Ron Paul's new book, Swords into Plowshares, is special.
It is his personal account of growing up during World War II and his growing understanding, over time, about the evils of war. As we journey along with him in the book, we learn the basics of why war is almost always wrong and why it is the dominate purview of the establishment that benefits financially from war.
Dr. Paul offers keen insight and opposition to the various justifications made for war, especially offensive wars. And he discusses the propaganda designed by the elitists to trick the masses into being pro-war.
Throughout the book, there is also a background question that lingers that I am not sure Dr. Paul has answered for himself completely, and that is "Why do the masses fall so easily for the war propaganda?"
I can see this book making an impact on those who have experienced in various ways the many wars that Dr. Paul has experienced and I see the book making an impact on the young, who have not experienced the wars Dr. Paul has. It will open up their eyes to a perspective that they more than likely have never heard of before.
In short, this is a great anti-war book, one of the greatest. It should be bought in large quantities, and passed out across the board, I can see it influencing lefties, who favor some wars, pro-war people who support all wars, but who are not part of the inner circle.
This won't convert everyone, but I believe it will some. And for those, who are anti-war and understand the manipulations of the pro-war establishment, this book is a great history lesson as to how recent wars developed.
That said, before you pass the books out, I recommend you rip out pages 53 and 54. These pages are back to back and so only one sheet of paper needs to be ripped out, but in my view it must be done.
On page 53, Dr. Paul attempts to justify his Congressional vote in favor of using force after 9-11. Of course, the forced that was used was a military intervention in Afghanistan. As others have pointed out, what should have been done is that the attack should have been treated as a criminal attack, where the perpetrators behind the 9-11 plane attackers were hunted down and tried as the criminals they were, rather than a massive military exercise in Afghanistan.
On page 54, Dr. Paul says he would have also supported a response to the attack by Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
He does this even though he states the attack was blowback for the U.S. policies, including sanctions, against Japan.
Clearly, the U.S. hands were not clean leading up to the attack. The correct response to the attack should have been an apology to Japan by the US and a statement that said the U.S.. would no longer support sanctions against Japan. That the U.S. would not retaliate, unless there were further attacks by Japan.
At such time, if an attack was necessary, a U.S. military attack should have consisted only of volunteers, that is no draft. and also no increase in taxes to pay for the war. In other words those anxious to go to war could voluntarily choose to join the military and also voluntarily contribute to the war effort,
If I was around back then, and these conditions were set. I would not join the military nor contribute any funds, but I would not stop others from doing so. There are very few wars between governments that I would one to participate in, on either side, at any time.
It is too bad that in an otherwise great book, Dr. Paul did not explain in detail what he viewed as support for the war after the attack at Pear Harbor, whether it included a draft and war taxes.
Outside of this one sheet of paper, pages 53 and 54, the book does a brilliant job in explaining how governments maneuver the masses into war. But, in my view, governments should not be given a break on war becasue of 9-11 or the attack at Pearl Harbor.
-RW
Ron.
ReplyDeleteBob you are up too late. Check your title. It says Rand When it should say Ron.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul, not Rand Paul.
ReplyDeleteRAND Paul?
ReplyDelete"There are very few wars between governments that I would want to participate in, on either side, at any time." This statement is brilliant in its succinctness, and the key insight contained is the point that wars are fought BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS. It is the subjects of/to governments who are ALWAYS the injured party, regardless of the side they happen to be on, whether winning or losing.
ReplyDeleteLew Rockwell, (IMO a treasure to humanity whose contribution to human progress is so profound it will be difficult to fully appreciate), recently talked about the U.S. war machine and its involvement in world wars I and II with John V. Denson on the Lew Rockwell show. Dr. Paul might consider a revision to page 53 after listening to this illuminating conversation.
As for page 54, considering the USG is withholding information from its own investigation into the 9-11 attacks, information that purportedly implicates Saudi intelligence, one could reasonably doubt whether the military response focused on Afghanistan was justified and effective. There are, of course, many other troubling questions that have arisen over the years with respect to 9-11. The war frenzy at the time proved irresistible to all politicians, but the question deserves re-evaluation in the sober reflection of hindsight by a thoughtful person of the stature of Dr. Paul.
Ps -- your site was hacked: RON not Rand!
ReplyDeleteI just assumed Jesse Benton and his thugs took Mr. Wenzel hostage and were doing MKULTRA experiments on him.
DeleteMiss on the title. It's Rons book not Rands...
ReplyDeleteCough cough: RON.
ReplyDeleteRW,
ReplyDeleteTearing out pp. 53-54??!! Are you off your Libertarian rocker? I can't believe your ignorant of the blatant authoritarian implications of your suggestion.
Tearing out the page amounts to hagiographical editing. Ron can stand on his own virtues. Just annotate the page in the margins: "no one is right 100% of the time". That is true of all humanity, even the irrefutably great Ron Paul.
ReplyDelete"Tearing out the page amounts to hagiographical editing..." A bit of an overstatement since the missing page will cause the reader to question what was on the page and when they find out the act of removal will speak for itself. Of course noting in the margin (if signed) could allow the reader to see who believes what. In any event Paul was wrong on these pages in a very important way. Paul's position (and action in the 9-11 case) in these two situations negates all of his arguments for peace since they show he is willing to abandon logic in the face of strong emotional excuses. This is particularly telling since those making these excuses were primarily government agents. Politics and politicians are never the answer. Even a politician who's rhetoric is 99% liberty oriented.
DeleteThe response to an attack would have been to apologize? No. That would not be the response. Yes I understand why the Empire of Japan attacked and how various aggressions by the US federal government helped bring that about, but an apology doesn't work because it would encourage more attacks. Perhaps not from Japan but others. Once the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred it is very difficult to get out of the situation which is why all the policies to bring about an attack were put into place. Some wanted war and they created a situation to bring that about. If we are going to play what should have been done it would have been to deploy a non-interventionist foreign policy -before- December 1941.
ReplyDeleteFor 9-11, because it was a stateless act of terror officially that makes doing nothing militarily in response much easier and entirely optional. It was more of an emotional manipulation where people would demand something be done. Once again the damage is done by not having followed non-intervention in the first place.
The sentiment of apologizing after Pearl Harbor may be well meant, but is pointless in reality.
ReplyDeleteWhichever government would do so, would be called traitorous and dismissed, and replaced by a government that would bomb Japan into oblivion.
When it comes to war-sentiment, the horse is always already out of the barn because of all the propaganda that whips up the war-frenzy and makes the American public believe that their country is the perpetual good guy and victim in any conflict. There is no way the people at large would ever accept that America brought Pearl Harbor on itself, and would never accept any government doing a mea culpa..