Home > Kucinich should ’stay the course’ on Department of Peace

Kucinich should ’stay the course’ on Department of Peace

by Open-Publishing - Saturday 14 August 2004
15 comments

A Department Of Peace?

BY WALTER CRONKITE
King Features Syndicate

With this nation embroiled in what threatens to be an interminable "War on Terrorism," an idea put forward last year by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has, for me, considerable appeal. Kucinich, who was the one candidate in the Democratic primaries to unfailingly promote the party’s traditional Franklin Roosevelt liberalism, proposed the establishment of a Department of Peace.

Now he has introduced in the House HR 2459, a bill that would establish a Peace Department, adding a new cabinet post to the executive branch of government. The Department of Peace would "advise the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State on all matters relating to national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention of, amelioration of, and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international conflict."

The secretary of peace would serve as a delegate to the National Security Council and also would "provide training of all United States personnel who administer post-conflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies." In other words, the Department of Peace, with a highly trained and dedicated staff, would be a constant, working counterpoint to the Defense Department and its expenditure of billions of dollars to perfect the weapons of war.

The department would act not only in an international context, but also in those areas of domestic policy that endanger the nation’s well-being: the proliferation of automatic weapons and the violence in our schools, our homes and in our streets, where the intolerant prey on those whose lifestyles they find offensive. It might well come up with some new strategies for turning around our losing war on drugs, and it might also lobby Congress to put an end to the cruel and unusual punishment of small-time drug offenders called "mandatory sentencing." It would also advise the attorney general on matters of civil rights and labor law. But its primary importance, it seems to me, would be in international affairs, demonstrating to the rest of the world, to borrow the old motto of the Strategic Air Command, that "peace is our profession."

Now, to some, this is going to sound terribly naive, given the current state of things and the very real, hard-edged dangers that face us. But the naiveté just might lie on the other side with those who believe that military force and our policy of pre-emption are alone sufficient to make us safe. The fact is that there is nothing in this proposal that would weaken our military posture or our ability to strike terrorists and their havens and to do whatever is necessary for the defense of the United States.

But wouldn’t it be an advantage to have a peer of the secretaries of defense and state whose primary responsibility it was to develop the methods and means of peaceful conflict resolution and to offer peaceful alternatives in the councils of war?

Wouldn’t it have been an advantage in the run-up to the Iraq War to have had a cabinet officer whose department was responsible for training U.S. personnel in human rights, conflict resolution, reconstruction and the detailed planning necessary to restoring a durable peace; in short, to do what was so disastrously absent when our forces rolled into Baghdad?

Kucinich’s bill is more elaborate and specific than I can spell out here. Right now it is a long way from realization, with only a few dozen congressional sponsors. It needs a lot more to move another step along the legislative process.

Actually, there is an urgency to its adoption. In this dangerous world, where the strength of the United States is needed to keep the peace, we need a visible manifestation of our intention to play that role, without the arrogance that cost us friends and allies among the nations and peoples of the world.

But no matter how far off it might be, it is an idea that deserves our attention. We can hope that Kucinich and those who are pioneers in supporting his bill stay the course and redouble their efforts.

Write to Walter Cronkite c/o King Features Syndicate, 888 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10019, or e-mail him at mail@cronkitecolumn.com.

Forum posts

  • It’s hard to decide whose the bigger buffoon, Cronkite or Kucinich.

  • Shut up and sit down. You have proved beyond a reasonable doubt you are a lying leftist shill.

    • Who the hell took the sugar out of your frosted flakes? Honestly, since when was peace a leftist idea? I myself am a Republican and I loathe Bush simply because of his haphazard dealing of this war.

  • Why not? "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step" - Chinese aphorism

    What may seem impossible today, is often accepted as a fact of life tomorrow.

  • Thank God For Walter Cronkite! Common sense and human decency isn’t dead afterall. Walter, you are a light in the dark,...thank you.

  • I thought less of Kucinich than his Democratic collegues appearently did when they gave him no possibility to become the party’s nominee. Now, with this news of his interest in making the Government even more unwieldy with this nonsense proposal, I think even less.

    And on the subject of Cronkite, years ago when he said something like "and that’s the way it is" at the end of his news cast, I thought "that’s got to be the "straight poop". Today, since I began to think for myself, I see him for what he is....a left biased ape of the liberal media who wants to push us off the cliff into a socialistic state such as almost any European country is today. Why all of his kind want this is, to me, a puzzle inside an inigma. Outwardly perfectly intelligent people who want this are, in my opinion, not only displaying their idiocy for all to see, but are enemies of our great Nation.

    • Wow, you know I really have to admire you’re courage. Usually noone is ballsy enough to talk about socialism in the United States anymore, not like it could ever happen anyways. Too many people would protest, we had Cold War propaganda for that. I also have to admire you for being content with our country. I mean, people in socialistic countries in Europe have it great. They can all do whatever job they would like to, given the education, they don’t have to worry about social security, bankruptcy, or becoming fat Americans. You know, our country really took one for the team in a global sense by choosing to be a capitalist society. While in the US some people will suffer loss of wealth, poverty and other kinds of economic strife, our government gets to use parts of the money we make to become involved in conflicts in other countries. I mean, I’ve always been bummed out by this, but you actually like it! Kudos to you, fellow.

  • What a load of bovine excrement!

  • With the way things are going in this world today, the Department of Peace sounds more and more reasonable.

    We’ve got the dues coming due on too many fronts to ignore the reality that neither the US nor any other nation can continue to put so much money into war.

    Money poured into the war machine means money not spent on combatting universal health care issues like AIDS. It is money not spent on maintenance and expansion of infrastructure our societies are currently built upon. It is money that will not be there as baby-boomers retire - which will have a huge impact on economies. It is money not being spent to combat global warming.

    The piper always gets paid and it is time we put our collective heads together, grow up and leave the "war is the only answer" mentality behind and commit to finding other ways of dealing with these power struggles.

    The Department of Peace sounds like a good first step.

  • Thank you, Mr. Cronkite, for giving your support and recognition to the Department of Peace. This effort to focus attention on creating a world at peace is long overdue. How much more positive world history would be if nations had dedicated the energy towards building peace that they wasted on waging war. Why do we want to continue to tear each other apart when helping each other creates its own joy?

  • Ironic that the GOP RNC should use a gift from France as their logo, while Zell Miller defames Paris in an attack on Kerry.

    In any case, thanks to Congressman Kucinich for staying the course, and extra thanks to Cronkite for offering reasoned support for the Dept. of Peace movement. Please write the good Congressman and let him know that not only America needs him, but the International Community needs him.

    Pass HR 2459!

    • I like Kucinich. I like Cronkite, too. I am glad that he wrote about Kucinich’s proposal.

      We will be more likely to get this proposal adopted, and more likely to meet the challenges facing this nation and the world, if we draft Cronkite as president.

      Most people think that our presidential selection process is not working well. If we want better results, we need to change the way we choose.

      Part of the answer, I think, will be to look beyond those who promote themselves. If we have a conversation about who we would most like to have as president, we will be more likely to get a capable president who many people trust and respect. If we encourage the Electors to discuss among themselves and vote their conscience and the national interest, (rather than their party interest), they could elect a president who could unite and lead this nation much more effectively than any of the current candidates.

      Between Cronkite, Bush and Kerry, more people say Cronkite would be the better president than Bush and Kerry combined.

      Is there anyone who really believes that Cronkite would refuse if the Electors chose him? He WANTS us to expand our circle of consideration, to look beyond those who run. He wants us to meet our challenges well. He wants a Secretary of Peace, right up there with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, making the case for human rights, compassion and tolerance.

      I think Cronkite cares enough that he would welcome a draft. Do we care enough to draft him?

      Cronkite for President

      Cronkite for President at MSN Groups

      Why Cronkite does not run for President

    • Oh god, Zell Miller has to be my least favorite politician. I have more to say in my contempt of him, but I don’t think this site allows that kind of language. For some reason it’s just so easy to derive ironic/hypocritical meaning from the Statue of Liberty. For instance, I don’t think they gave the statue a liberty a second thought, nor a first for that matter, when they put out that idiotic rhetoric-based ban on French novelties. That really pushed my buttons.

  • A close and divisive election could be an invitation to Electors to
    look for a consensus candidate

    With very low confidence among the people in the ability of the
    presidential selection process to bring forth the best that America has
    to offer; with such strong antipathy from either end of the political
    spectrum toward their opponent’s candidate, maybe we need to consider
    the fact that just a handful of Electors changing their vote could mean
    that no one will win a majority in the Electoral College.

    We could ask Electors to discuss among themselves, among family and
    friends, and with fellow citizens, to find a consensus candidate—
    someone who most all of us trust and respect; someone whose depth of
    understanding of recent history, and ability to communicate clearly
    about important issues and principles, can help us meet the challenges
    ahead and build a better America.

    I think we should draft Walter Cronkite and Franklin Thomas. They would
    do it if the Electors ask.

    The Electors may very well ask, if we remind them, or inform them, that
    it would only take a handful of Electors changing their votes in a
    close election to deny a majority to either candidate and send the
    decision to the House of Representatives. The House would choose from
    the top three. A very close election between candidates who most people
    do not want is not a mandate for anyone. We deserve better. Let’s call
    on the Electors to see that we get better.

    John Champagne
    San Antonio, TX

    Walter Cronkite newspaper columns

    Franklin Thomas quotes, interview