‘Peace’ Seems To Be the Hardest Word

Bipartisan Support in America for More War

Posted on

Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author’s permission.

With apologies to Elton John and Bernie Taupin, “peace” seems to be the hardest word, for both Democrats and Republicans.

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

Let’s say you’re like me and you see war as humanity’s greatest failing. We kill and maim each other, we scorch and kill every living thing in the path of our weapons, we destroy the environment, we even have the capacity to destroy life on earth via nuclear weapons. War – it really is good for absolutely nothin’, unless, of course, you profit from it.

Gaza after an Israeli bombing attack. Anyone want more war?

So, who are you going to vote for in America who sees the awfulness of war and who’s willing to pursue diplomacy and peace instead? Democrats? Republicans?

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

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

Neither major U.S. political party, the red or blue teams, is pro-peace. Both are pro-aggression and pro-empire. They just occasionally choose different targets for their ire, even as they accuse the other team of “weakness,” of being “Putin puppets” or “Manchurian candidates.”

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

In America, “antiwar” is defined by America’s propaganda machine, otherwise known as the corporate media, as weak and unAmerican, because “the health of the state” is war.  Every election, whether the red or blue team prevails, the National Security State, the old War Department, wins. And humanity loses.

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

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

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

Want a war? Go to war. And leave the rest of us in peace.

William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools. He writes at Bracing Views.

8 thoughts on “‘Peace’ Seems To Be the Hardest Word”

  1. "Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are willing to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine War."

    Here's the problem with that notion: Does anyone really think Trump CAN negotiate anything? The Russians are going to demand the same conditions they put in their December, 2021, treaty proposals.

    There is NO WAY the US under the present or conceivable power structure can agree to those Russian demands. Trump won't even try.

    This is the same BS I spoke about in my previous comment: that people think the US President is in charge of US foreign policy. No – he's not. He's under the thumb of the people who got him in office – the donors, the MIC, the Deep State, the financial institutions, etc.

    That power structure does NOT understand the true US national interests and thus is INCAPABLE of "negotiating" anything which would actually serve those legitimate national interests.

    Only a wholesale replacement of the US power structure can engage with the Russians, the Chinese, Iran or anyone else.

    And "that ain't gonna happen" – no matter how many times people fantasize about a "third party" coming in and sweeping the Deep State away. It's simply delusional nonsense.

    Power means you get to dictate the terms of the interaction. No "third party" is going to have that power unless literally the vast majority of the country – including people with millions and billions of dollars – are behind that party.

    Again, "that ain't gonna happen."

    1. Trump and Vance say they will negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. Trump says he'll take a firmer stance against Russia. I don't know how that would end the war in Ukraine and it will prolong it.
      Like Biden, Trump will continue to aid and abet Israel's war crimes and genocide. The only difference is no aid getting in and no pauses in the genocide.
      Like Biden, Trump will continue to arm Taiwan and other adversaries in the Far East and Pacific to cause tension with China.

      1. Trump can’t exactly promise to accept Russia’s terms on everything. Putin is correct to expect nothing, because that might be why he waited so long on Ukraine to begin with. Putin might have had hope in Trump before.

        However, it does look like Trump will attempt better relations with Russia. Russia will be close to holding its current claims by then. Russia will also hold additional territory.

        The risk with Trump is he does things without understanding due to inexperience. Similarly, he doesn’t blindly rely on advisors as Obama and Biden might. Sometimes this leads to improvement, sometimes not.

    2. States are always changing. Old people age out. New people get promoted.

      The US will change, as will China, with time.

  2. We are all hostages of the nuclear powers.
    We should all demand our immediate & unconditional release.

Comments are closed.