[Peace-discuss] Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops, in Afghanistan

[Jenifer Cartwright]

EXACTLY!!! No point in pissing and moaning in-house...Let's let the world -- or at least our senators and congress members -- know what we think, even if it seems futile for now! Make phone calls, send emails and post cards, sign on-line petitions. Not as much fun as peace-discuss list rants, but potentially more effective. 
 --Jenifer 

--- On Mon, 12/8/08, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops, in Afghanistan
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 3:50 PM

So, you're against promoting a vigorous national debate? I mean,
suppose we don't think a threat of civil unrest is plausible. Then why
bother do anything, right? Might as well go back to bed.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:40 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
wrote:
> The problem is that the new administration is committed to this plan -- as
> they have said for a while.  It seems that a national debate would have to
> be quite vigorous -- involving a threat of civil unrest, as in 1968 -- to
> blunt the incoming administration's enthusiasm.
>
> (The Pentagon Papers describe how the Pentagon told President Johnson in
> 1968 that it could not send more troops to Vietnam and still have enough
to
> control the US domestic population.  But we've not gotten to that
point
> today.)
>
>
<http://www.stwr.org/the-un-people-politics/noam-chomsky-on-1968-/-vive-la-revolution.html>
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> USA Today reports that Gen. McKiernan - top U.S. commander in
>> Afghanistan - "has asked the Pentagon for more than 20,000
soldiers,
>> Marines and airmen" to augment U.S. forces. McKiernan says U.S.
troop
>> levels of 55,000 to 60,000 in Afghanistan will be needed for "at
least
>> three or four more years." He added: "If we put these
additional
>> forces in here, it's going to be for the next few years. It's
not a
>> temporary increase of combat strength."
>>
>> We should have a vigorous national debate before embarking on this
>> course. Contrary to what one might think from a quick scan of the
>> newspapers, there are knowledgeable voices questioning whether
>> increasing the deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan is in our
>> interest, or is in the interest of the Afghan people.
>>
>> Bestselling author and former longtime New York Times foreign
>> correspondent Stephen Kinzer argues the opposite in this five minute
>> video...
>>
>>
>>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/kinzer-surge-diplomacy-no_b_149364.html
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/8/15317/1502
>>
>> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38127
>>
>> --
>> Robert Naiman
>> Just Foreign Policy
>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>
>> Ambassador Pickering on Iran Talks and Multinational Enrichment
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=kGZFrFxVg8A
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Stephen Kinzer: Surge Afghanistan Diplomacy, Not Troops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e24UHABpWE8
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081208/b5511ea5/attachment-0001.html