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

Mon Dec 8 17:57:31 CST 2008

  I believe you do not know for sure how Obama et al. would react if  
there were sufficiently large and organized (non violent) protests  
against his articulated policies in Afghanistan (and elsewhere).  
Since you can't be sure, is it not better to hope and act then simply  
to sit on your hands. Hope can be a mobilizing force.

Your assertions of futility may turn out to be true, even probable,  
but so far they are unproven. Your caveat  "until a significant event  
or series of significant events causes it to reconsider" can include  
protests /demands from a mass of people.

--mkb

On Dec 8, 2008, at 4:59 PM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:

> Certainly we don't need to go back to bed but maybe we need to go  
> back to the drawing board.
>
> I agree that we need to do what ever we can to try to shut down the  
> machine, but we dont
> need to be expending all of our efforts resources and ambition upon  
> slinging ourselves uselessly upon the
> cliffs.  The Obama administration rather obviously has its mind  
> made up and will continue upon
> its course until a significant event or series of significant  
> events causes it to reconsider.
>
> They may even encourage a national debate on the merits of  
> interventional wars and then go on their way as planned.
>
> THEY the powers that be have already assessed the size strength  
> significance power of the anti-war movement and
> THEY consider much of the anti-war militants have already been sung  
> softly to sleep
> in the barracks of Obamism.
>
> While on one hand we can certainly clap our hands and praise the Lord
> that the next president is not going to be JSMcCain.  Hallelujah,  
> hallelujah.
> Unfortunately Obama offers us no cause for joy or complacency out  
> here in Mudville.
>
> The only thing that these Powers that Be understand is the  
> proverbial and metaphorical
> 2 x 4 applied with vigorous effort to their endurated crania.
>
> IMHO, all this petitioning and letter writing is cool stuff and ok  
> as an exercise in futility, but someday the faithful Obamites are
> going to have to wake up and realize "Oh my God, I've been Gypped",  
> and resort to other
> peaceful options of civil disobedience.
>
> Some are suggesting that the American people should collectively  
> step on the air hose of the war machine, which is the flow of
> money which they take in our taxes.  It will take a little while  
> for folks to get their backbones ready for that sort of desperate  
> measure,
> but its really one of the few things that will get their attention.
>
> "we cant do That".  (you may be right)
>
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081208/049d1f9f/attachment.html