Happy Thoughts

Philip Berrigan has died, and many are writing articles of praise, as they should. I'm not sure I buy into Berrigan's world view, but I know for sure (as any American who studies his life should) that he believed in what he was doing for the United States. And he never turned down the path of violence and revolution.

In one article, James Carroll writes, ". . . Berrigan would insist that originating this crisis is not the eccentric machismo of George W. Bush (Berrigan challenged Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton), but the universal American fantasy that ''national security'' can depend on weapons of mass destruction.

"On this point, Saddam Hussein is our mirror image, which must be why we hate him so."

I don't think American security does depend on Weapons of Mass distruction. I don't think we are likely to use weapons of mass distruction on Iraq, but rather conventional weapons.

What's interesting historically is that traditionally it has been liberals who have focused on non-traditional approachs, including the Atomic Bomb. Such military solutions, or the threat of them, have been cheaper; thus freeing up funds for domestic spending programs that they favor. Conservatives usually have favored conventional weapons (although they like atomic bombs too, certainly.)

Carroll also points out Berrigan's opposition to the United States Atomic Bombs, as if it had begun at the end of the cold war. The truth is Berrigan opposed Atomic Bombs and Atomic Power well before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

My difference with Berrigan and Carroll is this--the United States really does have enemies in the world. There are nations that would like to destroy us. And as long as that condition exists we can either defend ourselves or accept conquest. I choose the first.