When SHOULD a Democratic Administration be willing to use force?

[Ken Burch]

Obviously, we can't elect a Democratic President committed to a program of all-out pacifism.

Yet, the traditional post-war Democratic Defense Posture(JFK's "Bear any Burden, fight any foe")doomed us in the 1960's to Vietnam and the as yet unhealed split that occurred in Chicago.

Today's DLC argues for a return to this. They may be able to keep us out of the White House until they get their way(as they did in the 1980's). So progressives need to do some hard thinking here

There clearly will be situations in which a future Democratic Adminstration will feel obligated to use force.

What situations, as you see it, should those be?
When should we AVOID the use of force?
What should be the attitude of a Democratic Administration towards those who will protest the use of force in various situations?

Are their any situations in which you would accept that such dissent should be suppressed, even at the cost of a Democratic victory(as occurred in 1968).

This will be a difficult balance to establish, and if we don't get it right, we will be out of power for decades.

[saltpoint]

1. I think a Democratic administration should use maximum force --

-- and call in massive air strikes against any pseudo-Christian psychotic power-mongering asshole along the Front Range in Colorado, say right near the Colorado Springs exit off I-25.

That would be one instance where force is entirely justified.

I have a list of others. We could start in Lynchburg, Virginia...


-----
A Democratic president should authorize force only if absolutely all diplomatic channels have been attempted repeatedly and have been sadly exhausted. Not pre-emptively and not for oil.

[wgellis]

2. What Would Sam Nunn Do?

That's a question worth pondering. Here's a guy that had wide acceptance and struck a fine balance. Of course, if you hate Southern Democrats, learn to enjoy minority status.

[rvablue]

7. Oh really? "Minority status", huh? Last I checked a Democrat was sitting in the WH,

and the Democrats control the Senate and HofR.

Next up, get ready for a more progressive Supreme Court.

[Warpy]

3. When we are attacked directly

That's about it, although troops and supplies should be given freely when the UN reaches a consensus about reining in a rogue imperial power.

9/11 doesn't qualify, since that attack was by a criminal organization operating outside any national government. To prevent that sort of thing, we should be counting on doing meticulous police work with international cooperation to shut down their funding. Too bad the GOP is more concerned with keeping money laundering conduits open to fatten their contributors rather than closing them to curb terrorism.

Think of what we could do were we to redefine the military as a defensive force, to quit all those dozens of bases overseas, and to forego our policy of putting down any democratic government that tries to reform relations with multinational corporations.

Hell, we might even be able to afford healthcare.

[Horse with no Name]

4. In the 21st century

The use of force seems a little rhetorical and one would think we could find other ways to get out point across. With that being said--the leader of the free world should be admired enough and have enough character that we wouldn't have to question his motives if he had to make that difficult decision. It should not be based on lies and hidden agendas. We should know without a doubt that whatever course is chosen--it's chosen with us in mind--not his corporate financiers.

Force should only be used when there is a direct--not implied or suggested or created--threat against our country. Our capabilities surpass most of the world and that fact in of itself should keep us safe without having to trot over to the other side of the world to prove how big our dick really is.

We should also be able to use force to support sovereign countries that are being illegally invaded that don't have the military capabilities to defend themselves.

I will have to defreep myself here--I believed that there was no choice but to go to war with Iraq. I believed that our President was keeping us out of harms way. I believed that we were justified.
This is the worst betrayal of trust I have ever encountered. I cannot understand why everyone doesn't feel the way that I did when the truth came out. It sickens me.

I was not a true blue Democrat nor did I spend much time worrying about the state of our country nor was I very political, but I am learning and now I am a dyed in the wool Dem...our country is in a desperate situation and we are the only ones who can save it.

Thank you DU'ers--you are awesome!

[rzemanfl]

5. When attacked by Saudi Arabians, financed by Saudi Arabians,

a Democratic President might have the good sense to go after the Saudi Arabians.

[HAARP]

6. ..we have a new democratic prez

and the "wars" rage on. It's stimulating. To the economy and to the hawx.
(Note: no longer referring to them as hawks it disparages amazing birds)
From now on it's hawx.