These 127 essays, although organized under seven headings, have one underlying theme: opposition
to the warfare state that robs us of our liberty, our money, and in some cases our life. Conservatives who decry
the welfare state while supporting the warfare state are terribly inconsistent. The two are inseparable.
Libertarians who are opposed to war on principle, but support the state’s bogus “war on terrorism,” even as they
remain silent about the U.S. global empire, are likewise contradictory.
Although many of these essays reference contemporary events, the principles discussed in all of them are timeless:
war, militarism, empire, interventionism, and the warfare state.
In chapter 1, “War and Peace,” the evils of war and warmongers and the benefits of peace are
examined. In chapter 2, “The Military,” the evils of standing armies and militarism are discussed, including a
critical look at the U.S. military. In chapter 3, “The War in Iraq,” the wickedness of the Iraq War is exposed. In
chapter 4, “World War II,” the “good war” is shown to be not so good after all. In chapter 5, “Other Wars,” the
evils of war and the warfare state are chronicled in specific wars: the Crimean War (1854–1856), the Russo-Japanese
War (1904–1905), World War I (1914–1918), the Persian Gulf War (1990–1991), and the war in Afghanistan (2001–). In
chapter 6, “The U.S. Global Empire,” the beginnings, growth, extent, nature, and consequences of the U.S. empire of
bases and troops are revealed and critiqued. In chapter 7, “U.S. Foreign Policy,” the belligerence, recklessness,
and follies of U.S. foreign policy are laid bare.
Chapter One - War and Peace ______[p1]
Chapter Two - The Military ____________[p2,3,4,]
Chapter Three - The War in Iraq _______________[p5]
Chapter Four - World War II, "The Good War" _______[p6]
Chapter Five - Other Wars _________________________[p7]
Chapter Six - The U.S. Global Empire ____________________[p8]
Chapter Seven - U.S. Foreign Policy ________________________[p9]
These essays, although organized under seven headings, have one underlying theme: opposition to
the warfare state that robs us of ourliberty, our money, and in some cases our life. Conservatives who decry
the welfare state while supporting the warfare state are terribly inconsis-tent. The two are inseparable.
Libertarians who are opposed to war onprinciple, but support the state’s bogus “war on terrorism,” even as
they remain silent about the U.S. global empire, are likewise contradictory.
Most of these 127 essays were published on the premier anti-state,anti-war, pro-market website,
LewRockwell.com, during the period from January 2, 2004, to June 1, 2013. The vast majority of them first
appeared on and were written exclusively for that website. LewRockwell.com is the brainchild of Lew
Rockwell, the founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and a leading opponent
of the central state, its wars, and its socialism. Most of the rest of the essays were originally published
by the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose founderand president is the equally courageous Jacob
Hornberger.
Forty-four of the essays contained in this work originally appeared inthe second edition of the
author’s book Christianity and War and OtherEssays Against the Warfare State, published in 2008. Nine of
them appeared there and in the book’s first edition, published in 2005. In addition to essays relating to
Christianity and war and Christianity and the military, that book also included essays on war and peace, the
military, the war in Iraq, other wars, and the U.S. global empire. Although a third edition was planned, two
things served to redirect my intentions.
Because the second edition had already grown in size to seventy-nine essays in 432 pages and I
had written so much on these subjects since its publication early in 2008, a third edition would just be too
large of a book if I tried to include everything I had written on these subjects since the publication of
the second edition. Additionally, since one part of the book and much additional material consisted of
essays with a decidedly Christian theme, while the other part of the book and much additional material was
more secular in nature, it seemed best to organize the existing and new material along these themes. So,
instead of issuing an unwieldy one volume third edition, I opted to collect all of the former material into
War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism, and issue the latter
material in a companion volume WAR, EMPIRE, AND THE MILITARY titled War, Militarism, and Empire: Essays on
the Follies of War and U.S.Foreign Policy.
Each essay is reprinted verbatim, with the exception of the correction of a few minor errors.
It should be noted, however, that the original spelling, capitalization, and punctuation are followed in all
quotations. Because they were published on the Internet, most of the essays originally contained numerous
links to documentation and further information on theWeb that the reader could click on if he desired.
Because this feature is not possible in a printed format, the reader is encouraged to consult the online
versions of each essay at LewRockwell.com or FFF.org where theyare archived. Many of the essays also
originally included pictures, which, for space considerations, are not included here.
Although many of these essays reference contemporary events, the principles discussed in all of
them are timeless: war, militarism, empire, interventionism, and the warfare state. The essays in each
chapter are listed in their order of publication. Each chapter as well as its individual essays can be read
in any order, with the exception of the essays on “The U.S. Global Empire” in chapter 6, which are better
read chronologically.
In chapter 1, “War and Peace,” the evils of war and warmongers and the benefits of peace are
examined. In chapter 2, “The Military,” the evils of standing armies and militarism are discussed, including
a critical look at the U.S. military. In chapter 3, “The War in Iraq,” the wickedness of the Iraq War is
exposed. In chapter 4, “World War II,” the “good war” is shown to be not so good after all. In chapter 5,
“Other Wars,” the evils of war and the warfare state are chronicled in specific wars: the Crimean
War(1854–1856), the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), World War I(1914–1918), the Persian Gulf War
(1990–1991), and the war in Afghanistan (2001–). In chapter 6, “The U.S. Global Empire,” the beginnings,
growth, extent, nature, and consequences of the U.S. empire of bases and troops are revealed and critiqued.
In chapter 7, “U.S. Foreign Policy,” the belligerence, recklessness, and follies of U.S. foreign policy are
laid bare.
The books listed at the close under “For Further Reading” include not only some of the more
important books referenced in the essays, but other recommended works that relate in some way to war, the
military, the U.S. global empire, and U.S. foreign policy. Most of them are available fromAmazon.com. The
inclusion of any book should not be taken as a blanket endorsement of everything contained in the book or
anything else written by the author.
It is my desire in all of these essays to show, as Randolph Bourne saidmany years ago, that
“war is the health of the state.”
WAR
EMPIRE and the MILITARY
Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy
---------------------------------------
Chapter One - War and Peace
---------------------------------------
To a classical historian, Cato refers to the Roman statesmen Cato the Elder (234—139 B.C.) and Cato the Younger (95—46 B.C.). To a
fashion-conscious woman, Cato is a chain of clothing
stores. To a beltway libertarian, Cato refers to the Cato
Institute in Washington DC. But to the American colonists, Cato would have been a reference
to the essays by John
Trenchard (1662—1723) and Thomas Gordon (d. 1750)
that condemned tyranny and corruption in government while advancing the principles of liberty.
Cato’s Letters is a collection of 144 essays by Trenchard and Gordon that appeared in the London Journal and
the British Journal between 1720 and 1723. They were published together beginning in 1724 as Cato’s Letters: Or Essays on Liberty,
Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects. The essays were signed with the pseudonym Cato, after
Cato the Younger, the foe of Julius Caesar and champion of liberty and republican principles. Cato the Younger
was the great-grandson of Cato the Elder. His daughter married Brutus, one of the assassins of Julius Caesar.
Cato’s life was immortalized in the 1713 play, Cato: A Tragedy, by the English
playwright and essayist Joseph
Addison (1672—1719).
Cato’s Letters was not the first collaboration of Gordon and Trenchard. They also wrote and published
anonymously the London political weekly, The Independent Whig, in 1720.
Previous to this, they authored two pamphlets: The Character of an Independent Whig and Considerations Offered
upon the Approaching Peace and upon the Importance of Gibraltar to the British Empire, being the Second Part of
the “Independent Whig,” both published in 1719.
While Cato’s Letters were still being published in London, they began to be reprinted in the American
colonies. Thirty-seven percent of library and booksellers’ catalogs surveyed in the fifty years preceding the
American Revolution listed Cato’s Letters. Trenchard and Gordon were among the ten most quoted individuals
during the period from 1760—1805. According to historian Clinton Rossiter, Cato’s Letters were “the most
popular, quotable, esteemed source of political ideas in the colonial period.” Bernard Bailyn further notes
that to the American colonists, Cato’s Letters “ranked with the treatises of Locke as the most authoritative
statement of the nature of political liberty.”
In light of the current debacle in Iraq that the United States is engaged in, our particular concern here is
the statements in Cato’s Letters relating to the evils of war and standing armies. Although Trenchard and
Gordon did not say much, they said a mouthful. Their equally notable statements on liberty and property have
already been examined elsewhere.
Cato on War
The classic statement on the evils of war appears in Cato’s Letters No. 87:
If we consider this question under the head of justice and humanity, what can be more detestable than to
murder and destroy mankind, in order to rob and pillage them? War is comprehensive of most, if not all the
mischiefs which do or ever can afflict men: It depopulates nations, lays waste the finest countries, destroys
arts, sciences, and learning, butchers innocents, ruins the best men, and advances the worst; effaces every
trace of virtue, piety, and compassion, and introduces confusion, anarchy, and all kinds of corruption in
publick affairs; and indeed is pregnant with so many evils, that it ought ever to be avoided, when it can be
avoided; and it may be avoided when a state can be safe without it, and much more so when all the advantages
proposed by it can be procured by prudent and just methods.
In Cato’s Letters No. 17, as an example of “what measures have been taken by corrupt ministers, in some of
our neighbouring countries, to ruin and enslave the people over whom they presided,” we read something
strangely reminiscent of our own “leaders”:
They will engage their country in ridiculous, expensive, fantastical wars, to keep the minds of men in
continual hurry and agitation, and under constant fears and alarms; and, by such means, deprive them both of
leisure and inclination to look into publick miscarriages. Men, on the contrary, will, instead of such
inspection, be disposed to fall into all measures offered, seemingly, for their defence, and will agree to
every wild demand made by those who are betraying them. When they have served their ends by such wars, or have
other motives to make peace, they will have no view to the publick interest; but will often, to procure such
peace, deliver up the strong-holds of their country, or its colonies for trade, to open enemies, suspected
friends, or dangerous neighbours, that they may not be interrupted in their domestick designs.
This theme is continued in Cato’s Letters No. 87:
I have often wondered at the folly and weakness of those princes, who will sacrifice hundreds of thousand of
their own faithful subjects, to gain a precarious and slavish submission from bordering provinces, who will
seek all opportunities to revolt; which cannot be prevented but by keeping them poor, wretched, and miserable,
and consequently unable to pay the charges of their own vassalage; when, if the same number of men and the sums
of money were usefully employed at home, which are necessary to make and support the conquest, they would add
vastly more to their power and empire.
Cato preferred commerce to conquest:
All the advantages procured by conquest is to secure what we possess ourselves, or to gain the possessions
of others, that is, the produce of their country, and the acquisitions of their labor and industry; and if
these can be obtained by fair means, and by their own consent, sure it must be more eligible than to exhort
them by force. This is certainly more easily and effectually done by a well regulated commerce, than by arms:
The balance of trade will return more clear money from neighbouring countries, than can be forced from them by
fleets or armies, and more advantageously than under the odious name of tribute. It enervates rival states by
their own consent, and obligates them, whilst it impoverishes and ruins them: It keeps our own people at home
employed in arts, manufactures, and husbandry, instead of murdering them in wild, expensive, and hazardous
expeditions, to the weakening their own country, and the pillaging and destroying their neighbours, and only
for the fruitless and imaginary glory of conquest.
Cato on Standing Armies
Like the American Brutus, Cato also spoke out
against the evils of standing armies. This subject was a particular concern of John Trenchard. With Walter
Moyle, Trenchard had previously written An Argument Shewing that a Standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free
Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy (London, 1697). This was
followed the next year by Trenchard’s A Short History of Standing Armies in England (London, 1698). He was also
the author of the anonymously-published work, A Letter from the Author of the Argument Against a Standing Army,
to the Author of the Ballancing Letter [an essay defending standing armies] (London, 1697).
Cato’s Letters No. 94 and 95 are both devoted to the subject of standing armies. The subject is also
mentioned in another essay entitled “Considerations upon the Condition of an Absolute Prince.” Sometimes it is
standing armies in general that are warned against:
Standing armies are standing curses in every country under the sun, where they are more powerful than the
people. It is certain, that all parts of Europe which are enslaved, have been enslaved by armies; and it is
absolutely impossible, that any nation which keeps them amongst themselves can long preserve their liberties;
nor can any nation perfectly lose their liberties who are without such guests: And yet, though all men see
this, and at times confess it, yet all have joined in their turns, to bring this heavy evil upon themselves and
their country. I never yet met with one honest and reasonable man out of power who was not heartily against all
standing armies, as threatening and pernicious, and the ready instruments of certain ruin: And I scarce ever
met with a man in power, or even the meanest creature of power, who was not for defending and keeping them up:
So much are the opinions of men guided by their circumstances! Men, when they are angry with one another, will
come into any measures for revenge, without considering that the same power which destroys an enemy, may
destroy themselves; and he to whom I lend my sword to kill my foe, may with it kill me. Great empires cannot
subsist without great armies, and liberty cannot subsist with them. As armies long kept up, and grown part of
the government, will soon engross the whole government, and can never be disbanded; so liberty long lost, can
never be recovered. Is not this an awful lesson to free states, to be vigilant against a dreadful condition,
which has no remedy.
At other times the reference is specific and contemporary:
When, in King William’s reign, the question was in debate, Whether England should be ruled by standing
armies? The argument commonly used by some, who had the presumption to call themselves Whigs, and owned in the
Ballancing Letter (supposed to be written by one who gave the word to all the rest), was, that all governments
must have their periods one time or other, and when that time came, all endeavours to preserve liberty were
fruitless; and shrewd hints were given in that letter, that England was reduced to such a condition; that our
corruptions were so great, and the dissatisfaction of the people was so general, that the publick safety could
not be preserved, but by increasing the power of the crown: And this argument was used by those shameless men,
who had caused all that corruption, and all that dissatisfaction. I should be glad to know in what situation of
our affairs it can be safe to reduce our troops to the usual guards and garrisons, if it cannot be done now.
There is no power in Europe considerable enough to threaten us, who can have any motives to do so, if we pursue
the old maxims and natural interest of Great Britain; which is, to meddle no farther with foreign squabbles,
than to keep the balance even between France and Spain. And once again it is commerce that “saves the trouble,
expence, and hazard, of supporting numerous standing armies abroad to keep the conquered people in subjection;
armies, who, for the most part too, if not always, enslave their own country, and ever swallow up all the
advantages of the conquests.”
The current U.S. policies of militarism and interventionism are directly contrary to the wisdom of Trenchard
and Gordon in Cato’s Letters. If the Founding Fathers considered these essays to be so important, why doesn’t
Bush and Company think likewise?
[All quotations from Cato’s
Letters are taken from the Liberty Fund edition edited by Ronald Hamowy, which is also available
online]
The Jeffersonian
principles of peace, commerce, honest friendship with all nations, and entangling alliances
with none, as annunciated in Jefferson’s first inaugural address, are no where more evident than in
his opinion of war.
War and Peace
Jefferson was a man of peace. President Polk will ever be associated with the Mexican War, Lincoln with the
Civil War, McKinley with the Spanish-American War, Wilson with World War I, Roosevelt with World War II, Johnson
with Vietnam, Bush I with Gulf War I, and Bush II with the ongoing debacle in Iraq. But such is not the case with
Jefferson. Even though he is usually considered to be one of the “great” presidents, he is not remembered as such
because he was associated with a major war.
As a man of peace, he often made a contrast between the blessings of peace and the scourge of war:
I love peace, and am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other
modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer. War has
been avoided from a due sense of the miseries, and the demoralization it produces, and of the superior blessings of
a state of peace and friendship with all mankind. I value peace, and I should unwillingly see any event take place
which would render war a necessary resource. Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth
under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of
public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness.
Believing that the happiness of mankind is best promoted by the useful pursuits of peace, that on these alone a
stable prosperity can be founded, that the evils of war are great in their endurance, and have a long reckoning for
ages to come, I have used my best endeavors to keep our country uncommitted in the troubles which afflict Europe,
and which assail us on every side. I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those
peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more
likely to produce the desired effect. We love and we value peace; we know its blessings from experience. We abhor
the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and calamities.
On several occasions, Jefferson presented his philosophy of peace to some Indian tribes:
The evils which of necessity encompass the life of man are sufficiently numerous. Why should we add to them by
voluntarily distressing and destroying one another? Peace, brothers, is better than war. In a long and bloody war,
we lose many friends, and gain nothing. Let us then live in peace and friendship together, doing to each other all
the good we can. Born in the same land, we ought to live as brothers, doing to each other all the good we can, and
not listening to wicked men, who may endeavor to make us enemies. By living in peace, we can help and prosper one
another; by waging war, we can kill and destroy many on both sides; but those who survive will not be the happier
for that. How much better is it for neighbours to help than to hurt one another. How much happier must it make
them. If you will cease to make war on one another, if you will live in friendship with all mankind, you can employ
all your time in providing food and clothing for yourselves and your families; your men will not be destroyed in
war; and your women and children will lie down to sleep in their cabins without fear of being surprised by their
enemies and killed or carried away. Your numbers will be increased instead of diminishing, and you will live in
plenty and in quiet.
The Evils of War
Because Jefferson was a man of peace, he considered war to be a great evil:
I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind. The insults & injuries committed on us by both
the belligerent parties, from the beginning of 1793 to this day, & still continuing, cannot now be wiped off by
engaging in war with one of them. I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another. One war, such as that
of our Revolution, is enough for one life. The most successful war seldom pays for its losses. War is as much a
punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer. War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong;
and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. We have obtained by a peaceable appeal to justice, in four months,
what we should not have obtained under seven years of war, the loss of one hundred thousand lives, an hundred
millions of additional debt, many hundred millions worth of produce and property lost for want of market, or in
seeking it, and that demoralization which war superinduces on the human mind. Great sacrifices of interest have
certainly been made by our nation under the difficulties latterly forced upon us by transatlantic powers. But every
candid and reflecting mind must agree with you, that while these were temporary and bloodless, they were calculated
to avoid permanent subjection to foreign law and tribute, relinquishment of independent rights, and the burthens,
the havoc, and desolations of war.
War and the Nations
Jefferson did not consider a nation to be great because of its military might: “Wars and contentions, indeed,
fill the pages of history with more matter. But more blessed is that nation whose silent course of happiness
furnishes nothing for history to say.” He considered war between nations to be “the consequence of a want of
respectability in the national character.” Regarding the attitude toward war of the people of the United States,
Jefferson believed that “no country, perhaps, was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions
pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office.”
He knew firsthand the folly of getting involved in European wars:
Wars with any European powers are devoutly to be deprecated. For years we have been looking as spectators on our
brethren in Europe, afflicted by all those evils which necessarily follow an abandonment of the moral rules which
bind men and nations together. Connected with them in friendship and commerce, we have happily so far kept aloof
from their calamitous conflicts, by a steady observance of justice towards all, by much forbearance and multiplied
sacrifices. At length, however, all regard to the rights of others having been thrown aside, the belligerent powers
have beset the highway of commercial intercourse with edicts which, taken together, expose our commerce and
mariners, under almost every destination, a prey to their fleets and armies. Each party, indeed, would admit our
commerce with themselves, with the view of associating us in their war against the other. But we have wished war
with neither. It is much to be desired that war may be avoided, if circumstances will admit. Nor in the present
maniac state of Europe, should I estimate the point of honor by the ordinary scale. I believe we shall on the
contrary, have credit with the world, for having made the avoidance of being engaged in the present unexampled war,
our first object. The cannibals of Europe are going to eating one another again. A war between Russia and Turkey is
like the battle of the kite and snake. Whichever destroys the other, leaves a destroyer the less for the world.
This pugnacious humor of mankind seems to be the law of his nature, one of the obstacles to too great
multiplication provided in the mechanism of the Universe. The cocks of the henyard kill one another up. Bears,
bulls, rams, do the same. And the horse, in his wild state, kills all the young males, until worn down with age and
war, some vigorous youth kills him, and takes to himself the harem of females. I hope we shall prove how much
happier for man the Quaker policy is, and that the life of the feeder is better than that of the fighter; and it is
some consolation that the desolation by these maniacs of one part of the earth is the means of improving it in
other parts. Let the latter be our office, and let us milk the cow, while the Russian holds her by the horns, and
the Turk by the tail.
He recognized that geography was one of the great advantages of the United States: “The insulated state in which
nature has placed the American continent should so far avail it that no spark of war kindled in the other quarters
of the globe should be wafted across the wide oceans which separate us from them.” With a very few exceptions, the
United States has always had to cross oceans to wage its wars.
Jefferson realized that the push for war comes, not from the people in the nations, but from the governments of
the nations:
We have received a report that the French Directory has proposed a declaration of war against the United States
to the Council of Ancients, who have rejected it. Thus we see two nations, who love one another affectionately,
brought by the ill temper of their executive administrations, to the very brink of a necessity to imbrue their
hands in the blood of each other. The agents of the two people [United States and France] are either great bunglers
or great rascals, when they cannot preserve that peace which is the universal wish of both. The people now see that
France has sincerely wished peace, and their seducers [federalists] have wished war, as well for the loaves and
fishes which arise out of war expenses, as for the chance of changing the Constitution, while the people should
have time to contemplate nothing but the levies of men and money. No one wakes up in the morning with the desire to
drop bombs on people in foreign countries that he does not know, have never injured him in any way, and are no
threat to him or his family. This desire is always government induced and government sponsored. When it comes to
mass murder, the state takes a backseat to no one.
Jefferson thought it beneficial for a nation to avoid war:
Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject, as that which has been employed to persuade nations
that it is their interest to go to war. Were the money which it has cost to gain, at the close of a long war, a
little town, or a little territory, the right to cut wood here, or to catch fish there, expended in improving what
they already possess, in making roads, opening rivers, building ports, improving the arts, and finding employment
for their idle poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier and happier. This I hope will be our
wisdom.
Jefferson believed that the best policy for the United States toward other nations was one of friendship and
nonintervention:
Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we had hoped that our distance and our dispositions would have
left us free, in the example and indulgence of peace with all the world. To cherish and maintain the rights and
liberties of our citizens, and to ward from them the burthens, the miseries, and the crimes of war, by a just and
friendly conduct toward all nations, were among the most obvious and important duties of those to whom the
management of their public interests have been confided; and happy shall we be if a conduct guided by these views
on our part, shall secure to us a reciprocation of peace and justice from other nations. The desire to preserve our
country from the calamities and ravages of war, by cultivating a disposition, and pursuing a conduct, conciliatory
and friendly to all nations, has been sincerely entertained and faithfully followed.
He much preferred commerce to war: “War is not the best engine for us to resort to; nature has given us one in
our commerce, which, if properly managed, will be a better instrument for obliging the interested nations of Europe
to treat us with justice.” The current U.S. foreign policy of belligerency, intervention, hegemony, and subjugation
is a far cry from the example of Jefferson.
The Advent of War
It is true that Jefferson did believe in war under certain circumstances:
If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave us independence. It is our duty
still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend
ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to
extinguish it. In that, I have no doubt, we shall act as one man. Obviously, traversing oceans to bomb places that
many Americans cannot even locate on a map would not fall into this category.
But even though Jefferson realized that war might take place, he had his doubts as to whether we would be better
off at its conclusion: “If we are forced into war [with France], we must give up political differences of opinion,
and unite as one man to defend our country. But whether at the close of such a war, we should be as free as we are
now, God knows.” If a war was necessary then it should not be undertaken “till our revenue shall be entirely
liberated from debt. Then it will suffice for war, without creating new debt or taxes.” But Jefferson opposed
“taxing the industry of our fellow citizens to accumulate treasure for wars to happen we know not when and which
might not perhaps happen but from the temptations offered by that treasure.”
He also did not believe in the bloodthirsty doctrine of “total war” that the United States has engaged in since
1862. In a model treaty drawn up while he was
in France, Jefferson contended that if contracting parties went to war, their trade should not be interrupted,
prisoners were to be given good treatment, merchants were to be given time to settle their affairs and depart
peacefully from enemy territory, and women, children, and scholars were to be considered non-combatants. (It is
inconceivable that Jefferson, or any of the Founding Fathers, could ever have considered women serving in combat or
semi-combat roles à la Jessica Lynch.)
On actually abolishing war, Jefferson was certainly no utopian, and stated: “I hope it is practicable, by
improving the mind and morals of society, to lessen the disposition to war; but of its abolition I despair.”
The Declaration of War
Jefferson was particularly concerned about the executive branch of government having the war power. Our modern
Jeffersonian in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), was one of the few
legislators to voice similar concerns as the U.S.
was poised to invade Iraq. Here again is Jefferson:
The power of declaring war being with the Legislature, the Executive should do nothing necessarily committing
them to decide for war in preference of non-intercourse, which will be preferred by a great many. I opposed the
right of the President to declare anything future on the question, Shall there or shall there not be war?
Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to
war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided. I
have barely instructed the officers stationed in the neighborhood of the aggressions to protect our citizens from
violence, to patrol within the borders actually delivered to us, and not to go out of them but when necessary to
repel an inroad or to rescue a citizen or his property. As the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the
affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from
deliberating on the question. Congress [must] be called [if there] is a justifiable cause of war; and as the
Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side
by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question. We have already given in example one effectual
check to the Dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body,
from those who are to spend to those who are to pay. The making reprisal on a nation is a very serious thing.
Remonstrance and refusal of satisfaction ought to precede; and when reprisal follows, it is considered as an act of
war, and never yet failed to produce it in the case of a nation able to make war; besides, if the case were
important enough to require reprisal, and ripe for that step, Congress must be called on to take it; the right of
reprisal being expressly lodged with them by the Constitution, and not with the Executive. The question of war
being placed by the Constitution with the Legislature alone, respect to that [makes] it [the Executive’s] duty to
restrain the operations of our militia to those merely defensive; and considerations involving the public
satisfaction, and peculiarly my own, require that the decision of that question, whichever way it be, should be
pronounced definitely by the Legislature themselves.
There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of
their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such
instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army. Were armies to be raised
whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have
been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place.
Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace. The spirit of this
country is totally adverse to a large military force.
In another statement regarding relations with the Indians, Jefferson again decried standing armies:
We must do as the Spaniards and English do. Keep them in peace by liberal and constant presents. Another
powerful motive is that in this way we may leave no pretext for raising or continuing an army. Every rag of an
Indian depredation will, otherwise, serve as a ground to raise troops with those who think a standing army and a
public debt necessary for the happiness of the United States, and we shall never be permitted to get rid of
either.
Conclusion
Jefferson was not alone in his views on the evils of war. Most of the Founding Fathers thought likewise:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops
the germ of every other.” ~ James Madison “There was never a good war or a bad peace.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
“Preparation for war is a constant stimulus to suspicion and ill will.” ~ James Monroe “While there are knaves and
fools in the world, there will be wars in it.” ~ John Jay “The fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the
human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace.” ~ Alexander Hamilton
“My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.” ~ George Washington
But today, instead of sages like Madison, Franklin, Monroe, Jay, Hamilton, Washington, and Jefferson, we have
warmongers like Bush, Cheney, Libby, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Abrams. And instead of the wisdom of
the Founding Fathers, the American public is fed a steady diet of David Frum, William Kristol, Sean Hannity, Jonah
Goldberg, Max Boot, Fox News, and the War Street Journal.
Jefferson was not perfect, and he was at times inconsistent, but overall his principles were sound. The
senseless waste of American lives in Bush’s Iraq fiasco could have been avoided if Jefferson’s aversion to war had
been followed instead of forsaken, as have the other sound principles of the Founders.
[These quotations from Jefferson have been taken from a variety of sources. Most are from the now out-of-print
volume, The Complete Jefferson,
edited and assembled by Saul K. Padover. However, other similar volumes of Jefferson’s writings are available, and much is now available online,
such as thiscollection of Jefferson’s
letters.]
It sounds like a radical idea today, just like it must have sounded like a radical idea when it was first
proposed over two hundred years ago. We certainly need it more today than we have needed it at any time in U.S.
history. And no, it’s not a balanced budget, campaign finance reform, or term limits for members of Congress.
One of the first three departments created in 1789 in the new executive branch of the government
of the United States was the War Department. This department, which contained the army, existed side by side
with the Department of the Navy (created in 1798) until both departments were reorganized in 1947 as the
Department of Defense (DOD), along with the newly created Department of the Air Force. Judging from the
interventionist and aggressive actions of the U.S. military since then, the DOD was certainly misnamed, and
should more accurately be known as the Department of War. If the DOD was not so busy providing security, guarding borders, patrolling coasts, and training
troops in other countries, then perhaps it could have defended the country on September 11, 2001, or at least
its headquarters, the Pentagon. It is obvious that the current purpose of the DOD is to fight those foreign
wars that Jefferson warned us against. If the DOD
is supposed to defend the country, then why do we need a Department of Homeland Security? According to one of
the forgotten Founding Fathers, Benjamin
Rush (1745—1813), who died on this date 193 years ago, we don’t need either one. Known as the Father
of American Psychiatry, Rush (not to be confused with that conservative windbag Rush Limbaugh) was a noted
physician and Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. But he was also a member of the
Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Near the end of his life, he served as
Treasurer of the National Mint. Rush was also a prolific author. In 1798 he collected twenty-five of his
previous writings and published them in a volume he titled Essays,
Literary, Moral, and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798).
One of the essays had been previously published in Banneker’s Almanac. This was the work of Benjamin Banneker (1731—1806), a noted black
scientist, astronomer, and surveyor who published an almanac from 1792—1797. Rush’s radical essay was called
“A Plan of a Peace-Office for the United States.”
A PLAN OF A PEACE-OFFICE FOR THE UNITED STATES
Among the defects which have been pointed out in the Federal Constitution by its antifederal enemies, it is much
to be lamented that no person has taken notice of its total silence upon the subject of an office of the utmost
importance to the welfare of the United States, that is, an office for promoting and preserving perpetual peace in
our country. It is to be hoped that no objection will be made to the establishment of such an office, while we are
engaged in a war with the Indians, for as the War-Office of the United States was established in time of peace, it
is equally reasonable that a Peace-Office should be established in the time of war. The plan of this office is as
follows:
Let a Secretary of the Peace be appointed to preside in this office, who shall be perfectly free from all
the present absurd and vulgar European prejudices upon the subject of government; let him be a genuine
republican and a sincere Christian, for the principles of republicanism and Christianity are no less friendly
to universal and perpetual peace, than they are to universal and equal liberty.
Let a power be given to this Secretary to establish and maintain free-schools in every city, village and
township of the United States; and let him be made responsible for the talents, principles, and morals, of all
his schoolmasters. Let the youth of our country be carefully instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic,
and in the doctrines of a religion of some king: the Christian religion should be preferred to all others; for
it belongs to this religion exclusively to teach us not only to cultivate peace with men, but to forgive, nay
more — to love our very enemies. It belongs to it further to teach us that the Supreme Being alone possesses a
power to take away human life, and that we rebel against his laws, whenever we undertake to execute death in
any way whatever upon any of his creatures.
Let every family in the United States be furnished at the public expense, by the Secretary of this office,
with a copy of an American edition of the BIBLE. This measure has become the more necessary in our country,
since the banishment of the bible, as a school-book, from most of the schools in the United States. Unless the
price of this book be paid for by the public, there is reason to fear that in a few years it will be me with
only in courts of justice or in magistrates’ offices; and should the absurd mode of establishing truth by
kissing this sacred book fall into disuse, it may probably, in the course of the next generation, be seen only
as a curiosity on a shelf in a public museum.
Let the following sentence be inscribed in letters of gold over the doors of every State and Court house in
the United States.
THE SON OF MAN CAME INTO THE WORLD, NOT TO DESTROY MEN’S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE
THEM.
To inspire a veneration for human life, and an horror at the shedding of blood, let all those laws be
repealed which authorize juries, judges, sheriffs, or hangmen to assume the resentments of individuals and to
commit murder in cold blood in any case whatever. Until this reformation in our code of penal jurisprudence
takes place, it will be in vain to attempt to introduce universal and perpetual peace in our country.
To subdue that passion for war, which education, added to human depravity, have made universal, a
familiarity with the instruments of death, as well as all military shows, should be carefully avoided. For
which reason, militia laws should every where be repealed, and military dresses and military titles should be
laid aside: reviews tend to lessen the horrors of a battle by connecting them with the charms of order; militia
laws generate idleness and vice, and thereby produce the wars they are said to prevent; military dresses
fascinate the minds of young men, and lead them from serious and useful professions; were there no uniforms,
there would probably be no armies; lastly, military titles feed vanity, and keep up ideas in the mind which
lessen a sense of the folly and miseries of war.
In the last place, let a large room, adjoining the federal hall, be appropriated for transacting the
business and preserving all the records of this office. Over the door of this room let there be a sign, on
which the figures of a LAMB, a DOVE and an OLIVE BRANCH should be painted, together with the following
inscriptions in letters of gold:
PEACE ON EARTH — GOOD-WILL TO MAN. AH! WHY WILL MEN FORGET THAT THEY ARE
BRETHREN?
Within this apartment let there be a collection of plough-shares and pruning-hooks made out of swords and
spears; and on each of the walls of the apartment, the following pictures as large as the life:
A lion eating straw with an ox, and an adder playing upon the lips of a child.
An Indian boiling his venison in the same pot with a citizen of Kentucky.
Lord Cornwallis and Tippoo Saib, under the shade of a sycamore-tree in the East Indies, drinking Madeira
wine together out of the same decanter.
A group of French and Austrian soldiers dancing arm and arm, under a bower erected in the neighbourhood of
Mons.
A St. Domingo planter, a man of color, and a native of Africa, legislating together in the same colonial
assembly.
To complete the entertainment of this delightful apartment, let a group of young ladies, clad in white robes,
assemble every day at a certain hour, in a gallery to be erected for the purpose, and sing odes, and hymns, and
anthems in praise of the blessings of peace. One of these songs should consist of the following lines. Peace o’er
the world her olive want extends, And white-rob’d innocence from heaven descends; All crimes shall cease, and
ancient frauds shall fail, Returning justice lifts aloft her scale. In order more deeply to affect the minds of the
citizens of the United States with the blessings of peace, by contrasting them with the evils of war, let the
following inscriptions be painted upon the sign which is placed over the door of the War Office.
An office for butchering the human species.
A Widow and Orphan making office.
A broken bone making office.
A Wooden leg making office.
An office for the creating of public and private vices.
An office for creating a public debt.
An office for creating speculators, stock jobbers, and bankrupts.
An office for creating famine.
An office for creating pestilential diseases.
An office for creating poverty, and the destruction of liberty, and national happiness.
In the lobby of this office let there be painted representations of all the common military instruments of
death, also human skulls, broken bones, unburied and putrefying dead bodies, hospitals crowded with sick and
wounded soldiers, villages on fire, mothers in besieged towns eating the flesh of their children, ships sinking in
the ocean, rivers dyed with blood, and extensive plains without a tree or fence, or any object, but the ruins of
deserted farm houses. Above this group of woeful figures, — let the following words be inserted, in red characters
to represent human blood,
“NATIONAL GLORY.”
The Founding Fathers of the United States, even with all of their blemishes and inconsistencies, were miles
ahead of the vermin called politicians we are presently cursed with. Contrary to George WMD Bush, who insists that he is “a war president” who
makes “decisions with war on my mind,” the other Founding Fathers often echoed Benjamin Rush’s sentiments on the
evils of war:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops
the germ of every other.” ~ James Madison “There was never a good war or a bad peace.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
“Preparation for war is a constant stimulus to suspicion and ill will.” ~ James Monroe “While there are knaves and
fools in the world, there will be wars in it.” ~ John Jay “The fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the
human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace.” ~ Alexander Hamilton
“My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.” ~ George Washington It is both a
grave injustice and a great display of ignorance that those who speak out for peace and against the evils of war
are often labeled by blind Republican Bush apologists, crazed conservative armchair warriors, and wannabe-writer,
e-mail debater, Christian warmongers as hippies, peaceniks, Quakers, traitors, leftists, anti-Americans, or
anti-war weenies. Although their support for this war may eventually wane, they can be counted on to support the
next one — to their “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). [Benjamin Rush’s “Plan of a Peace-office” was
quoted in its entirety from The
Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush (New York: Philosophical Library, 1947, pp. 19—23.]
It begins soon after the Thanksgiving holiday. You hear them in stores. You listen to them on the
radio. You sing them in church. You probably have some of them on a CD. I am referring, of course, to Christmas
carols, like say: God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen, O Christmas Tree, O Come All Ye Faithful, It Came Upon the Midnight
Clear, Angels from the Realms of Glory, O Little Town of Bethlehem, The First Noel. Although Christmas is the time when people celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace (Isaiah
9:6), if some people were honest they would have to acknowledge that they also honor Mars, the Roman god of
war. And if this wasn’t bad enough, they honor him every day of the year, not just on December 25. They honor
Mars every time they claim to support the troops. Americans are in love with the U.S. military. As the fiasco
that is the war in Iraq has shown, it doesn’t matter how senseless the war, it doesn’t matter how many lies
the war is based on, it doesn’t matter how much the Bush administration manipulated intelligence, it doesn’t
matter how much the war costs, it doesn’t matter how long the war lasts, it doesn’t matter how many thousands
of American soldiers are killed or injured, and it certainly doesn’t matter how many hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis are killed or injured — too many Americans can be found who still mindlessly repeat the refrain of
“support the troops.” Some American Christians chime in with their “obey the powers that be” mantra. Coupled
with the melody of “we can’t just cut and run” and the chorus of “it is better to fight them over there so we
don’t have to fight them over here,” we have a four-part warmonger harmony. Because it is the Christmas
season, and the sound of Christmas carols is everywhere, I have taken the liberty to rewrite the traditional
carols that I have mentioned above. If Americans who are so enamored with the military were honest, this is
what they should really be singing during this time of the year: God rest ye merry soldiers Let nothing you
dismay, Remember, the U.S. military Still fights on Christmas day; To kill those darn Iraqis Because they have
gone astray. O tidings of destruction and death, Destruction and death. O tidings of destruction and death. O
Uniform! O Uniform! I can kill when I wear thee. O Uniform! O Uniform! I can kill when I wear thee. Not only
when the summer’s here, But also when ’tis cold and drear. O Uniform! O Uniform! I can kill when I wear thee.
O come all ye soldiers Joyful and triumphant, O come ye, O come ye to Baghdad. Come and behold them, Muslim
worshippers of Allah. O come, let us bomb them, O come, let us maim them, O come, let us kill them, Ragheads
galore. It came upon the midnight clear, That horrible sound of old, Of soldiers flying near the earth, With
bombs to drop from their hold. “Peace on the earth, goodwill to men From America’s mighty military!” Iraq in
solemn horror lay To hear the bombs zing. Soldiers from the U.S. military, Fire your weapons o’er all Baghdad.
Ye who seek to kill for glory, Now have a chance to make your heart glad: Fire your weapon, Fire your weapon,
Fire your weapon for Bush the king! O little town of Baghdad How still we see thee lie; Above all thy
destruction The U.S. air force flies. And in thy dark streets shineth America’s military might. The bombs and
bullets of all us here Will be unleashed on thee tonight. The first bullet, George Bush did say Was for
certain poor Iraqis in deserts as they lay, In sand where they lay all night in a heap On a March ’03 night
that was so deep. Oh well, Oh well, Oh well, Oh well; Now is the time for us to blow you to hell! How
irreverent, says the supporter of the U.S. military. Sacrilegious, says the defender of the war in Iraq.
Blasphemous, says the Christian warmonger. Is that so? Why is it not considered irreverent when people ask God
to bless the troops? Why is it not considered sacrilegious when people pray that God would protect the troops?
Why is it not considered blasphemous when Christians campaign for Bush and defend his war? For those who refuse to listen to anything I say about the military because I never “served”
— and would in fact prefer that I shred all the copies of my book, Christianity and War and Other Essays
Against the Warfare State — I highly recommend the work of West Point graduate and Vietnam
veteran Andrew Bacevich. His recent book is called The New American Militarism: How
Americans Are Seduced by War (Oxford, 2005). I have previously written about his book in the context of
the conservative Christian love affair with the U.S. military. There is still time to get the book in time for
Christmas. If there is one book to give to current and former members of the military, as well as their
enthusiasts, this is the book. War brings out the worst in young men. What we tolerate from them, and what
they tolerate from themselves, would normally be repugnant to any civilized person. It is tolerated because it
is sanitized (in the minds of many) because a soldier wears a uniform, is surrounded by a great company of
other soldiers, and kills by government decree. The folly of this idea can be seen in the story of the reply
given to Alexander the Great (356—323 B.C.) by a captured pirate that was recounted by Augustine (354—430)
sixteen hundred years ago in his famous work, The City of God:
Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who
had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea,
he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty
ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor” (book IV, chapter
4).
Writing on the causes, consequences, and lawfulness of war, along with comments on the probable practical
effects of adhering to the moral law in respect to war, Jonathan Dymond (1796—1828), one young in years
but old in wisdom, stated:
Another cause of our complacency with war, and therefore another cause of war itself, consists in that
callousness to human misery which the custom induces. They who are shocked at a single murder on the highway,
hear with indifference of the slaughter of a thousand on the field. They whom the idea of a single corpse would
thrill with terror, contemplate that of heaps of human carcasses mangled by human hands, with frigid
indifference. If a murder is committed, the narrative is given in the public newspaper, with many adjectives of
horror — with many expressions of commiseration, and many hopes that the perpetrator will be detected. In the
next paragraph, the editor, perhaps, tells us that he has hurried in a second edition to the press, in order
that he may be the first to glad the public with the intelligence, that in an engagement which has just taken
place, eight hundred and fifty of the enemy were killed. Now, is not this latter intelligence eight hundred and
fifty times as deplorable as the first? Yet the first is the subject of our sorrow, and this — of our joy! The
inconsistency and disproportionateness which has been occasioned in our sentiments of benevolence, offers a
curious moral phenomenon.
He also wrote about why wars are often so popular:
But perhaps the most operative cause of the popularity of war, and of the facility with which we engage in
it, consists in this; that an idea of glory is attached to military exploits, and of honor to the military
profession. The glories of battle, and of those who perish in it, or who return in triumph to their country,
are favorite topics of declamation with the historian, the biographers, and the poet. They have told us a
thousands times of dying heroes, who “resign their lives amidst the joys of conquest, and, filled with their
country’s glory, smile in death;” and thus every excitement that eloquence and genius can command, is employed
to arouse that ambition of fame which can be gratified only at the expense of blood.
It is indeed “a curious moral phenomenon” that many Americans, the vast majority of whom claim to be a
Christian of one sort or another, can sing traditional Christmas carols one minute and — by defending Bush and his
war, glorifying the military, and repeating their mindless mantras — sing warmonger Christmas carols the next.
The saber rattling and drum beating for war with Iran are getting louder and louder every day. Unfortunately, some Evangelicals are among
the loudest voices crying for war with Iran. President Ahmadinejad is worse than Hitler, according to the
Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry. In the March/April 2007 issue of Israel My
Glory, published by this ministry, Elwood McQuaid, the executive editor, maintains that “annihilating the Jewish
state is merely a warm-up. Although the lynchpin of Ahmadinejad’s crusade is a first-strike success against his
near neighbor Israel, the next move is westward to Europe and then on to finish off the hated United States.”
Another piece in the same issue of Israel My Glory quotes Benjamin Netanyahu as saying that “unless the United
States stops Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, America has only two to five years left.” In the recent
May/June 2008 issue, we see more of the same: “Replace the name Hitler with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who rants
against his selected scapegoats, Israel and the Jewish people, blaming them for every iniquity and offering the
only u2018acceptable’ solution: genocide and annihilation of the Jewish state. His desire is not for a
1,000-year Reich but for a global, Islamic caliphate.” The American people cannot just stop their ears and
expect that all the saber rattling, drum beating, and war crying will go away after the election of a new U.S.
president. We already know that John McCain — who had no problem bombing Vietnam back to the Stone Age — is a
crazed warmonger. But the election of Barack Obama instead of John McCain will not mean anything different when
it comes to Iran. Obama considers the danger posed by Iran to be grave and real — so much so that his goal
“will be to eliminate this
threat.” But regardless of who occupies the U.S. presidency, there is really only one sure-fire way to
prevent a war with Iran. The fact that Iran is not a threat to the United States will not stop us from going to
war. Was Iraq a threat to the United States? Was Afghanistan? Was Vietnam? Germany couldn’t cross the English
Channel to invade Great Britain. How was Germany a real threat to the United States? Japan was goaded
into/allowed to bomb Pearl Harbor, but was Japan really a threat to the United States? Were the Central powers a
threat to the United States in 1917? Was Spain a threat to the United States in 1898? None of the many
incursions of U.S. troops into other countries was because of a credible threat to the United States. To say
that war with Iran is justifiable because Iran might someday possibly become a threat to the United States is
ludicrous. Should we go into the ghettos of U.S. cities and jail or kill young boys because they might grow up
and become a thug and possibly carjack someone? The fact that Iran is not a threat to Israel will not prevent a
war with Iran. Now, whether country A is or is not a threat to country B should have no bearing on U.S. military
activities. Following the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson, the United States should not have entangling
alliances with any country. Unfortunately, the United States has many entangling alliances, and we have
intractably entangled ourselves in the Middle East. The fruit of years of an aggressive, interventionist, and
imperialistic U.S. foreign policy is increased hatred of both the United States and Israel. The fact that Iran
does not have a nuclear weapon, and, according to the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate, has not been
working on a nuclear weapon since 2003 will not stop the Bush administration from foolishly and immorally
launching a preventive strike against yet another country. Bush has even said that the NIE “in no way lessens” the threat of Iran. It
doesn’t matter if Iran’s nuclear program is entirely for civilian use. The United States, or Israel, or both
countries, could still try to destroy anything in Iran that could possibly be used in any kind of a nuclear
program. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently claimed that Iran “is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” But the fact that Iran’s
civilian nuclear program may really be for military use or might in the future be converted to military use is
immaterial. Three of Iran’s neighbors — Israel, Pakistan, and India — have such weapons. Plus nearby China and
Russia. And of course, the great Satan, the United States, not only has more nukes than any other country, it is
the only country that has used them and is now currently threatening Iran. The fact that the U.S. military is
already stretched to the breaking point — “dangerously thin,” according to
a recent survey of military officers — is of no consequence to Bush the decider in chief, who maintains that
“all options are on the
table.” No one in his family will ever suffer the horrors of war. The price of gas, which is certain to rise
much higher in the advent of war with Iran, is inconsequential to anyone in the Bush family. The failure of the
anti-Iran resolutions introduced in the Senate (S. Res. 580) and the House (H. Con. Res. 362) to pass will not prevent a
war with Iran. Congress long ago abrogated its constitutional war-making authority to the president. If Bush
announced today that he ordered U.S. forces to bomb, invade, and occupy Iran, the Congress — Democrats and
Republicans — would begin allocating billions of dollars for the war effort to support the troops. Public
opinion against war with Iran is not enough to prevent such a war from taking place. We know this because of the
Iraq war. When Vice President Cheney was recently told that polls showed that about two-thirds of the American
people believed that the Iraq war was not worth fighting, Cheney arrogantly replied: “So?” And furthermore, U.S. presidents may be evil, but
they are not stupid (okay, with one exception). Every president knows that Americans are in love with the U.S.
military. Americans will support the troops no matter who they are fighting against, even if they can’t locate
the country of our “enemy” on a map. The
repercussions of a war with Iran would be devastating, for as Tom Engelhardt recently explained, Iran has
“a remarkable capacity to inflict grievous harm locally, regionally, and globally.” Since most Americans are
relatively unconcerned about the number of innocent Iranians that might be wounded or killed in any U.S.
military action against Iran (all Muslims are terrorists; and besides, their skin is darker than ours) or even
the number of U.S. soldiers who might be wounded or killed (they enlisted of their own free will; and besides,
they are defending our freedoms), I will just mention one area in which grievous harm will occur: the price of
oil. A war with Iran, as Engelhardt also noted, “would result in a global oil shock of almost inconceivable
proportions.” And this time, it would be clear to all from the beginning that the price of oil was directly
related to the war. Engelhardt doesn’t think war with Iran is likely, and I hope he is right. But when it comes
to this evil administration, nothing is out of the question, nothing is off limits, nothing is too far-fetched.
But if Bush the decider in chief is determined to multiply his war crimes by attacking Iran, or giving
Israel a green light (or not issuing a red
light) to do so with the promise of U.S. military backup, what can be done to prevent such a war from taking
place? I see only one solution: the troops. The troops? But they are the ones who will be doing the fighting.
Exactly. Bush, Cheney, Gates, Petraeus, the secretaries, under secretaries, and assistant secretaries of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the members of the Joints Chiefs of Staff won’t be lifting a finger against Iran.
Only U.S. troops — the ones who will suffer and bleed and die for a lie — will be fighting an illegal, immoral
war against Iran. But because it is only the troops that will be doing the dirty work, and because the troops
greatly outnumber their commanders in the field and the bureaucrats in the Pentagon, and because it’s impossible
for the American people to support the troops in their war effort if the troops themselves refuse to prosecute
the war — the troops refusing to fight is the only sure-fire way to prevent a war with Iran. Now, for this to
happen, it is apparent that the hearts and minds of the troops must be changed. The troops need to see that Iran
is not a threat to the United States, that Iran is not a threat to Israel, that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear
weapon, that Iran is perfectly justified if it obtained a nuclear weapon, that the U.S. military is stretched to
the breaking point, that the president has no constitutional authority to begin a war with Iran, and that the
American people will support them in their decision. The troops need to see that an attack on Iran would be
unnecessary, unwise, unjust, illegal, immoral, and in violation of the Constitution they swore to uphold. It
would be anything but fighting to defend our freedoms. The troops need to see that attacking Iran perverts the
purpose of the military. Defending the United States against attack or invasion is admirable; attacking and
invading foreign countries is not. In defense of the United States, the U.S. military should guard U.S. borders,
patrol U.S. coasts, and enforce no-fly zones over U.S. skies. It should not do these things in other countries,
and should certainly not induce other countries to do these things because of a threat by the United States. The
troops need to see that American foreign policy is responsible for much evil throughout the world. It is
contrary to the wise, noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. So contrary in fact that the
Founders wouldn’t recognize what their constitutional, federated republic has become. Fighting an offensive,
foreign war perpetuates an evil U.S. foreign policy. The troops need to see that they are the ones who will be
responsible for waging an unjust war. They are the ones who will be dropping the bombs and firing the bullets.
They are the ones who will be doing the wounding and killing. They are the ones who will be destroying property
and infrastructure. The troops need to see that there are some orders that they just shouldn’t obey — even if
they come directly from their commander in chief. Why is it that Americans insist that German soldiers should
have disobeyed any commands to kill Jews, but that American soldiers should always obey their superiors? In
reality, however, Americans really don’t believe that all orders should be obeyed. If an American soldier were
ordered to kill the president or to kill his mother, we would condemn him if he obeyed. What we really expect
of our soldiers is to unconditionally obey any order that involves the killing of any foreigner in any
country. But this is something that no soldier with an ounce of morality should do. If the troops don’t see
these things, then war with Iran will come should the president be dumb enough, and evil enough, to order an
attack, an invasion, a regime change, or a preemptive strike. But if the troops do see these things, war with
Iran will be impossible. Bush, or any future president, can try to lie the country into war as much as he
wants, but the troops refusing to fight an unjust war will prevent any conflict from occurring. If a U.S.
soldier really wants to be a hero, he should
refuse to fight in any foreign war. “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person” (Deuteronomy
27:25).
Apologists and defenders of Bush’s global war on terror have always had one thing they could fall
back on should none of their other lame arguments for war, militarism, the suppression of civil liberties, an
imperial presidency, and an aggressive foreign policy be convincing: to dissent when America is at war is to be
un-American or anti-American. Not any more. This pathetic argument has been laid to rest once and for all by Murray
Polner and Thomas E. Woods with the publication of We Who Dared to Say No to War: American
Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now (Basic Books, 2008). Polner, who has written for the Nation, and
Woods, who has written for the American Conservative, are as opposite politically as two men can be. They are
united in this book by one, great, noble idea — mass murder is wrong, even when undertaken by governments. Polner
and Woods claim to have assembled “some of the most compelling, vigorously argued, and just plain interesting
speeches, articles, poetry, and book excerpts” in the American antiwar tradition. Their assertion is accurate. What
will be a surprise to many Americans is that this tradition includes such anti-Americans as Daniel Webster, Henry
Clay, William Jennings Bryan, Helen Keller, Senator Robert Taft, Governor Robert La Follette, and Presidents
Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower. Yes, the book is an anthology, but an eminently readable one, and on a
subject of grave importance. The format is quite simple: a brief introduction to each major war in American history
is given followed by “some of the most memorable, if largely neglected, writings and speeches by those Americans
who have opposed our government’s addiction to war.” Thus, the selections in the book cover the War of 1812, the
Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars, World War I, World War II, the
Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. The authors have also wisely included a chapter on the Cold War and a concluding
chapter in which “Americans from the past two centuries address various aspects of war.” The whole book actually
addresses all aspects of war, including militarism, imperialism, empire, conscription, and government propaganda.
It is this latter point that is especially pertinent, for as the authors point out in their introduction: “The
history of American war is littered with propaganda, falsehoods, a compliant media, the manipulation of patriotic
sentiment — everything we’ve seen recently, we’ve seen before. Time and again.” Since each of the seventy selections in this anthology contains some nugget, I will have to
limit my examples to one from each war. During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster delivered a speech in Congress
disparaging conscription as inconsistent with free government, civil liberty, and the Constitution: Where is
it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from
their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the
folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? During the Mexican War, future president Abraham Lincoln,
then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, gave a speech in Congress against the war in which he
denounced President Polk as a “bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man.” Polner and Woods point
out in their introduction to the Mexican War that “Congress voted 85 to 81 to censure President Polk,
declaring that the war had been u2018unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United
States.'” The authors include in their chapter on the so-Civil War the speech of Ohio congressman Clement
Vallandigham that was declared to be an act of treason and resulted in him being seized, tried before a
military tribunal, and deported from the Union: I assert here, to-day, as a Representative, that every
principal act of the Administration since has been a glaring usurpation of power, and a palpable and dangerous
violation of that very Constitution which this civil war is professedly waged to support. Three-time
Democratic Party candidate for president William Jennings Bryan is featured in the chapter on the
Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. Although he initially supported the Spanish-American War, he
objected to the later occupation of the Philippines: Those who would have this nation enter upon a career of
empire must consider not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos but they must also calculate its
effects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without
weakening that principle here. Bryan later resigned as secretary of state under Woodrow Wilson because he felt
that Wilson was not committed to avoiding American involvement in World War I. Although Helen Keller could
neither see nor hear, she was more perceptive than most members of Congress when it came to the United States
entering World War I. In her speech before the Women’s Peace Party of New York City in 1916 she told the truth
about the war: Congress is not preparing to defend the people of the United States. It is planning to protect
the capital of American speculators and investors in Mexico, South America, China and the Philippine Islands.
Incidentally this preparation will benefit the manufactures of munitions and war machines. The clever ones, up
in the high places know how childish and silly the workers are. They know that if the government dresses them
up in khaki and gives them a rifle and starts them off with a brass band and waving banners, they will go
forth to fight valiantly for their own enemies. They are taught that brave men die for their country’s honor.
What a price to pay for an abstraction — the lives of millions of young men; other millions crippled and
blinded for life; existence made hideous for still more millions of human beings; the achievement and
inheritance of generations swept away in a moment — and nobody better off for all the misery! World War II,
which many Americans consider to be “good” or “necessary,” was neither. Polner and Woods describe in their
introduction to this war the America First Committee (AFC), which “prevented the U.S. from becoming even more
involved in the European war for some two years.” The AFC included among its estimated eight hundred thousand
members Gerald Ford, John F. Kennedy, Frank Lloyd Wright, E. E. Cummings, Walt Disney, and Charles Lindbergh.
The Committee was unfortunately disbanded after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Given the almost universal
American acceptance of the necessity of American involvement in World War II, this is the weakest chapter in
the book, with the authors including only five selections, two of which concern the draft, and two others that
were written before Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, the other piece that is included is a classic. It is “Two
Votes Against War: 1917 and 1941,” by Jeannette Rankin, the only member of Congress to vote against U.S.
involvement in both world wars. Rankin recounts how, when the first anniversary of the congressional vote to
enter World War II came around, she “extended remarks in the record in which I brought out some points which
may well be recalled at the present critical moment.” She then proceeded to remind the Congress of a number of
instances in which it was apparent that the United States was guilty of provoking Japan. On World War II not
being “good,” Polner and Woods point out that it “resulted in some sixty million deaths, mainly nonmilitary.”
This alone is enough to make the war anything but good. On the war not being “necessary,” I highly recommend
the recently published Human Smoke, by
Nicholson Baker, and Churchill, Hitler,
and the Unnecessary War, by Pat Buchanan. The Cold War is another war that most Americans felt was
necessary. In their introduction to this chapter, Polner and Woods relate how during this period: “Soviet
capabilities were consistently exaggerated.” This should come as no surprise, as the U.S. government lies on a
regular basis about all manner of things. Must reading in this chapter is “Those Who Protest: The
Transformation of the Conservative Movement,” by Robert LeFevre, businessman and founder of the Freedom School
in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Here LeFevre explains how conservatives, who were originally in favor of peace,
individualism, and smaller government, turned away from these ideals in the name of fighting communism.
Although the Cold War has been over for twenty years, our authors correctly note its legacy: “The Soviet Union
may be long gone, but the military-industrial complex that got such a boost from the Cold War, and the
interventionist thinking that came to dominate policymaking circles, are as strong as ever.” Thank
conservatives. The war in Vietnam divided Americans as no other. Polner and Woods include many excellent
selections here, but I think the one that carries the most weight is that of General David Shoup, former
commandant of the Marines. Since it is very short, I here give the general’s remarks in their entirety: You
read, you’re televised to, you’re radioed to, you’re preached to, that it is necessary that we have our armed
forces fight, get killed and maimed, and kill and maim other human beings including women and children because
now is the time we must stop some kind of unwanted ideology from creeping up on this nation. The place we
chose to do this is 8,000 miles away with water in between. . . . The reasons fed to us are too shallow and
narrow for students, as well as other citizens. Especially so, when you realize that what is happening, no
matter how carefully and slowly the military escalation has progressed, may be projecting us toward world
catastrophe. Surely it is confusing. . . . I want to tell you, I don’t think the whole of Southeast Asia, as
related to the present and future safety and freedom of the people of this country, is worth the life or limb
of a single American. I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of
the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their
own. That they design and want. That they fight and work for. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of
a violent type because the “haves” refuse to share with the “have-nots” by any peaceful method, at least what
they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed
down their throats by Americans. The current war in Iraq — Bush’s war — is also harshly criticized in this
volume. In “Why Did Bush Destroy Iraq?,” Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the treasury under Ronald
Reagan, sums it up nicely: Every reason we have been given for the Iraqi invasion has proved to be false.
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Reports from UN weapons inspectors, top level U.S.
intelligence officials, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, and leaked top-secret documents from the
British cabinet all make it unequivocally clear that the Bush regime first decided to invade Iraq and then
looked around for a reason. Although the concluding chapter in We Who Dared to Say No to War contains many
hard-hitting essays, the opening selection of a speech by John Quincy Adams shows us just how far we have come
in this country. I am referring, of course, to his famous statement that America “goes not abroad in search of
monsters to destroy.” U.S. foreign policy is about as far removed from that of the Founding Fathers as it
could possibly be. I should also mention the wonderful appendix in this book on “Great Antiwar Films,” by Butler
Shaffer. The sad thing that We Who Dared to Say No to War manifests is that after all the lies and propaganda
of one war have been exposed, Americans are all too willing to rally around their government, their president,
and their troops for the next war. This book is a stepping-stone to further enlightenment. How many Americans
even know that the United States fought wars against Great Britain and Mexico between the Revolutionary War
and the Civil War? How many Americans who know that the United States fought in World War I also know about
the Spanish-American and the Philippine-American Wars that were fought just a few years earlier? And of
course, how many Americans realize that there has been vocal opposition to these wars from all over the
political spectrum? All patriotic Americans should say no to war. They should say no to war and its evil
stepchildren of militarism, imperialism, empire, nationalism, jingoism, gunboat diplomacy, torture,
extraordinary rendition, domestic spying, conscription, nation building, regime change, the
military-industrial complex, the warfare state, government propaganda, and an interventionist foreign policy.
We Who Dared to Say No to War is a reminder that those who say no to such things are not alone.
One of the great tragedies of history is that too many men have been all too willing to kill for
the state. Even worse is that most of the killing has taken place in senseless and unjust wars. Regardless of who
orders them into battle, regardless of whether they are drafted, and regardless of the reasons they are told the
war is necessary, it is the soldiers who do the actual fighting, maiming, and killing. This has been true
throughout history. Even if we accept Hannah Arendt‘s
principle that “in general the degree of responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who uses the
fatal instrument with his own hands,” the soldiers at the bottom still bear diffused responsibility for their
actions. Responsibility is not all concentrated in the state’s leaders. To soothe their consciences as they kill
and plunder for the state, soldiers justify their acts of death and destruction by the doctrine of concentrated
responsibility. This is the idea that the responsibility for the murder and mayhem we call war is concentrated in
the sovereign or the heads of state responsible for ordering the troops into battle. This has also been true
throughout history. We can see this in Shakespeare’s play Henry V, written about 1599, which deals with events
surrounding the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 — an English victory against the French in the Hundred Years’ War. In
scene 1 of act 4, King Henry disguises himself and wanders about the English camp on the night before the battle
begins. Three soldiers — Bates, Court, and Williams — are standing around talking when they are approached by the
king in disguise. Court: “Brother John Bates is not that the morning which breaks yonder?” Bates: “I think it be:
but we have no great cause to desire the approach of day.” Williams: “We see yonder the beginning of the day, but I
think we shall never see the end of it. Who goes there?” King Henry V: “A friend.” Williams: “Under what captain
serve you?” King Henry V: “Under Sir Thomas Erpingham.” Williams: “A good old commander and a most kind gentleman:
I pray you, what thinks he of our estate?” King Henry V: “Even as men wrecked upon a sand, that look to be washed
off the next tide.” Bates: “He hath not told his thought to the king?” King Henry V: “No; nor it is not meet he
should. For, though I speak it to you, I think the king is but a man, as I am: the violet smells to him as it doth
to me: the element shows to him as it doth to me; all his senses have but human conditions: his ceremonies laid by,
in his nakedness he appears but a man; and though his affections are higher mounted than ours, yet, when they
stoop, they stoop with the like wing. Therefore when he sees reason of fears, as we do, his fears, out of doubt, be
of the same relish as ours are: yet, in reason, no man should possess him with any appearance of fear, lest he, by
showing it, should dishearten his army.” Bates: “He may show what outward courage he will; but I believe, as cold a
night as ’tis, he could wish himself in Thames up to the neck; and so I would he were, and I by him, at all
adventures, so we were quit here.” King Henry V: “By my troth, I will speak my conscience of the king: I think he
would not wish himself any where but where he is.” Bates: “Then I would he were here alone; so should he be sure to
be ransomed, and a many poor men’s lives saved.” King Henry V: “I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him
here alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men’s minds: methinks I could not die any where so contented as
in the king’s company; his cause being just and his quarrel honourable.” Williams: “That’s more than we know.”
Bates: “Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if his
cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.” Williams: “But if the cause be not
good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in
battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all u2018We died at such a place;’ some swearing, some crying
for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children
rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any
thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that
led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.” King Henry V: “So, if a son that is by
his father sent about merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the imputation of his wickedness by your rule,
should be imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a servant, under his master’s command transporting a sum of
money, be assailed by robbers and die in many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the business of the master the
author of the servant’s damnation: but this is not so: the king is not bound to answer the particular endings of
his soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of his servant; for they purpose not their death, when they
purpose their services. Besides, there is no king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to the arbitrement of
swords, can try it out with all unspotted soldiers: some peradventure have on them the guilt of premeditated and
contrived murder; some, of beguiling virgins with the broken seals of perjury; some, making the wars their bulwark,
that have before gored the gentle bosom of peace with pillage and robbery. Now, if these men have defeated the law
and outrun native punishment, though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to fly from God: war is his beadle,
war is vengeance; so that here men are punished for before-breach of the king’s laws in now the king’s quarrel:
where they feared the death, they have borne life away; and where they would be safe, they perish: then if they die
unprovided, no more is the king guilty of their damnation than he was before guilty of those impieties for the
which they are now visited. Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own. Therefore
should every soldier in the wars do as every sick man in his bed, wash every mote out of his conscience: and dying
so, death is to him advantage; or not dying, the time was blessedly lost wherein such preparation was gained: and
in him that escapes, it were not sin to think that, making God so free an offer, He let him outlive that day to see
His greatness and to teach others how they should prepare. Williams: “‘Tis certain, every man that dies ill, the
ill upon his own head, the king is not to answer it.” Bates: “But I do not desire he should answer for me; and yet
I determine to fight lustily for him.” Nothing has changed. Soldiers think they can have the best of both worlds.
They think they can kill with impunity in a just cause and with immunity in an unjust cause. But should some of the
king’s soldiers get a little reckless and cause some collateral damage, even though the king, like General Tommy
Franks, says “we don’t do body counts,” they are the ones who are fully responsible since “the king is not bound to
answer the particular endings of his soldiers.” And as for soldiers determining to fight lustily for king and crown
or for president and government or, as so many of them think, for flag and freedom or for God and country, there
has never been a shortage of willing participants. Are soldiers excused for the death and destruction they cause in an unjust and immoral war,
like say, the war in Iraq? Just what is it that excuses them? Because their government tells them to do it?
Because their commander in chief tells them to do it? Because their commanding officer tells them to do it?
Because they wear a military uniform? Because they need to fight “over there” lest they have to fight “over
here”? Because they are defending our freedoms? I have answered all of these questions in the negative here, here, here, here, and here. The terrible truth is that U.S. soldiers in Iraq
are fighting and dying for a lie. In King Henry’s
reply to Williams, he eludes taking blame by his elaborate analogy. But Henry is missing something here.
Sending soldiers to fight in a foreign war is not the same as a father sending his son or a master sending his
servant on a legitimate business trip. Bombing, invading, and occupying other countries, and otherwise
fighting foreign wars, are illegitimate — even when done under the guise of defense, liberation, regime
change, national interest, national security, or humanitarianism. There are thousands of U.S. soldiers in
Afghanistan, and thousands more on the way (thanks to the new war criminal in chief) who just a short time ago
could neither spell Afghanistan nor locate it on a map. And as far as I know, no Afghan ever lifted a finger
against an American until our troops landed on their soil. U.S. soldiers, like most soldiers throughout
history, have been duped. The crime of unjustly
killing another human being cannot be wiped away. No matter what his religion, skin color, ethnicity, or
nationality. No matter who tells you to drop the bomb, launch the missile, throw the grenade, or pull the
trigger. And no matter what kind of uniform you are wearing.
“History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of
mankind” ~ Edward Gibbon (1737—1794) “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” ~ George
Santayana (1863—1952) “What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned
anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it” ~ Georg Hegel (1770—1831) Writing in 1968, the
historian Will Durant, in his The Lessons of History, remarked
that “in the last 3,421 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war.” Unfortunately, the most recent
century was the bloodiest on record. Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941,
was one of the most horrendous military campaigns, not only in the twentieth century, but in all of history. As
related by Catherine Merridale in — (Metropolitan Books, 2006): By December 1941, six months into the conflict, the
Red Army had lost 4.5 million men. The carnage was beyond imagination. Eyewitnesses described the battlefields as
landscapes of charred steel and ash. The round shapes of lifeless heads caught the late summer light like potatoes
turned up from new-broken soil. The prisoners were marched off in their multitudes. Even the Germans did not have
the guards, let alone enough barbed wire, to contain the 2.5 million Red Army troops they captured in the first
five months. One single campaign, the defense of Kiev, cost the Soviets nearly 700,000 killed or missing in a
matter of weeks. Almost the entire army of the pre-war years, the troops that shared the panic of those first
nights back in June, was dead or captured by the end of 1941. And this process would be repeated as another
generation was called up, crammed into uniform, and killed, captured, or wounded beyond recovery. The folly of war
cannot be limited to Germans and Russians; it can also be seen in the actions of Americans. During World War II,
the Battle of Peleliu between the United States
and Japan was folly on a grand scale. As part of General MacArthur’s strategy to recapture the Philippines, it was
thought to be necessary to neutralize the Japanese occupation of the island of Peleliu — 550 miles east of the
Philippines. It wasn’t. After 1,794 U.S. Marines died, it was determined that the island had no strategic value.
Rather than being a “good war,” World War II was an unnecessary bloodbath just like most of the previous
wars in history. I suppose that men have pointed out the folly and wickedness of war for as long as wars have been
fought. But judging from the history of warfare, I suppose also that they have been in the minority. Most people, I
suppose, are familiar with the novelist Leo Tolstoy (1828—1910), the author of and a harsh critic of both war and
the state. Writing in 1894, Tolstoy powerfully described the folly and wickedness of war: Every war … with all its
ordinary consequences … the murder with the justifications of its necessity and justice, the exaltation and
glorification of military exploits, the worship of the flag, the patriotic sentiments … and so on, does more in one
year to pervert men’s minds than thousands of robberies, murders, and arsons perpetrated during hundreds of years
by individual men under the influence of passion. Just think how many millions of innocent lives could have been
spared from the horrors of both World Wars had the participants listened to Tolstoy. But long before Tolstoy,
someone in Britain penned an equally powerful missive titled “On the Folly and Wickedness of War.” That someone was
the preacher and educator Vicesimus Knox (1752—1821), a tireless advocate of civil liberties and adversary of
offensive war. I have written about Knox previously (“Vicesimus Knox: Minister of Peace“). My purpose here, however,
is to bring this long-forgotten work of Knox into the public domain. I recently discovered it in
volume one of Knox’s collected works, and have transcribed it below. The date of publication of “The Folly
and Wickedness of War” must be around 1800 for it was reprinted, with a few changes, in , selected by the Solomon
Hodgson. The
third edition of this book was issued at Newcastle in 1806. The first edition is supposed to have been
published in 1799, but I have been unable to confirm this. Here
is “On the Folly and Wickedness and War,” circa 1800: The calamities attendant on a state of war seem to have
prevented the mind of man from viewing it in the light of an absurdity, and an object of ridicule as well as pity.
But if we could suppose a superior Being capable of beholding us, miserable mortals, without compassion, there is,
I think, very little doubt but the variety of military manoeuvres and formalities, the pride, pomp, and
circumstance of war, and all the ingenious contrivances for the glorious purposes of mutual destruction, which seem
to constitute the business of many whole kingdoms, would furnish him with an entertainment like that which is
received by us from the exhibition of a farce or puppet-show. But, notwithstanding the ridiculousness of all these
solemnities, we, poor mortals, are doomed to feel that they are no farce, but the concomitant circumstances of a
most woeful tragedy. The causes of war are for the most part such as must disgrace an animal pretending to
rationality. Two poor mortals take offence at each other, without any reason, or with the very bad one of wishing
for an opportunity of aggrandizing themselves, by making reciprocal depredations. The creatures of the court, and
the leading men of the nation, who are usually under the influence of the court, resolve (for it is their interest)
to support their royal master, and are never at a loss to invent some colourable pretence for engaging the nation
in the horrors of war. Taxes of the most burthensome kind are levied, soldiers are collected so as to leave a
paucity of husbandmen, reviews and encampments succeed, and at last a hundred thousand men meet on a plain, and
coolly shed each others blood, without the smallest personal animosity, or the shadow of a provocation. The kings,
in the mean time, and the grandees, who have employed these poor innocent victims to shoot bullets at each other’s
heads, remain quietly at home, and amuse themselves, in the intervals of balls, hunting schemes, and pleasures of
every species, with reading at the fire side, over a cup of chocolate, the dispatches from the army, and the news
in the Extraordinary Gazette. Horace very truly observes, that whatever mad frolics enter into the heads of kings,
it is the common people, that is, the honest artisan, and the industrious tribes in the middle ranks, unoffended
and unoffending, who chiefly suffer in the evil consequences. If the old king of Prussia were not at the head of
some of the best troops in the universe, he would be judged more worthy of being tried, cast, and condemned at the
Old Bailey, than any shedder of blood who ever died by a halter. But he was a king; but he was a hero; — those
names fascinate us, and we enrol the butcher of mankind among their benefactors. When one considers the dreadful
circumstances that attend even victories, one cannot help being a little shocked at the exultation which they
occasion. I have often thought it a laughable scene, if there were not a little too much of the melancholy in it,
when a circle of eager politicians have met to congratulate each other on what is called a piece of good news just
arrived. Every eye sparkles with delight; every voice is raised in announcing the happy event. And what is the
cause of all this joy? and for what are our windows illuminated, bonfires kindled, bells rung, and feasts
celebrated? We have had a successful engagement. We have left a thousand of the enemy dead on the field of battle,
and only half the number of our countrymen. Charming news! it was a glorious battle! But before you give a loose to
your raptures, pause a while; and consider, that to every one of these three thousand, life was no less sweet than
it is to you; that to the far greater part of them there probably were wives, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters,
sisters, brothers, and friends, all of whom are at this moment bewailing that event which occasions your foolish
and brutal triumph; a triumph perfectly consistent with the basest cowardice. The whole time of war ought to be a
time of general mourning, a mourning in the heart, a mourning much more sincere than on the death of one of those
princes whose cursed ambition is often the sole cause of war. Indeed that a whole people should tamely submit to
the evils of war, because it is the will of a few vain, selfish, ignorant, though exalted, individuals, is a
phenomenon almost unaccountable. But they are led away by false glory, by their passions, by their vices. They
reflect not; and indeed, if they did reflect, and oppose, what would avail the opposition of unarmed myriads to the
mandate of a government supported by a standing army? Many of the European nations are entirely military; war is
their trade; and when they have no employment at home, or near it, they blush not to let themselves out to shed any
blood, in any cause of the best paymaster. Ye beasts of the forest, no longer allow that man is your superior,
while there is found on the face of the earth such degeneracy! Morality and religion forbid war in its motives,
conduct, and consequences; but to many rulers and potentates, morality and religion appear as the inventions of
politicians to facilitate subordination. The principal objects of crowned heads, and their minions, in countries
subject to despotism, are the extension of empire, the augmentation of a revenue, or the total annihilation of
their subjects’ liberty. Their restraints in the pursuit of these objects are not those of morality and religion;
but solely reasons of state and political caution. Plausible words are used, but they are only used to hide the
deformity of the real principles. Wherever war is deemed desirable in an interested view, a specious pretext never
yet remained unfound. Morality is as little considered in the beginning, as in the prosecution of war. The most
solemn treaties and engagements are violated by the governing part of the nation, with no more scruple than oaths
and bonds are broken by a cheat and a villain in the walks of private life. Does the difference of rank and
situation make any difference in the atrocity of crimes? If any, it renders a thousand times more criminal than
that of a thief, the villainy of them, who, by violating every sacred obligation between nation and nation, give
rise to miseries and mischiefs most dreadful in their nature; and to which no human power can say, Thus far shall
ye proceed, and no farther. Are not the natural and moral evils of life sufficient, but they must be rendered more
acute, more numerous, and more imbittered by artificial means? My heart bleeds over those complicated scenes of
woe, for which no epithet can be found sufficiently descriptive. Language fails in labouring to express the horrors
of war amid private families, who are so unfortunate as to be situated on the seat of it. War, however, it will be
said, has always been permitted by Providence. This is indeed true; but it has been only permitted as a scourge.
Let a spirit and activity be exerted in regulating the morals of a nation, equal to that with which war, and all
its apparatus, are attended to, and mankind will no longer be scourged, neither will it be necessary to evacuate an
empire of its members, for none will be superfluous. Let us, according to the advice of a pious divine of the
present age, think less of our fleets and armies, and more of our faith and practice. While we are warriors, with
all our pretensions to civilization, we are savages. But be it remembered, that nothing in this essay, or in any
other composition of its author, was ever intended, or could be fairly understood, to discountenance a truly just
and necessary war is the subject of his reprehension. Will men ever learn from history that war is nothing but
folly and wickedness? Will civilized, educated Christian Americans ever learn from history that war is nothing but
folly and wickedness? Judging from the persistent Christian support for war, the warfare state, and the military, I
am not optimistic. Knox’s “On the Folly and Wickedness of War,” along with his other anti-war writings and a
biographical preface, are available in the now updated Vicesimus Knox on War and Peace.
Defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions look like the majority of Americans. They also
dress like them, eat like them, work like them, play like them, and talk like them. However, it is sometimes
impossible to communicate with or make sense of them because some things they say have their own peculiar
definition. This differs from military doublespeak.
To really understand these defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions, one needs a warmonger’s lexicon. To
get started, I propose the following entries: Just war: any war the United States engages in. Good war: any war in
which the United States is on the winning side. Defensive war: any war the United States starts. George Bush: the
Messiah, but especially when he was fighting against Muslims. Barack Obama: Satan, but not when he is fighting
against Muslims. Insurgent: anyone who dares to fight against U.S. troops occupying his country. Militant: see
insurgent. Enemy combatant: see militant. Freedom fighter: an insurgent, militant, or enemy combatant supported by
the United States when he fights against some other country. Weapons of mass destruction: weapons that foreigners
can use to attack Americans. Advanced weapons systems: weapons that Americans can use to attack foreigners. Allies:
countries that support U.S. foreign policy. Enemies: countries that don’t support U.S. foreign policy. Patriot: any
American who supports U.S. foreign wars. Traitor: any American who opposes U.S. foreign wars. Hero: any American
soldier who fought in any war against any country for any reason. Coward: any American who doesn’t support U.S.
soldiers fighting in senseless foreign wars. American: supporting large defense budgets. UnAmerican: opposing large
defense budgets. Threat to American security: see unAmerican, coward, and traitor. Veteran: God’s chosen people.
Non-veterans: second-class citizens. Muslim: terrorist. Terrorist: Muslim. Soldier: public servant. Civilian:
freeloader. Isolationist: any American who opposes U.S. wars, empire, and/or foreign policy. Zionist: someone who
favors U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. Anti-Semite: someone who opposes U.S. military intervention
in the Middle East. Pacifist: enemy of the United States. Draft dodger: see pacifist. Dead U.S. soldier: fallen
hero. Dead foreign civilian: collateral damage. Torture: torture of Americans by foreigners. Enhanced interrogation
techniques: torture of foreigners by Americans. Extraordinary rendition: U.S. supported torture of foreigners by
foreigners. U.S. interests: anything the United States wants to be interested in. When it comes to defenders of
U.S. wars and military interventions, learn their language so you won’t be intimidated or deceived by them, but
don’t waste too much of your time with them. There is nothing more frustrating than discussing the finer points of
something like just war theory and then finding out thirty minutes later that the warmonger you thought you were
having a meaningful conversation with and in basic agreement with believes that all the wars the United States has
engaged in are just wars.
About Laurence M. Vance:
Laurence M. Vance is an author, a publisher, a lecturer, a freelance writer, the editor of
the Classic Reprints series, and
the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. He holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.
The author of twenty-seven books, he has contributed over 900 articles and book reviews to both secular and
religious periodicals. Vance's writings have appeared in a diverse group of publications including the Ancient
Baptist Journal, Bible Editions & Versions, Campaign for Liberty, LewRockwell.com, the Independent Review,
the Free Market, Liberty, Chronicles, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the Journal of the Grace Evangelical
Society, the Review of Biblical Literature, Freedom Daily, and the New American. His writing interests include
economics, taxation, politics, government spending and corruption, theology, English Bible history, Greek
grammar, and the folly of war. He is a regular columnist, blogger, and book reviewer for LewRockwell.com, and also writes a column for the
Future of Freedom Foundation. Vance is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Grace Evangelical Society, and the International Society of Bible Collectors, and is a policy adviser of the Future of Freedom Foundation and an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
See here for some articles by Laurence M. Vance that provide an overview of his
worldview and philosophy.
"This is the same Donald Trump who on the campaign trail told Fox & Friends, 'Who blew up the
World Trade Center? It wasn't the Iraqis, it was Saudi--take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the
documents.' Now, instead of opening the documents ON Saudi Arabia, Trump is opening the purse FOR
Saudi Arabia."
-- Rev
Chuck Baldwin: Globalists Using Donald Trump To Take America Into
War, May 25, 2017 --
“Who blew up the
World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi — take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the
documents.”
-- Donald Trump Fox and Friends on the morning of February 17, 2016 --
Donald Trump You May Find The Saudis Were Behind The 9/11
Attacks
Does Saudi Arabia Own
Donald Trump
Donald Trump Interview on FOX AND FRIENDS
2/17/16
"EITHER YOU ARE WITH US, OR WITH THE
TERRORISTS" - George W. Bush, 9/21/2001
-
Now, stop and think, folks. The U.S. has dropped 200,000 bombs (the
number is probably greater than that by now) on seven Middle Eastern countries—each country
comparable in size to the states of Alaska, Texas, California, and Washington State. Try and
imagine seven states in the U.S. having 200,000 bombs dropped on them. Think of the death and
destruction that we Americans are supporting with our tax dollars. How many innocent people are
killed with each bomb and missile? Conservative estimates calculate that hundreds of thousands of
innocent people have been killed (and how many more wounded and maimed?) in America’s phony “war on
terror.”
Under the rubric of Zionism, the dispossession of Palestinians and annexation of
their land has for decades been hidden in plain sight, along with Israeli apartheid and ethnic
cleansing. Though tourism flows in steadily to "The Holy Land," masking these egregious past and
present events from scrutiny, has been and is nothing short of Orwellian. The Zionist state of
Israel is a totalitarian state, whose ideologues' sentiments match those advocating world
government. As Rev. Chuck Baldwin exclaims, "For all intents and purposes, the Globalist agenda
(the New World Order, call it what you will) and the Zionist agenda, are one and the same." The
Trump Jones Deception 2, demonstrates this fact, and the way in which both Donald Trump and Alex
Jones are a part of it.
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate Maj. Gen.
Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. I don’t
believe them.
Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past
three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the phony justification to
get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming Iran for an attack on Saudi
oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of lies for three years because
they are obsessed with Iran.
And before Trump’s obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied
ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the list
goes on.
At some point, when we’ve been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a “threat”
that we must “take out” with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are
lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I
don’t believe them.
President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important to
Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the assassination of
Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States, Iran’s retaliation if it
comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials stationed or visiting the
Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that will save the lives of
American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is absolutely no reason for
US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased risk of death for
nothing.[bold emphasis added]
In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior
Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government – would serve to
finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it has: on Sunday the Iraqi
parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been a non-binding resolution, but
there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and they are increasingly in danger.
So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?
Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression - and let
the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong defense to protect the
United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from the barrel of a gun. It does
not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It makes the elites of Washington rich
while leaving working and middle class America with the bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for
revenge among those who have fallen victim to US interventionist foreign policy. And it
results in millions of innocents being killed overseas.
There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy
brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that for
America’s sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East!
"I don’t believe
them. Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran
for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US
attack."
"Bring our troops home, close the US
Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression - and let the people of the Middle East solve
their own problems."
ADAM VS THE MAN is back with videos M-F.
Live on Facebook Mondays at 6pmPT.
facebook.com/adamcharleskokesh http://patreon.com/adamvstheman
Conscientious
Objection Don't Be A Pawn In Their NWO
Game
Definition of Conscientious Objection
Current military policy has defined conscientious objection as
the following: “A firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any
form or the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and/or belief.” (DOD
1300.6)
Want to help me finally free America from the federal government? http://KokeshForPresident.com
Get the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK EVER for FREE in every format including audiobook
athttp://thefreedomline.com/freedom Please support FREEDOM! by liking and sharing this
video, subscribing, and sharing! Then for everything else:http://TheFreedomLine.com
Help end government by getting away from government money with BITCOIN! This video
is brought to you in part byhttp://bitcoin.com
Why This Marine Is Leaving
The Military!
AdamKokesh Published on May 4, 2018
Adam
talks with friend and consciousness objector Andrew.
Want to help me finally free America from the federal government? http://KokeshForPresident.com
Get the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK EVER for FREE in every format including audiobook
athttp://thefreedomline.com/freedom Please support FREEDOM! by liking and sharing this
video, subscribing, and sharing! Then for everything else:http://TheFreedomLine.com
Help end government by getting away from government money with BITCOIN! This video
is brought to you in part byhttp://bitcoin.com
The Morality of Conscientious Objection
RonPaulLibertyReport Streamed live on Nov 23, 2015
Do soldiers have an obligation to
fight even illegal wars? In the era of an all-volunteer military the question is
not often asked. Nevertheless, what happens when the government breaks its end of
the contract and goes to war in an unconstitutional manner? Former US Air Force
Captain Justin Pavoni joins the Liberty Report with his experiences as a
conscientious objector.
Two Conscientious Objectors from the Air Force Tell Their
Story
Justin Pavoni Published on Nov 28, 2015
Justin and Jessica Pavoni join Tom
Woods on his podcast to discuss conscientious objection.
Tom Woods is a libertarian thought-leader.
Read more from Tom atwww.TomWoods.com
Jessica and Justin Pavoni are former Air Force pilots that left the military as
conscientious objectors. They are contributors to the Ron Paul Institute for Peace
& Prosperity and AntiWar.com. They also run their own blog
atwww.libertybug.org
May 8, 2014 – Justin and Jessica Pavoni – The Scott
Horton Show
Scott Horton Published on Jan 21, 2018
Justin and Jessica Pavoni, both Air
Force pilots and conscientious objectors, discuss their intellectual awakening that
motivated them to apply for CO status; their desire to protect the country after
9/11; and their service experiences and disillusionment with the War in
Afghanistan.
Libertarian policy scholars and
bloggers talked about various aspects of their push for less government. They
discussed fiscal policy, conscientious objection to compulsory military service,
and the financing of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speakers:
Paul-Martin Foss Jessica
Pavoni John
Sharpe Brian McGlinchey
Ali Won His Greatest Fight
RonPaulLibertyReport Streamed live on Jun 6, 2016
Muhammad Ali's refusal to be drafted
for the Vietnam War was said by some to be his greatest, self-imposed, defeat. With
the passage of time -- and so many more wars -- history may tell a very different
story. What was the impact of Ali's stance on the war?
The Center on Conscience & War is a non-profit organization that advocates for
the rights of conscience, opposes military conscription, and serves all
conscientious objectors to war.
(Excerpt) U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler (1881—1940) — a Congressional Medal of
Honor winner who could never be accused of being a pacifist and the author of : War is just a racket. A racket is
best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside
group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I
believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll
fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and
goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn’t go
to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should
fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply
a racket. It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent
33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force — the Marine Corps.
I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of
my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer for capitalism. Butler also recognized the mental effect of military service: Like all members of the
military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in
suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
Have you heard of Major General Smedley Butler? If not, you might want to ask yourself why that
is. As one of the most highly decorated Marines in the history of the US Marine Corps and as a passionate and
eloquent speaker about the racket that is war, Smedley Butler deserves to be a household name. Find out more in
today's edition of Questions For Corbett.
In April of 1971 the war was raging in Indochina. The
vast majority of American were sick and tired of it and wanted the war to end. Thousands and
thousands were actively demonstrating their opposition to the war as the US government was losing
more and more support for its Vietnam policies.
"...In spring 2008, inspired by the Vietnam-era Winter Soldier
hearings, Iraq Veterans Against the War gathered outside Washington, DC and testified to atrocities
they witnessed while deployed in the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This video captures the
powerful words and images of this historic event. Cont.
Below
VVAW Dewey Canyon III
... Soldiers in Vietnam were refusing to go on combat missions. At home, veterans formed a national
organization, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). It was in April of 1971 that VVAW held its
first national demonstration to protest the war in Vietnam. The demonstration was named "Operation
Dewey Canyon III" (Dewey Canyon I and II were secret operations into Laos that were never reported
to the American people). It was held in Washington DC from April 18th to April 23rd, and was the
most powerful antiwar demonstration held up to that time; it sparked off a series of major
demonstrations that made it clear that the American people wanted the US out of Indochina.
A BRIEF BACKGROUND
VVAW had been formed in 1967, but it wasn't until 1970 that the organization
realized its potential and began to see the importance of building nationally. In late January of
1971 an investigation into war crimes, with 150 vets testifying from firsthand experience, was held
in Detroit. At this 3-day investigation the real basis was laid for organizing VVAW nationally. In
mid February a meeting was held in New York bringing together vets from all over the country.
There, VVAW became a national organization and the idea of DC III was crystallized. Vets went back
to their cities and began to build for the Washington demonstration.
Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations
... Well-publicized cases of American brutality like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the
massacre of an entire Iraqi family in the city of Haditha are not isolated incidents. Instead, they
are the logical consequences of U.S. war policy.
Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan preserves and honors the participants' courageous
contributions in or to ensure that people arounf the world remember their stories and struggle. The
1 hour edited video features 13 veterans from three days of testimony given by over 70 men and
women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The footage addresses such issues as the U.S. military's
callous disregard for civilian life, the torture of detainees, the culture of racism that's
inherent in a military occupation, gender discriminations, and the health crisis facing today's
veterans..."
Waging Peace in Vietnam: U.S. Soldiers and Veterans who Opposed the War
Columbia SIPA | Oct 25, 2019
The Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies presents the panel "Waging Peace in
Vietnam: U.S. Soldiers and Veterans who Opposed the War" on Friday, October 18, 2019.
In the 1960’s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course
of history. This movement didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on aircraft carriers. It
flourished in army stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite
military colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one
expected, least of all those in it. Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile. And by 1971 it
had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI
movement against the war in Vietnam.
No war on Iran: How to revive the anti-war movement in the
US
The Grayzone | Jan 7, 2020
Red Lines host Anya Parampil speaks with Ben Becker, an organizer with the ANSWER coalition, to
discuss the growing anti-war movement in the US. Over the weekend, thousands of US citizens took to the streets in
up to 90 cities in order to voice their opposition to the Trump Administration's push to war with Iran. Ben and
Anya talk about the struggles faced by the anti-war movement over the years what makes organizing massive
resistance to war policy possible.
-----------------------------------------
...Or, They Can Continue To Be Pawns.
"Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as
pawns in foreign policy."
The 
One of the first three departments created in 1789 in the new executive branch of the government
of the United States was the War Department. This department, which contained the army, existed side by side
with the Department of the Navy (created in 1798) until both departments were reorganized in 1947 as the
Department of Defense (DOD), along with the newly created Department of the Air Force. Judging from the
interventionist and aggressive actions of the U.S. military since then, the DOD was certainly misnamed, and
should more accurately be known as the Department of War. 
If the DOD was not so busy providing security, guarding borders, patrolling coasts, and training
troops in other countries, then perhaps it could have defended the country on September 11, 2001, or at least
its headquarters, the Pentagon. It is obvious that the current purpose of the DOD is to fight those foreign
wars that 
Although Christmas is the time when people celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace (Isaiah
9:6), if some people were honest they would have to acknowledge that they also honor Mars, the Roman god of
war. And if this wasn’t bad enough, they honor him every day of the year, not just on December 25. They honor
Mars every time they claim to support the troops. Americans are in love with the U.S. military. As the fiasco
that is the war in Iraq has shown, it doesn’t matter how senseless the war, it doesn’t matter how many lies
the war is based on, it doesn’t matter how much the Bush administration manipulated intelligence, it doesn’t
matter how much the war costs, it doesn’t matter how long the war lasts, it doesn’t matter how many thousands
of American soldiers are killed or injured, and it certainly doesn’t matter how many hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis are killed or injured — too many Americans can be found who still mindlessly repeat the refrain of
“support the troops.” Some American Christians chime in with their “obey the powers that be” mantra. Coupled
with the melody of “we can’t just cut and run” and the chorus of “it is better to fight them over there so we
don’t have to fight them over here,” we have a four-part warmonger harmony. Because it is the Christmas
season, and the sound of Christmas carols is everywhere, I have taken the liberty to rewrite the traditional
carols that I have mentioned above. If Americans who are so enamored with the military were honest, this is
what they should really be singing during this time of the year: God rest ye merry soldiers Let nothing you
dismay, Remember, the U.S. military Still fights on Christmas day; To kill those darn Iraqis Because they have
gone astray. O tidings of destruction and death, Destruction and death. O tidings of destruction and death. O
Uniform! O Uniform! I can kill when I wear thee. O Uniform! O Uniform! I can kill when I wear thee. Not only
when the summer’s here, But also when ’tis cold and drear. O Uniform! O Uniform! I can kill when I wear thee.
O come all ye soldiers Joyful and triumphant, O come ye, O come ye to Baghdad. Come and behold them, Muslim
worshippers of Allah. O come, let us bomb them, O come, let us maim them, O come, let us kill them, Ragheads
galore. It came upon the midnight clear, That horrible sound of old, Of soldiers flying near the earth, With
bombs to drop from their hold. “Peace on the earth, goodwill to men From America’s mighty military!” Iraq in
solemn horror lay To hear the bombs zing. Soldiers from the U.S. military, Fire your weapons o’er all Baghdad.
Ye who seek to kill for glory, Now have a chance to make your heart glad: Fire your weapon, Fire your weapon,
Fire your weapon for Bush the king! O little town of Baghdad How still we see thee lie; Above all thy
destruction The U.S. air force flies. And in thy dark streets shineth America’s military might. The bombs and
bullets of all us here Will be unleashed on thee tonight. The first bullet, George Bush did say Was for
certain poor Iraqis in deserts as they lay, In sand where they lay all night in a heap On a March ’03 night
that was so deep. Oh well, Oh well, Oh well, Oh well; Now is the time for us to blow you to hell! How
irreverent, says the supporter of the U.S. military. Sacrilegious, says the defender of the war in Iraq.
Blasphemous, says the Christian warmonger. Is that so? Why is it not considered irreverent when people ask God
to bless the troops? Why is it not considered sacrilegious when people pray that God would protect the troops?
Why is it not considered blasphemous when Christians campaign for Bush and defend his war? 
