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

[C. G. Estabrook]

You're rather free with the insults, Mort.

Would you care to spell out what you mean by "intellectually dishonest"?


Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> 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 tactical 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss