Follow us on social

google cta
Screen-shot-2022-01-14-at-3.04.14-pm

Dr. King's 1967 anti-war speech wasn't popular, but it was prescient

He knew that if not resisted, 'adventures like Vietnam' would continue to eat away at American society.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Today’s anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. calls for more than playing back a few lines from his “I Have a Dream” speech or showing a few pictures of the 1963 march on Washington, as historic as those were. It calls for a deeper reflection on his life, work, and teachings. One good place to start that reflection is with his April 4, 1967 speech against the Vietnam War, delivered at New York’s Riverside Church a year to the day before he was assassinated.

King began his speech by attempting to preempt the arguments of critics who claimed that he had no business wading into the debate over the war, asserting, in King’s words, that “peace and civil rights don’t mix.” The criticisms came anyway. As historian David Garrow noted in a New York Times op-ed published on the 50th anniversary of the speech, it “drew widespread condemnation across the political spectrum,” including in the Times. Criticisms aside, King was right then, and many of his arguments are sadly still relevant today.

King’s first point in drawing the connection between ending racism at home and curbing militarism abroad had to do with the waste of precious resources:

“I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.”

Note that King said, “adventures like Vietnam,” underscoring his fear that the Vietnam War would not be the last example of a devastating and counterproductive U.S. military intervention.

He saw the temptation to intervene as being grounded in systemic flaws in the American system, which he described as the “giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.” He stated that beyond Vietnam, “we will be marching for these and a dozen other names [of potential war zones] and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.”

In short, until America attends to its problems at home, from pandemics to racial and economic injustice to the fires, floods and storms that are ravaging our country, it will be difficult if not impossible to pursue a less militarized foreign policy. And likewise, continuing to prosecute multiple wars abroad will undermine our capacity to solve our problems here. In our own time King’s call has been taken up by the Poor People’s Campaign, a social justice initiative co-chaired by Rev. William Barber and Rev. Liz Theoharis, which has added protecting us from environmental degradation and climate change to the list of priorities that must be addressed with what King described in his speech as “the fierce urgency of now.”

Fifty-five years after King’s Riverside Church speech, the obvious question is where we stand in combatting the problems he so eloquently and scathingly described. The short answer is that we have made far too little progress, to put it mildly. While President Biden deserves credit for ending America’s 20-year war in Afghanistan, the Costs of War Project at Brown University estimates that the United States is militarily still engaged in 85 countries, enabling or prosecuting wars in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and beyond; maintaining over 750 overseas military bases; and spending far more for military purposes than at the height of the Vietnam or Korean Wars.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is spinning out scenarios for a war with China at a time when Washington needs to be cooperating with Beijing on pressing problems like climate change, preventing future pandemics, and controlling and reducing nuclear arsenals. This can be done without excusing China’s repression of its Uyghur population, its crackdown on democracy in Hong Kong, or its military maneuvering in the South China Sea. But none of these problems will be solved by building more aircraft carriers or spending up to $2 trillion on a new generation of nuclear weapons. An arms race with China, much less a war between two nuclear-armed powers, could spur an unprecedented catastrophe that can and must be prevented.

If Dr. King were alive today, he would despair at the state of our foreign and domestic policies, but he would also hold out hope that people of goodwill can organize against and overcome the enduring obstacles to achieving peace, public health, and social and economic justice. The time to act is now.


Photos: Combatcamerauk via shutterstock and US Army
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Trump corollory
Top image credit: President Donald Trump holds a cabinet meeting, Tuesday, December 2, 2025, in the Cabinet Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's 'Monroe Doctrine 2.0' completely misreads Latin America

Latin America

The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, “a common-sense and potent restoration of American power and priorities, consistent with American security interests,” stating that “the American people—not foreign nations nor globalist institutions—will always control their own destiny in our hemisphere,” is a key component of the National Security Strategy 2025 released last week by the Trump administration.

Putting the Western Hemisphere front and center as a U.S. foreign policy priority marks a significant shift from the “pivot to Asia” launched in President Obama’s first term.

keep readingShow less
'In Trump we trust': Arab states frustrated with stalled Gaza plan
Top image credit: (L to R) Comfort Ero, CEO & President of the International Crisis Group, Moderator, Jose Manuel Albares, Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union, and Cooperation of Spain, Badr Abdelatty, Foreign Minister of Egypt, Espen Barth Eide, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway, and Manal Radwan, Minister Plenipotentiary, Cabinet of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, take part in a panel discussion during the 23rd edition of the Doha Forum 2025 at the Sheraton Grand Doha Resort & Convention Hotel in Doha, Qatar, on December 6, 2025. (Photo by Noushad Thekkayil/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT

'In Trump we trust': Arab states frustrated with stalled Gaza plan

Middle East

Hamas and Israel are reportedly moving toward negotiating a "phase two" of the U.S.-lead ceasefire but it is clear that so many obstacles are in the way, particularly the news that Israel is already calling the "yellow line" used during the ceasefire to demarcate its remaining military occupation of the Gaza Strip the "new border."

“We have operational control over extensive parts of the Gaza Strip, and we will remain on those defence lines,” said Israeli military chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir on Sunday. “The yellow line is a new border line, serving as a forward defensive line for our communities and a line of operational activity.”

keep readingShow less
‘This ain’t gonna work’: How Russia pulled the plug on Assad
Top Image Credit: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (Harold Escalona / Shutterstock.com)

‘This ain’t gonna work’: How Russia pulled the plug on Assad

Middle East

In early November of last year, the Assad regime had a lot to look forward to. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had just joined fellow Middle Eastern leaders at a pan-Islamic summit in Saudi Arabia, marking a major step in his return to the international fold. After the event, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had spent years trying to oust Assad, told reporters that he hoped to meet with the Syrian leader and “put Turkish-Syrian relations back on track.”

Less than a month later, Assad fled the country in a Russian plane as Turkish-backed opposition forces began their final approach to Damascus. Most observers were taken aback by this development. But long-time Middle East analyst Neil Partrick was less surprised. As Partrick details in his new book, “State Failure in the Middle East,” the seemingly resurgent Assad regime had by that point been reduced to a hollowed-out state apparatus, propped up by foreign backers. When those backers pulled out, Assad was left with little choice but to flee.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.