After checking out a couple of anti-war websites, I was really surprised by the strength of the arguments presented, especially since I had never come across these sites before. Antiwar.com focuses on promoting non-interventionism in U.S. foreign policy and provides a platform for a range of voices opposing military intervention. On the other hand, The American Conservative aims to critique unchecked power in both government and business, advocating for individual freedoms. These sites got me thinking about why we don’t hear more anti-war perspectives in mainstream discussions.
It seems that anti-war websites rarely make it into mainstream media in the U.S., largely because the government tends to push back against these viewpoints. This is one reason why sites like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative are often overlooked. The government’s control over media means they can filter out content that challenges their narrative, which ultimately limits the public's exposure to these alternative opinions.
The U.S. government tends to be pro-war and pro-military, wanting to keep anti-war sentiments in the shadows to protect the nation's image. There’s a concern that if more people were exposed to anti-war views, it could complicate the public’s understanding of the reasons behind military action.
A significant factor in this issue is the financial aspect of war. Conflict often brings economic benefits, and the government is deeply invested in maintaining economic growth. Increased military spending can stimulate the economy, and wars can provide access to valuable resources that boost a nation’s economic power. Additionally, winning a war can improve a country’s standing in international trade. These are some of the motivations that countries consider when engaging in war, which makes it seem beneficial from their perspective.
