Concerning the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War

[bigbillhaywood]

The Party's hawkish stance re: Iraq, Afghanistan and other issues of Foreign Policy should not come as a surprise, given the Democratic Party's foreign policy history.

Truman Administration:

Korean War

JFK/LBJ:

Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs fiasco, as well as many CIA proxy wars around the globe.

Carter Administration (probably the most dovish President in recent memory):

Introduced budget for B2 bomber and Cruise Missle systems as part of Pentagon Plan for nuclear first strike capability against USSR.

Democratic-controlled House and Senate under Reagan administration:

Funded Reagan/Pentagon/CIA programs including, but not limited to-- CIA proxy war in Afghanistan (which included funding and training of Islamic extremist mujahadeen around the world, including Islamic Jihad and Osama Bin Laden); CIA proxy war in Central America including El Salvador where CIA-aided death squads killed thousands of priests and nuns; School of Americas program based in Columbus, GA where South American death squads learned the fine art of torture; supported butchers like Jonas Savimbi's UNITA against Angolan government; supported similar CIA-aided butchers in Mozambique and the Congo; supported Phillipines dictator Ferdinand Marcos, as well as Panamanian dictator and CIA drug-runner Manuel Noreiga. Also funded Reagan's SDI program for nuclear first-strike against the Soviets.

Clinton Administration:

Balkan intervention (admittedly forced on Clinton by NATO allies, however too little too late to help the Bosnians and Kosovars much, but enough to topple Milosevic's socialist government and open up Serbia's markets to Western corporate interests)

How many times did Clinton bomb Iraq? Two? More? Tough to keep track. Not to mention the sanctions that were starving out ordinary Iraqis but doing little to weaken Hussein's power (to which Madeline Albright admitted that thousands of Iraqis had died as a result of the sanctions but said "Yes, it was worth it").

Haitian intervention. (Even the Wall Street Journal had the guts to say Haiti wasn't about restoring democracy, it was about opening up US markets there).

And we can save Democratic politicians' ongoing funding of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands for the I/P forum.


So as you can see, you will not count me among the surprised at Hillary, Kerry et al's hawkish stance on Iraq or other foreign policy issues. There has really never been all that much difference between the two parties on foreign policy issues-- both (by and large) tend to be unabashed supporters of American imperialism, economic and military might. These are both capitalist and nationalist political parties after all. The main point where the two parties tend to differ (however slightly) is on domestic issues. But in the realm of economic policy, however, both parties are drifting rightward (although the Republicans are still worse in this regard). The only realm where there is a wide gap between Republicans and Democrats is on the "wedge" social issues (gay rights, abortion, etc.).

The real difference between the Bush administration in foreign policy versus previous Republican and Democratic administrations is the unlilateral nature of conducting wars. But this is a natural outgrowth of the collapse of the USSR leaving the US as the lone imperial superpower (with the power to go to war without real alliances), so you can expect to see more of it from future Democratic administrations as well, except in Asia where China is enough of a regional superpower to deter such unilateral action.

Please don't read this as a post discouraging people from voting for Kerry or other Democrats. The way I see it, it's better to have a conservative capitalist party in power (Democratic Party) than an outright fascist party in power (Republican Party). I will be pulling the lever for Kerry myslef this November as a tactical maneuver to prevent outright fascist control of the US. But I did want to add my perspective of the historical and material conditions concerning the operation of both Parties, which are by-and-large dominated by corporate interests. And I want to stress that what we really need is to start building a social movement with a truly progressive agenda in terms of economics, politics, society and international affairs that is focused on eventually removing both corrupt parties in power. A long term strategy to be sure. But supporting a system that represents only a certain sector of society (the wealthy and to a lesser extent the upper economic strata of the working class) and has no problem with exploiting, oppressing and murdering its own citizens as well as those in foreign lands is immoral.

[Zorra]

1. DK: "The only weapon that can save the world is non-violence"

Not every Democrat is a hawk. DK is right.

Continued unwarranted militarism will eventually cause a nuclear incident.

November 2002
The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich



Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

The only weapon that can save the world is nonviolence, said Gandhi. We can begin this practice today by calling upon the Administration in Washington to stop the talk of war, and stop the planning for war.

In their heart of hearts, the American people do not want war on Iraq. The American people want peace.

America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

[bigbillhaywood]

3. I never said every Democrat is a hawk, but the Democratic Party as a

whole is hawkish. That's why people like DK are marginalized in the party. Always have been. Always will be. The only "doves" to win party nominations for President in the last 50 years were Adlai Stevenson (lost to Ike), Eugene McGovern (lost to Nixon), and Jimmy Carter (served one term). And as I highlighted above, even Carter was forced to make some hawkish policy decision once he got into office. Everybody is-- it's the nature of the beast. I have no doubt that if by some miracle DK were to win the Presidency he would make at least a few foreign policy decisions in favor of Imperial aggression.

On the domestic front, even Wellstone started drifting rightward after a few years in the Senate calling ultraracist Jesse Helms "a good man" upon his retirement, and voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. This is why long-tern, our goal should not be switching party control of our political system-- it should be a complete overhaul of our political, economic and social system. Are people ready for it now? No. But times change, and history shows that large structural changes in government, society and economy are possible-- might as well start laying the groundwork.

[G_j]

6. "The only weapon that can save the world is non-violence"

recognizing this as we have entered a new millennium is the ONLY way to survive. As DK points out if the US promoted non-violent solutions to the world instead of militarism we could truly be viewed as a wise leader. Its time to evolve. If only the US could lead the way.

[jpgray]

2. And gong further back, wars for Standard Oil

An invasion of Mexico that inspired a certain Congressman Lincoln's Spot Resolutions, the list goes on as long as there have been Democratic presidents. :D None of this makes the choice in 2004 any less clear for me, however.

[bigbillhaywood]

4. self-serving kick

[lostnfound]

5. kick nt