{"id":48647,"date":"2024-07-18T06:54:08","date_gmt":"2024-07-18T14:54:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=48647"},"modified":"2024-07-18T06:54:08","modified_gmt":"2024-07-18T14:54:08","slug":"peace-seems-to-be-the-hardest-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2024\/07\/18\/peace-seems-to-be-the-hardest-word\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Peace’ Seems To Be the Hardest Word"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Bracing Views<\/a> with the author\u2019s permission.<\/i><\/p>\n

With apologies to Elton John and Bernie Taupin<\/a>, \u201cpeace\u201d seems to be the hardest word, for both Democrats and Republicans.<\/p>\n

This is hardly surprising. The National Security State is the unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably the most powerful. Presidents and Congress serve it, and the SCOTUS carves out special exceptions for it. Back in the days of a bit more honesty, it was called the Department of War. And so it remains.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s say you\u2019re like me and you see war as humanity\u2019s greatest failing. We kill and maim each other, we scorch and kill every living thing in the path of our weapons, we destroy the environment, we even have the capacity to destroy life on earth via nuclear weapons. War \u2013 it really is good for absolutely nothin\u2019, unless, of course, you profit from it.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Gaza after an Israeli bombing attack. Anyone want more war?<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

So, who are you going to vote for in America who sees the awfulness of war and who\u2019s willing to pursue diplomacy and peace instead? Democrats? Republicans?<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, Democrats are fixated on war with Russia. They support massive aid to Ukraine and are against negotiations. They also support massive aid to Israel in its ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And they fully support the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) and soaring spending on weapons and war, including \u201cinvesting\u201d in new nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

Republicans are much the same, except they tend to see China rather than Russia as the main threat, e.g. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are willing to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine War. But, in the main, Republicans fervently support Israel in its genocide, are outspoken critics of Iran (Got to punch them hard, Vance recently said), are willing enablers of the MICC, and also vote for massive spending on weaponry and war, including nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

Neither major U.S. political party, the red or blue teams, is pro-peace. Both are pro-aggression and pro-empire. They just occasionally choose different targets for their ire, even as they accuse the other team of \u201cweakness,\u201d of being \u201cPutin puppets\u201d or \u201cManchurian candidates.\u201d<\/p>\n

As I’ve said before, the only word or sentiment\u00a0apparently forbidden among the red and blue teams is “peace.” If you want an antiwar candidate in America, you have to go outside the two main parties to the Greens or similar fringe parties.<\/p>\n

In America, \u201cantiwar\u201d is defined by America’s propaganda\u00a0machine, otherwise known as the corporate media, as weak and unAmerican, because “the health of the state” is war.\u00a0 Every election, whether the red or blue team prevails, the National Security State, the old War Department, wins. And humanity loses.<\/p>\n

The last mainstream candidate for the presidency who spoke consistently of peace was George McGovern in 1972. Unless we the people demand peace, we will continue to get war. In fact, in a bizarrely Orwellian way, colossal military spending and incessant wars are sold to us as keeping America safe. \u201cWar is peace\u201d is quite literally the message of the National Security State and its Ministry of Truth, the corporate-owned media.<\/p>\n

What is the solution? Here\u2019s one possible approach: Whenever America deploys troops overseas, those troops most immediately in harm\u2019s way must be drawn from the ranks of America\u2019s most privileged and their children. So, corporate CEOs, Members of Congress, lawyers at White Shoe firms, private equity billionaires and millionaires and their progeny, Hollywood celebrities and America\u2019s best-known sports stars: those Americans who prosper and profit the most from empire should be the first to serve it. And that service must be made mandatory, no exceptions, no way to buy your way out or plead that you have \u201chigher\u201d priorities.<\/p>\n

Those who want war should serve in war, leaving the rest of us alone. This rule, more than any other, might just keep the chickenhawks from screeching for more war with Russia, or China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Syria, or somebody. A few minutes at the front, facing bullets and shells and cluster munitions while hearing the screams of the dying, might just cure these wannabe \u201cwarriors\u201d of their fever.<\/p>\n

Want a war? Go to war. And leave the rest of us in peace.<\/p>\n

William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools. He writes at Bracing Views<\/a>. <\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author\u2019s permission. With apologies to Elton John and Bernie Taupin, \u201cpeace\u201d seems to be the hardest word, for both Democrats and Republicans. This is hardly surprising. The National Security State is the unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably the most powerful. Presidents and Congress serve it, and the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":290,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-48647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":"Bipartisan Support in America for More War"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/290"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48647"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48647\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48654,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48647\/revisions\/48654"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48647"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=48647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}