, Joseph V. Stalin, and Harry S. Truman that it was no longer in their respective national interests to try and win a total victory in Korea. The costs in terms of men and materiel were too great, as were the risks that the conflict might escalate into a wider, global conflagration. Consequently, they compelled their respective Korean allies to accept truce talks as the price for their continued military, economic, and diplomatic support.

For the soldiers at the front and the people back home, the commencement of negotiations raised hopes that the war would soon be over, but such was not to be. While desirous of peace, neither side was willing to sacrifice core principles or objectives to obtain it. The task of finding common ground was further complicated by the Communists' philosophy of regarding negotiations as war by other means. This tactic significantly impeded the negotiations. And while the negotiators engaged in verbal combat around the conference table, the soldiers in the field continued to fight and die-for two more long and tortuous years.

Since the political leaders of the two warring coalitions had signaled their willingness to halt the fighting, the generals on both sides proved reluctant to engage in any major new undertakings. For the most part the commander of UN forces, General Matthew B. Ridgway, and his principal subordinate, General James A. Van Fleet, Eighth Army commander, confined their activities to strengthening UN positions and conducting limited probes of enemy lines. Their Communist counterparts adopted a similar policy. Consequently, the two sides exchanged artillery fire, conducted raids and patrols, and occasionally attempted to seize a mountain peak here or there, but for the most part the battle lines remained relatively static.

So too, unfortunately, did the positions of the truce negotiators, who were unable to make any progress on the peace front during the summer. The chief stumbling block was the inability of the parties to agree on a cease-fire line. The Communists argued for a return to the status quo ante- that is, that the two armies withdraw their forces to the prewar boundary line along the 38th Parallel. This was not an unreasonable position, since the combat lines were not all that far from the 38th Parallel. The UN, however, refused to agree to a restoration of the old border on the grounds that it was indefensible in many places. Current UN positions were much more defensible, and a more defensible border was clearly advantageous, not only in protecting South Korea in the present conflict, but in discouraging future Communist aggression. Consequently, UN negotiators argued in favor of adopting the current line of contact as the cease-fire line.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/kw-stale/stale.htm

The line moved back and forth, and each time more soldiers died. Mao Tse-tung and Stalin played a similar, and arguably more dangerous game of positioning for power, justifying some military response, but that was a confounding involvement, and its outcome was threatened by ego and pride on all sides.

Justifiable? Possibly. I'd like to hear more. My father-in-law didn't think it made any sense during the time he was deployed there.

[Kiliki]

21. Bosnia was a just cause, but a poorly executed conflict...

that still rages on quietly.

I also think bombing Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan was a good thing.

[Djinn]

30. never mind about all the dead

Afghan's.

[Cleita]

26. A guest teacher I had in college for my American History required

class was an Army general from a nearby fort. He told us something peculiar about why we went into Korea. Since this was before Vietnam I believe it also applies there too when we did go in. Remember this was during the cold war between the so-called free world and the Soviet Union and Communist China.

Evidently there was a military theory about world domination. It was believed by both sides that whoever controlled the four corners of Eurasia controlled the world. So everytime there was a commie incursion into those places in Asia like Korea and Vietnam, the USA and her allies were duty bound to push them back to keep them from dominating the world.

Well, the Soviet Union fell apart and the Chinese are becoming capitalists, or like us. I don't know how these brilliant minds in the RW think tanks and the pentagon suddenly changed their focus to the Middle East. Maybe another general can explain it.