single header

If you want to comment online, use the Reply form following this commentary.


Howell Hurst American News, Defense Spending, Defense vs Diplomacy, Economy & Finance, Military Defense, Presidential Election, War and Organized Mayhem

Logical thought is not the common concern of American politicians. Rather, they see their concern is to hone the public’s emotions. They seek to sharpen (guide) people’s voting so that the candidates actually get elected. Ideally, the goal is for the politician and the public to construct a workable meeting of their minds.

Henry Kissinger demonstrates in his book, “On China,” that that country’s Communist leaders have long honed the emotion of their public by stressing what they consider the historical ideology of their country. Chinese leaders are great talkers; they often have seen the wisdom of avoiding military conflict – if and when diplomacy is at all possible.

The preceding concepts are relevant because a barely disguised undercurrent of potential war between China and America over Taiwan exists right now. That such a war might contain tactical nuclear weapons is undeniably possible.

Neither country appears capable of publicly acknowledging that a war over Taiwan would likely destroy Taiwan’s computer chip industry. The result of this to the digital industry of the information-driven world would be international disaster.

The crux of the situation is that neither China’s nor America’s leader can release themselves from the commonly accepted belief that they may not publicly address the utter ridiculousness of contemplating war to solve Taiwan. They fear this will make them appear weak.

The people of all nations have also essentially accepted and support the concept of war. We all pay our taxes and profit from the defense industry. America subcontracts $Millions for weapon parts to individual companies in all states.

Therefore, we are all invested, literally and conceptually, in the business of war. It is so pervasively accepted by all of us, that we are intellectually blocked from even considering the opposing concept: that all nations should and could mutually cooperate in making war illegal.

China and America could initiate an international public media deliberation among all nations to clearly point out the undeniable positive consequences of making war illegal. If the $Trillions now spent yearly by all nations on defense were collectively diverted to sharing the world’s assets among themselves, we could solve most problems faced by humans on this planet.

All nations continue to shoot themselves in both feet. The nations and their people are all trapped in an ideological paralysis. We no longer make any sense of the situation. We do not think straight. And as we now again spend $Billions more on nuclear weapons, the eventual consequences grow more evident.

America should take the lead in persuading the world to discuss enacting some sort of international treaty that outlines a detailed plan for the step-by-step diversion of war funding to exchange technology and achieve peaceful international trading.

The only thing that makes real sense is for all nations of the world to collaborate in sharing the world’s life-supporting assets rather than wasting them on repeated wars. This is not brain surgery. It is a simple idea that all the world’s people already know makes sense.

The fundamental problem is that we have made war so profitable, largely by glorifying it, that we cannot motivate ourselves to reverse the purse strings toward peaceful coexistence.

Meanwhile, America’s present presidential candidates are so busy trashing one another in our pending election that none of them raises such a peaceful concept. Instead of actively seeking a practical alternative to war, our alleged future leaders obsess on the futile economic game of the military/industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us of.

America cannot again become the world’s leader if the American people cannot organize themselves and demand of her politicians that they deal with the existential threat created by the military/industrial complex we have all institutionalized and near-sightedly call “Civilization.”

A Presidential candidacy constructed on motivating the world’s nations to begin to act rationally, would create an immense payoff to the world. But it will require America’s women and men down on the ground to organize and pressure our politicians to abandon the tawdry state of politics as usual.

We must inspire Presidential candidates to grow up and act like adults instead of like children. We need to do the same ourselves. No truly capable candidate today wants to expose her or himself to running for President when all candidates do is trash one another rather than deal with the real problem; and all citizens continue to support this charade.

A citizen-initiated movement is required to alter this situation. That movement would have to take on the military/industrial complex. This does not mean we would support a weak military. On the contrary, we need a leaner, harder, faster, more resilient, stronger, and less expensive defense.

But we must finally see the undeniable need to simultaneously (as Churchill, McArthur, and many others have said) actively promote the outlawing of War. And how to collectively enforce it.

This would show the rest of us exactly whom we must engage in an international legal, and possibly weaponized, battle to attempt to eliminate War. It would be a very tricky game, but one we must stop avoiding.

It’s a big job that demands big citizens support a big person.




Return to Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.