Is it worth it to try to find "progressive" rationales for the use of U.S. force?

[Ken Burch]

I know whoever we nominate for president for the forseeable future will have to lower her or himself to at least a somewhat militarist foreign policy. This is sickening but unavoidable. To get political power we seem to have no alternative but to somewhat compromise our humanity. THis is a shameful necessity.

But is there any reason for us as ordinary Democrats and progressives to pretend that the use of U.S. force, other than to defend our own territory from attack, would be anything but reactionary and senseless?

Basically, there hasn't been a use of American military might since 1945 that wasn't predominately or exclusively in the service of the rich.

Our guns can't liberate women. Our bombs can't protect the Rainbow or the LGBT community from oppression or persecution. And when we fight for "American interests" we all know those solely mean American CORPORATE interests, never the interests of American workers or the American poor.

So, other than territorial self-defense, should we ever feel obligated to advocate or defend the use of American force at all?

(For example, in Afghanistan, where there is no moral difference between the Taliban and our "allies"?)

[Fumesucker]

1. It depends on how angry you want to be when it happens.

If you would like to not be enraged, then by all means find rationalizations for the use of force.

On the other hand, you might enjoy the cathartic wash of rage through your system, in which case I would recommend not finding any rationales.

The war machine is hungry and _will_ be fed.

[Richard Steele]

2. The use of FORCE can only be justified by REASON; never by "rationalization". nm

[Ken Burch]

5. Fine, I suppose I should've said reasons.

:eyes:

It's past the editing period on my OP, so, if you were to pretend that I substituted "reasons" for "rationales", what then would your response be?

[Richard Steele]

6. Please don't think I was attacking you with snarky semantics- that was not my intent at all.

Seriously.

[Ken Burch]

7. Sorry. Having established what wasn't your intent, what would your response to my OP be?

I guess I'm concerned that our foreign policy ideas are still derived too much from the "liberal hawks", who are trying to get in touch with their inner "early JFK".

[noamnety]

3. Good question. And No.

I was originally going to post some crap about the national guard actually doing its mission at home, but then I realized there's no "force" involved in that - unless they are doing some mission they probably shouldn't be involved in.

[liberalitch]

4. As the events that surrounded WW2 are unlikely to.....

..... reoccur,.... just as they did then,.... NO. But I wouldn't call that 'rationalization'