|
- The Military Question: Strategic Defense -
page
30
Because the object of war is not war. The object of war is peace -- when you can't obtain it by any other means. And therefore, that's the idea of strategic defense, is to have a {peace} policy, a policy for establishing peaceful relations, which are acceptable among nations, and fighting only to ensure that that is not jeopardized. Otherwise, don't fight.
But these guys say, "No, we want to create a new Roman Empire. What we're going to do, is we're going to use nuclear weapons, as weapons of terror, to intimidate nations into accepting world government." This is the policy which is expressed by, specifically, Brzezinski, most emphatically, and by the crowd associated with Marc Rich, in both the Democratic Party and Republican parties. They are the "go to war, now" party.
You have a second policy, it's an old policy, the old British policy, called liberal imperialism, which is expressed sometimes in the pages of the Washington Post, by Michael Ignatieff, or by Cooper, the adviser to the British Prime Minister.
The third model, which is mine, is, I would call, the community of principle policy. This is a traditional American policy, which was first articulated explicitly by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, in connection with the formulation of what became known as the Monroe Doctrine. The objective of the United States, in the hemisphere, being proposed at that time, in his letter to Monroe, is to keep the damn Europeans, colonialists, out of the country, as much as possible.
But we, the United States, did not have the power at that time to do it. But nonetheless, it should be our policy. Our policy is, when we are able, to defend the right of independence of sovereign republics of the Americas, and to establish a community of principle, among what are respectively, perfectly sovereign national republics -- our policy for the hemisphere.
I would propose, that should be our policy for the world, today.
In taking an assessment of the situations that I know, there is {no reason} for the United States to plan major war, in any part of this planet. There's no situation on this planet, as a major war situation, we could not control, if it were just, because we could find support from other nations to make it effective. There is {no need} for our seeking war. {applause]
We require a policy of strategic defense. I support Rangel, his proposal, for precisely that reason. It's a sensible traditional American policy. We must be able to defend ourselves, adequately and efficiently. As President, I would ensure that, and I don't think anybody would dare challenge me on that if I were President. We wouldn't have to bother fighting. I would just wink. aughter and applause]
We have reached the stage, and this international financial crisis, and all the other crises, like diseases crises, and so forth and so on, show us that the planet really have one common interest, or is coming to an understanding, that we have but one common interest. However, the problem is, that, in order to have the participation of the people, in the exercise of government, and common interest, you must operate through the {culture} of a people. You must engage the people's, their culture, in participating in making the policies.
You don't expect the people to secrete the policies. Today, we still have very backward people, who are concerned about their little affairs, and very little about things about major affairs. We don't have many Jeanne d'Arcs among our populations, who are willing to lay down their life, if necessary, for the sake of a principle. Or Presidents who would even risk their impeachment, for the sake of a principle.
But we have people who are desperate who need leadership, and will {turn} to people who have this quality, which Schiller called the sublime. Who are dedicated, who have a sense of immortality. Let me repeat that one time, I've said it before, but it's important.
This image of, what we do we mean by a sense of immortality? What does Shakespeare mean, in that third soliloquy, Third Act soliloquy, of Hamlet. When Hamlet says, he's willing to go to war, he's willing to die. That doesn't bother him. He's a swashbuckling killer anyway, contrary to Lawrence Olivier, one of the worst actors of the century aughter]. But he says, "what happens when I shuffle this mortal coil?" What he's afraid of, is immortality, not death.
Next Page
|