WAR IN THE 1960S VERSUS WAR IN THE 21st CENTURY: I JUST DON’T GET IT!

In the 60s, there was a massive movement against the horrors of an absurd war that cost many lives and much destruction. And on the electoral front, the Vietnam War was very much in the center of debate. It actually convinced a president not to run for re-election, the very same president who four years before had run and was elected as a peace candidate. I’m referring, of course, to Lyndon B. Johnson. In ‘68 there was also a three-way race for the Democratic nomination and it was all about (or largely about) who was going to get us out of the war. And the Republican candidate (Nixon that is) got elected on that very promise. Four years later the Democrats ran a peace candidate.

Now the absurdity of war has reached a new threshold. Military strategists tell us it will go on for five decades or so. The example of Syria is just as ghastly as that of Vietnam. Libya, one of the most advanced nations in Africa and the envy of the rest of the continent, is in shambles. And yet the issue of U.S. military intervention is almost an afterthought. That despite the fact that in the 60s we had guns and butter. Now with the great recession still lingering on after eight years and a 15 trillion dollar public debt, it’s either one or the other. Don’t people realize that the military budget is largely responsible for the mess we are in? And yet you have two candidates that don’t even mention the connection between war and the economy. I just don’t get it.