[Peace-discuss] Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops,
in Afghanistan
Barbara kessel
barkes at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 21:26:37 CST 2008
I agree. This is why I believe that the Cost of War signs - one dramatic
billboard size and one indoor LED sign are useful. The first one is waiting
for the Unitarian-Universalist church in Urbana to decide if they want to
take the plunge. The second one is in storage within the IMC awaiting Chris
Evans to mount it in the post office/IMC lobby. It was voted to be there in
the Steering Committee a month ago. If anyone sees him, please ask him when
it is going up. That rage at the bailout? Same amount of money
coincidentally spent so far in Iraq. As one of my friends' elderly father, a
vet of WWII who had voted his entire life as a Republican and was a racist
to boot, explained his vote for Obama to his amazed children,
"I am sick and tired of my money going to waste on useless and unnecessary
wars." (Let us not argue that his vote was misplaced for that purpose. I
know. ) The point is the political power of the connection between the
economy and the war. The cost of the war(s) is no longer just academic.
Barbara Kessel
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:25 PM, unionyes <unionyes at ameritech.net> wrote:
> " 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. "
>
> Excellent point Laurie !
>
> The inmorality of the war, etc., not even dead and wounded U.S. troops (
> and of course Iraqis and Afganis don't matter ), is not going to effect the
> average American one bit.
>
> What will make this the " issue of the time ", will be making the economic
> connection, over and over and over again !
>
> David J.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET
> >
> To: "'C. G. Estabrook'" <galliher at uiuc.edu>; <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Kinzer: Surge Diplomacy, Not Troops,in
> Afghanistan
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1838 - Release Date: 12/8/2008
>> 6:16 PM
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081209/5861fa45/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list