[Peace-discuss] Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops,
in Afghanistan
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Mon Dec 8 23:45:26 CST 2008
I think the alternative offered in the subject-line is wrong. It's not a matter
of choosing diplomacy or troops to "stabilize Afghanistan," as Kinzer says.
That looks like accepting the USG's goal. (Kinzer has been a liberal supporter
of murderous American policy in Central America and the Middle East.)
We should demand instead that US troops (and mercs) get out of Afghanistan --
and out of the Middle East. --CGE
"If you can get them asking the wrong questions,
you don't have to worry about answers." --Thomas Pynchon
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> While I am inclined to agree with Carl that there seems to be two schools of
> thought and that the second school is probably right and while I also agree
> that trying to educate the members of congress including Obama about the
> real nature of the wars is pointless since they already have that
> information, it still might be possible to convince them that they need to
> become more aggressively anti-war than they have been or they will be
> jeopardizing their political careers or the future of their political party
> ability to gain public support in future federal, state, and local elections
> and fund raising. However, it would take some serious disruptive acts of
> civil disobedience to make the threat a viable one that will get their
> attention. I doubt that the liberal progressives and reformers have it in
> them to mount and engage in such actions in any concerted fashion.
>
> With respect to educating the public, as Carl suggests, I am inclined to
> think that (given the economy and the fact that it appears to be getting
> worse (1) with many companies going bankrupt, out of business, or in need of
> bailouts, (2) with increasing numbers of people losing their jobs and
> houses, and (3) with state and local governments feeling the pinch when it
> comes to furnishing services and employment at previous levels - let alone
> at levels needed to accommodate the increased needs of their residents for
> health, education, welfare, public works, and public safety services) the
> public focus of concern is directed toward the domestic economy and economic
> policies more than foreign policies, national security issues, and/or the
> current and future conduct of the wars. Consequently, unless one can make a
> vivid connection between foreign policies, national security issues, and our
> engaging in the wars on the one hand and the collapse of the domestic
> economy and its effect on their daily lives and everyday comforts on the
> other hand, they will not be listening to any efforts to educate them or
> rebut the mass media spin.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
> Estabrook
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:07 PM
> To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
> Cc: Peace-discuss List
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops, in
> Afghanistan
>
> But letting our "senators and congress members know what we think" depends
> upon
> our knowing what we think. There seem to be two schools of thought:
>
> (1) those who say we don't yet know what Obama might do (!), so we
> should ask
> him politely to be nice; or
>
> (2) those who say that the US government is waging a criminal war
> throughout
> the Middle East, so we should oppose it as vigorously as possible.
>
> If the second group is right (and I think they are) we should rather be
> addressing our fellow citizens, exposing the real nature of the war against
> the
> media misrepresentations, and organizing opposition. Addressing senators
> and
> congress members is relatively pointless: they know what the situation is,
> unlike the propagandized populace. --CGE
>
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> 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-r
> evolution.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_1493
> 64.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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list