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

[Brussel Morton K.]

In my view none of this holds together; it is intellectually dishonest.

--mkb

On Dec 8, 2008, at 6:21 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> On the contrary, I was urging a particularly vigorous debate. I was  
> objecting to the tacit assumption that we were debating strategical  
> and/or tactically options, within a general agreement on goals --  
> like Obama's fake opposition to the Iraq war. We should as clearly  
> as possible expose and condemn the US war in the Middle East. --CGE
>
>
> 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