mjk@tty3b.UUCP (06/28/83)
The Peace Movement in the U.S. is suffering from its own rapid growth. By purposefully reaching out to the largest possible audience -- including many people who were not previously political at all -- the movement has also put at risk its long term endurance to win any real victories. I hope that many who became involved have been educated as to the relationship between arms negotiations and the defense budget and that they view the Freeze as a tactic, not the end. The MX and other systems such as it will continue to be voted by Congress as long as the majority of our representatives feel free to literally vote for the Freeze Resolution one day and a $260 billion-plus military budget the next. As long as they are not called on the carpet for this amazing contradiction, the arms race will continue unabetted by Freeze Resolutions in Washington or "negotiations" in Geneva. Bill and Joel are right in pointing out the enormous influence of military contractors on defense spending. There are solutions to this, which is really a subset of the PACmen problem in D.C. Probably the best solution attainable now is public funding of election campaigns, which doesn't solve the problem of those who WANT to sell their souls to the PACs but at least gives those who don't a reasonable chance of getting elected. I think there needs to be a serious debate within the American Peace Movement over tactics. I think that mass protests, such as the one which took place at the test-firing at Vandenburg and the (much larger) one in New York last year can be effective at showing strength. But these will not win the war, so to speak. I think a few things have to happen politically in order for the Peace Movement to truly succeed in the U.S. One is that Ronald Reagan must be clearly targeted. The movement must become politically anti-Reagan. Reagan will never take any substantial steps towards lessening the arms race. Never. That may be because he genuinely believes that the Russians are ahead of us, or it may be because his buddies happen to be many of those who profit the most from the arms race. I don't think it really matters whether he's stupid or cynical, I just want him back on a ranch in California where he can't do anymore harm. Of course, merely opposing Reagan isn't enough. We need someone to be FOR. The Peace Movement must begin encouraging sympathetic candidates to run for national office, including President. I view Cranston et al as opportunistic and certainly not to be trusted. Sure, they're better than Reagan but how long can you keep settling for lesser of two evils until you end up with just the evil of two lessers. Second is that the movement must seriously question whether negotiations (a la Geneva) are really a part of ending the arms race. I have come to strongly suspect that negotiations are little more than a tactic of the opposition. That negotiations do little more than (a) provide another forum for the two powers to pary with each other for advantages, and (b) legitimize the debate as an essentially technical one. I think many in Europe have already come to that conclusion; hence the call by Britain's Labour Party for unconditional, unilateral reductions in Britain's nuclear force. (Please, detractors, don't point out that Labour lost. We all know that, but there's good reason to believe that most Britains are behind them on this issue). Third we need to clearly state that making the debate over peace a technical one is a tactic of the cold warriors. That's right, a tactic. It's a way of putting the ball in their court, where they can stall forever over minor technical details while they proceed to build and build. Just like playing the issue as purely a moral one (do you want to destroy the Earth?) is a tactic of ours. We should refuse to play by their rules. This means that calling for negotiations is playing right into the hands of the cold warriors. Instead, we should call for small unilateral moves which depend on reciprocity for continuation. For example, a U.S. president could announce that he will unilaterally cut U.S. warheads to a certain number (below that of the Soviets) and outline plans for futher cuts if the Soviets follow his lead. Of course, this assumes an Administration legitimately seeking to reduce the threat, not simply offer "cuts" which fall heavily on the other side and lightly on us (such as Reagan's `Zero Option'). I realize that not all this is as fully developed as I'd like it to be, but let's have some discussion. I'll read the responses from the cold warriors, but I'm particularly interested in those reflecting the interest of the majority in the U.S. Mike Kelly tty3b!mjk
mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/30/83)
After reading a long article about the need to support the Peace Movement I have the following remarks: Almost everybody wants peace. There are a few who don't -- and they kill and hurt many people. Against them, we are almost helpless. But people who want peace can be the unwitting agents of people who hurt, as well. Remember a Prime Minister of England named Chamberlain? After he had ``brought peace in our time'' (*bought* peace, more likely) a fellow by the name of Churchill was heard to say that what lay ahead was ``nothing but blood, toil, tears, and sweat''. He was more right than anyone was willing to dream. Consider the Viet Nam ``Peace with Honor''. What became of it? A bloodbath that put to shame the bloodbath that we blamed ourselves for. (I don't think that it was quite that simple.) I don't want nuclear war. I want to get rid of most nuclear weapons. (Most for reasons that may become clear later) Some months back, Libya was threatening free passage in international waters in the Mediteranean Sea (the Gulf of Sidra incident) The US sent a carrier battle group down that way. A couple of Libyan pilots flying ground support planes took a potshot each at a couple of Navy pilots flying Tomcats, and got blown out of ths sky. End of incident. Two things come to mind. First, many of the emblems used by F-14 (Tomcat) squadrons show a well armed cat (the furry kind) standing around, minding his business, and everybody elses as well. One of these carries the legend: ``Anytime, Baby!'' We could condemn the US, or the mentality of the people who assign devices to aircraft squadrons. Before we do this, however, let us consider a little history. and Next: this is the SECOND time that the US has been called upon to defend the freedom of the southern Mediteranean, and from more or less the same folk. In the early part of the last century, under, I believe, President James Madison, we did about the same thing in just about the same place. The government of Tripoli was protecting, harboring, and sponsoring pirates (making them privateers, I know ...) who preyed on shipping. These were the infamous Barbary Pirates, and for many years they held the world in terror. I don't know why it was the US that got involved; I do know that with two respectable warships and about twenty (Yes, 20.-) Marines and, no doubt, the implied threat of more, an agreement to cease and desist was extracted from Tripoli. I don't know how successful it was in the long run. (Remember the Marines hymn: ``From the Halls of Montezuu uuu uuma to the shores of Tripoli/"). It did gain the infant US a good deal of credibility in international affairs, and it probably helped develop our world power base. And, for what it may be worth, this loathsome, human-rights violating capitalist swine nation, standing on that warmongering power base, pulled the world out of the two most frightening brushes with world totalitarianism (sp?) that our parents and grandparents and other ancestors ever had the misfortune to see. There is, then, a reason for militarism and the availability of force: It can, if properly used, protect against bullies who are smaller than you, but who prey on your citizens or friends. This is what carrier battle groups, and Tomcats, and other things that kill people are good (yes, Virginia, GOOD) for. And thus the reason for keeping a half-a-dozen or so quarter megaton bombs (without the outer light-metal fission layer, if you please -- these should do minimum damage to the ecosystem of the world at large). Should some smaller bully decide to threaten use of such weapons, we need a credible means of damaging them -- of hurting them so badly they are not willing to pay the price for the fun of hurting us. All of this assumes that the enemies we fear are much smaller than we are. The applicability of this reasoning to the perceived (and probably real) threat posed by the USSR is open to serious question. The USSR is not some penny-ante dictatorship with a couple of Exocets bought at a fire sale. What is truly terrifying is a situation that occurs if both sides have a first strike, non-survivable force aimed at the other. We get a situation that is not unlike the Prisoner's Dilemma. In simple terms: * If he decides to blow me away, I am certainly better off doing the same to him. Whatever small part of my nation survives will do so without having to worry about being subjugated. * If he does not blow me away, then I improve my situation even more by blowing him away, since I am almost certainly going to come out of it almost unhurt. ** And if he is thinking the way I am, then I better shoot quickly. I seem to recall that in the 50's this mentality was frighteningly popular over here. John von Neuman was all in favor of getting rid of the Russkies just as fast as we could. So were some generals, some congressmen, and not a few journalists. ***The Disclaimer: I don't propose solutions. I condemn them. The real way out of this lies much deeper. It has to do, I fear, with something called Love. Unfortunately, no one seems to know how to make it come to pass. In the mean time: Gentlemen! Please keep your hands in plain sight and move VERY slowly. I'll do the same. And stay away from that gun on the table, if you don't mind, and away from Afghanistan, and Gedansk. And ... Let's not have ANY sudden moves. Not to arm, not to disarm, not to play bocci on the lawn. Rather than trying to move farther and faster than we can see, let's try to see a little farther, and one hell of a lot deeper. Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console. To be loved, as to love. To be understood, as to understand. For it is in giving that we receive. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned. And it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life. And then, maybe, we can get rid of those last few quarter megaton bombs. Mark Terribile Duke of deNet hou5e!mat PS - No flames about the Prayer of St. Francis, please. All except the last line is valid humanism or sound psychology. The last line is included for completeness. If it were in net.religion it would be a religious statement. -mat