Ken Burch (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-13-08 05:53 AM
Is it worth it to try to find "progressive" rationales for the use of U.S. force?
Advertisements [?]Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 05:54 AM by Ken Burch
I know whoever we nominate for president for the forseeable future will have to lower her or himself to at least a somewhat militarist foreign policy. This is sickening but unavoidable. To get political power we seem to have no alternative but to somewhat compromise our humanity. THis is a shameful necessity.
But is there any reason for us as ordinary Democrats and progressives to pretend that the use of U.S. force, other than to defend our own territory from attack, would be anything but reactionary and senseless?
Basically, there hasn't been a use of American military might since 1945 that wasn't predominately or exclusively in the service of the rich.
Our guns can't liberate women. Our bombs can't protect the Rainbow or the LGBT community from oppression or persecution.
And when we fight for "American interests" we all know those solely mean American CORPORATE interests, never the interests of American workers or the American poor.
So, other than territorial self-defense, should we ever feel obligated to advocate or defend the use of American force at all?
(For example, in Afghanistan, where there is no moral difference between the Taliban and our "allies"?)