<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Mort, it's not at all clear that <EM>Rich </EM>thinks we should get out. Although he is an editorial columnist, he says nothing throughout of his own views. The closest he comes is this: <EM>As the president conducts his scheduled reappraisal of his war policy this December, a re-examination of 1971 might lead him to question his own certitude of what he is fond of calling “the long view.” <BR></EM>That's obtuse, and for a reason. And indeed the lessons of "1971" aren't at all clear, if one is serious about making even this argument re what "might lead" Obama. Neither the army nor the population is rebelling against the war, and the economic downturn that has accompanied it does not seem to be bothering the interests of capital, broadly speaking. In fact, it has benefitted them
greatly--the economic world is very different than it was in 1971, and the resource stakes are much higher in the ME than in Southeast Asia.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is no certainty at all, as Rich suggests, that we are on the downside of this war. So his column is counsel for complacency.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With you, it has seemed to work.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>DG</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Morton K. Brussel <brussel@illinois.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> David Green <davegreen84@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> C. G. Estabrook <galliher@illinois.edu>; Peace Discuss <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Mon, August 2, 2010 10:44:24 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] The message of wiki-leaks…<BR></FONT><BR>
<META content=off http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control>Again, you beg the question with the statement below. It's clear that Rich thinks we should get out of Afghanistan. That's specific, and positive, despite all else. I also want the U.S. forces "out". That's the most important thing at the moment, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>As for Carl, he can twist anything for his purposes, as with use of the word "quagmire" as an excuse for hiding criminality. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It is one thing to say that you are not satisfied, or strongly dissatisfied with the positions and writings of someone like Rich, but I believe your twisting of what can be helpful in stopping the killing is perverse. Get off your ideological horse.<BR>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>--mkb</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Aug 2, 2010, at 8:57 AM, David Green wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px" class=Apple-style-span><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 16px" class=Apple-style-span>On a broader level, everyone wants peace, albeit on their own terms.</SPAN></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<META content=on http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>