perhaps. though i do think there is such a thing as an extended peace-keeping mission. nato in fmr yugo is a far cry from us in iraq. situation on the ground remains tense, and i dont see the nato troops, who are very low key, exacerbating. its still hair trigger between the sides.

This was great. Thanks, David, for doing this. Thanks, Bev and Firedoglake, for asking me to host. And thanks to all of you who commented, and all of you who followed along.

Well, this is David’s moment, not mine. But…yes, see http://www.familyofsecrets.com for this week’s Bay Area appearances. David, what about you? Where can we get info on any appearances you may be making?

I lived in the former Yugoslavia from 2002-2004, so after the conflict was over, but i spent a lot of time traveling the region and interviewing people. I agree that something had to be done, and am not sure that there was another way to halt the slaughter. I spent time with a woman who had assembled a book with pictures of her scores of relatives and friends who were killed. Neighbors and former co-workers of another ethnic group came and just dragged everybody away. I saw the same thing when i covered Hutu-Tutsi massacres in Burundi in 88, way before Rwanda. Just seems like some kind of military intervention is sometimes necessary.

Barry, I’m with you on that. I haven’t read all of War Is A Lie yet, but from what I read, David was not advocating passivity in the face of danger. Rather he was arguing that very few wars did turn out to be entirely unavoidable by other means. I suspect he would support a purely defensive position when one country couldnt prevent another from invading–but maybe I’m wrong. Curious to hear what he has to say.

May I just take the host’s prerogative here to remind everyone to take a minute, either now, or when this is over, and grab a copy of David’s book? War is a Lie is something you’ll want to have on your coffee table. It’s a great tool in discussion and debate with friends and family.

David makes this point well in his book–that war is all dressed up as anything but the savagery that it actually is

Well, folks, we are at the halfway point. Lots of good thoughts. As host, I’d like to encourage those who are reading but not speaking to get in your questions and comments. Nobody has a monopoly on ideas.

Speaking of Barry Eisler, everyone should check out his books–a bracing wakeup call on the ugliness of covert operations, “enhanced interrogation” and much more

The point David just made (and makes in War is a Lie) about the dramatically increased rate at which soldiers fired their weapons from WWII to today is really stunning. The notion back then that the guy on the other side was just a guy caught in an unfortunate situation seems to have been erased by programming.

Here’s an intriguing passage, from P. 129 of David’s book, in case anyone wishes to weigh in on it…..

One might argue that war is unavoidable because it is not subject to rational discussion. War has always been around and always will be. Like your appendix, your earlobes, or nipples on men, it may not serve any purpose, but it is a part of us that can’t be wished away. But the age of something doesn’t make it permanent; it just makes it old.
“War is inevitable” is not an argument for war so much as a sigh of despair. If you were here and heaved such a sigh, I’d shake you by the shoulders, throw cold water on your face, and shout “What’s the point of living if you aren’t going to try to make life better?” Since you’re not here, there’s little I can say.
Except this: Even if you believe that war, in a general sense, simply must go on, you still have no basis not to join in the opposition to any particular war. Even if you believe some past war was justified, you still have no basis not to oppose the war being planned right here today. And one day, after we oppose every particular potential war, warfare will be over. Whether or not that was possible.

David, some may wonder what, if you were president, you would do vis a vis Afghanistan and Iraq? Assuming, based on your book, that you would withdraw from both places as quickly as possible, what would you have the US do (or not do) after the withdrawal, and how would you expect things to play out?

whoops, looks like someone beat me to the punch on this question…

David, from my own research on the Bush family and their backers, I saw the impact of generations involved in profiting from war—-even both of George W’s great-grandfathers were in munitions. From your big-picture vantage, how much of a factor would you say the personal profit motive is in war overall?

You seem to argue that all wars can and should be avoided. People may agree with you in principle, while finding that impractical, unrealistic, and not even a desirable position in some instances. What would you say to them?

David, great thing how you are so transparent and not defensive. We all make mistakes, and they don’t necessarily speak to the value of the larger work.

Welcome David, and everyone. I’ll start the discussion going with a multi-part question:
David, your book represents a kind of analytical system for considering wars. When and how did it first become clear to you that wars are wrong, not just in an abstract moral sense, but even from a pragmatic standpoint? Did some specific personal experience lead to your current understanding, or was this a gradual process throughout your life?

hi bev