FW: [Peace-discuss] Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops,
in Afghanistan
LAURIE SOLOMON
LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET
Tue Dec 9 12:04:03 CST 2008
As far as my comments go, I was commenting specifically on your post of Dec
8 and not on the contents of any earlier posts. Personally, while I prefer
diplomacy over military action, I do not view Amerikan diplomacy as
diplomacy; it is more like arrogant bullying based on bribes, buying of
support, threats, use of black ops, and withholding of human social help.
What is even worse is the fact that Amerika does not even have the honesty
to do this directly but relies on going through third parties so as to
maintain the false face of non-involvement and the ability to engage in
plausible deniability.
-----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 11:45 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops, in
Afghanistan
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
_______________________________________________
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