For someone like myself, who fought in World War II, and since then has protested against war, I must ask: Have our political leaders gone mad? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Have they not learned that no one "wins" in a war, but that hundreds of thousands of humans die, most of them civilians, many of them children? Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
This is a moving plea for pacifism from a WWII vet; and his thoughts are a valuable contribution to the discussion of how best to secure our nation and combat terrorism. Unfortunately, the thrust of the piece is to suggest that these matters are simple--if we adopt a pacifist stance, the horrors of war end. It doesn't answer the question: What happens then? I respect this veteran's views, but I fear he doesn't address the complexity of our modern world. His own war serves as the perfect example; didn't the Allies win the War? Yes, huge numbers of people died, but would the US and our world be better off to have waged "peace?" In any case, this is thoughtful and persuasive.
We have an entire twentieth of wars as horrible examples. WWI was one of historys great disasters and wiped out an entire male generation. WWII killed over sixty million people worldwide and set the world off on a different, much more dangerous course. But the human condition has a peculiar trait: the ability to ignore what came before coupled with the ability to determine that this time the situation is different, and thus is winnable. Those who fight in wars understand the horror and cannot comprehand why anyone would start one. But wars are started by politicians far removed from the real world. Politicians who never fight warsfighting and dying are reserved for our young.
Some wars make sense, others do not, so a blanket approach that all war is wrong is going to be wide of the mark. A failure to fight a smaller war may make necessary a much larger war. The Gulf War in 1991 was mandatory, in my view; the mistake was to keep permanent US military bases in Saudi Arabia, which led directly to the attacks on the World Trade Center, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, it must be said that a quick reprisal against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and a quick rooting out of al-Qaeda, did not mean that an endless war of occupation need ensue. The Iraq war was totally elective, and a continuing fiasco in the manner of Vietnam (another totally elective war, and a mistake of the first dimension).
Howard Zinn sees events and issues clearly, and brings us back to the truth of history, especially in this expression of asking if all our political leaders have gone mad in their sick love of the war in Afghanistan. Highly recommended reading, as are Zinn's history books.
The article provides an important historical view of many of our wars, including Afghanistan. The view should be in the minds of all the voters and politicians who support wars.
I notice the author begins with Korea, conveniently leaving out the historical context that "his" war might provide--oh, yes, I know we should have just let Hitler and Tojo do what they wanted with the world. One of the poorest arguments I have ever read for a pacifistic approach.
This opinion piece has minimal journalistic merit. The author demonstrates his ignorance of every major aspect of the history he writes about. Can he not even tell the difference between South Korea and North Korea? Does he not know that even left-wing media are noticing the continuing development of freedom in Iraq? Typical far-right America-First propaganda with no journalistic content.
Yes indeed, no one wins a war especially those who start them! I would invite our readers to view following video sent to me by a colleague interpreter! It makes you wonder about all our leaders in this World!\r http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=736_1212430151
It is too one-sided because of the strong Pacifist feelings of the author--some wars are necessary such as the World Wars and maybe Bosnia and Kuwait.
Retrieving Comments
