[Peace-discuss] Pro-war propaganda

[Robert Naiman]

I'm all for bringing him here and asking him whatever you want. But
there is no need for suspense on whether he supports sending more
troops: he is opposed, and wants more diplomacy instead:

Stephen Kinzer: Surge Afghanistan Diplomacy, Not Troops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e24UHABpWE8

-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org


On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Were he to come and speak, we could simply raise these issues from the
> audience. And we should, and ask him also if he approves of Obama's plan to
> increase the number of U.S. forces there. And more…
>
> --mkb
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 6:26 PM, Karen Medina wrote:
>
>> So when Kinzer comes, shall we ask him for a debate? and with whom?
>> Or part of a panel?
>> -karen medina
>>
>> ---- Original message ----
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:45 -0600
>>> From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at illinois.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pro-war propaganda
>>> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>>> Cc: Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>>>
>>> Kinzer is certainly "disappointing" in this interview.
>>>
>>> He takes the point of view that what we're doing in Afghanistan is
>>> basically altruistic, only our tactics are wrong. He seems to assume
>>> that we can have troops there benignly, training a new Afghan army
>>> without harming anyone or eliciting antagonism.
>>>
>>> Has he not learned the lessons of Vietnam, that we were there
>>> initially to train a Vietnamese army to fight the Communists better?
>>> --But somehow we got entangled in their training, gunfights in the
>>> field. Imagine, the Vietcong were shooting at us! Of course, we had
>>> to protect ourselves, ---and bring in more troops for our training
>>> didn't work well.
>>>
>>> He does not consider that we may be, and wish to stay, in Afghanistan
>>> for geopolitical and natural resource reasons, i.e. for our broadly
>>> defined national security. His picture of our troops as basically
>>> good, if unsophisticated, guys can justify our presence there. Of
>>> course, this is nonsense. Is he really so naive about our hegemonic
>>> impulses?
>>>
>>> It might be good to have him visit here again to confront his
>>> arguments. Yes, Kinzer has seemingly learned that military force does
>>> not make friends with people, but his statement that we could remain
>>> in Afghanistan as benign onlookers shakes ones confidence in his
>>> powers of analysis and observation---even giving him the benefit of
>>> doubt that he is sincere.
>>>
>>> As to the chaos that would ensue if we left, it is pointed out
>>> endlessly that we only create chaos by our foreign arms laden presence.
>>> --mkb
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2008, at 10:32 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following seems to me to be a good example of the most
>>>> dangerous sort of pro-war propaganda we face.  It's not a neocon
>>>> rant but a liberal expression of critical support for the war in
>>>> Afghanistan.  Instead of explaining why the US should get out, it
>>>> suggests how the US can more comfortably stay in -- i.e., how the
>>>> US can "maintain our troop strength" in a country we invaded
>>>> (primarily, it is suggested, by being more culturally sensitive --
>>>> e.g., don't blow away wedding parties -- but put in terms of a
>>>> condescending pop anthropology).
>>>>
>>>> There's no consideration of why the US is spending so much money
>>>> and lives in Afghanistan -- it's taken for granted that we should,
>>>> apparently as part of the "war on terrorism."  It elides the
>>>> various excuses offered by the Bush administration for the attack
>>>> on Afghanistan (get ObL, revenge for 9/11, overthrow the Taliban)
>>>> and comes close to feeding the mythology that the Taliban attacked
>>>> the US on 9/11/01.  And it ignores the US refusal to negotiate with
>>>> the Taliban in 2001 over a trial for ObL.
>>>>
>>>> "If we leave immediately, I fear that violence would devastate that
>>>> country." But the US has brought the violence that is now
>>>> devastating the country. Killing Pushtun tribesmen to "stop
>>>> terrorism" is as much a lie as killing Vietnamese peasants to "stop
>>>> communism." (And there were plenty of liberals who offered
>>>> "critical support" for that.)
>>>>
>>>>        Afghanistan: A Way Forward
>>>>        Tuesday 16 December 2008
>>>>        by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t
>>>>        An interview with Stephen Kinzer.
>>>>
>>>>    Last week, with President-elect Obama's blessing, Defense
>>>> Secretary Robert Gates announced the beginning of a troop "surge"
>>>> in Afghanistan...
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.truthout.org/121608R>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>