[Peace-discuss] Raimondo more credible than flacks for the Democrats

[Morton K. Brussel]

I think it unfortunate and unjust to say that Naiman is "swallowing … 
the liberal pro-war camel". What is the evidence?

There is little doubt that Iraq antiwar groups/organizations have been  
split on the AfPac invasions/occupations. Peace-Action and UFPJ have  
been pretty consistently against the moves by the Obama administration  
on that issue, among others. Even The Nation.

For some reason, some perversely are prone to condemn the whole  
"antiwar movement " for reasons not clear to me, except perhaps  
because of frustration for being unable to stop, or even slow, the  
course of war and empire. Due to conspiracy? Lack of militancy?  
Fatigue? Lack of money and organization? It is difficult to know what  
the originally anti-war public is thinking now, despite all the  
mainstream fear-mongering about Al Quaeda. The polls seem ambiguous. I  
would guess that outfits like Move-On and other fellow travelers for  
more military action in Afghanistan/Pakistan are losing adherents, and  
are worried; hence the effort of the administration's friends to roll  
out new propaganda campaigns.

It is also understandable, if deplorable, that so many are hesitant to  
criticize Obama, given their support for him in the election, and  
their relief that the Bush regime is, in many respects,  over.

--mkb

On Apr 10, 2009, at 4:30 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> You're purposely straining at the Peace Action gnat to cover your  
> swallowing of
> the liberal pro-war camel.  Peace Action's behavior was a small  
> sidelight to
> what Raimondo was writing about: you choose to ignore his point, for  
> obvious reasons.
>
> Discussing "antiwar groups [who] are not toeing the Afghanistan-is-a- 
> war-of-necessity line," he mentions first Peace Action, and says  
> (accurately) that they are "not making a whole lot of noise about  
> this." That's true: not even many readers of this list knew what  
> Peace Action's position was.
>
> It's a sign of desperation to try to charge Raimondo with not doing  
> "any investigation before he writes" -- because, of course, you  
> can't refute what he says about CAP, etc.  As anyone who reads his  
> frequent columns knows, his accounts are consistently more  
> trustworthy than those of liberal war-supporters who cry up the  
> administration's "encouraging signals ... with respect to  
> Afghanistan and Pakistan."  Right.
>
> I don't in fact share an ideological position with Raimondo, as you  
> well know
> (not that it matters).  But his account is more accurate than that  
> of, say, those who supported the Democrats' war-funding bills.  We  
> used to speak of "labor-fakers," who claimed to support labor and  
> didn't. Now I suppose we should speak of "peace-fakers."  --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>> You wrote:
>>> Peace Action does seem to be an honorable exception to the sordid  
>>> record
>>> that Raimondo describes.  But his comment on Peace Action seems  
>>> strictly
>>> accurate, if not fulsome.  It's quite true that "Peace Action is not
>>> making a whole lot of noise about this, in spite of the issue’s  
>>> relative
>>> importance. They are confining their opposition to an online  
>>> petition."
>>> Some "accusation."
>> But Peace Action is not "confining their opposition to an online  
>> petition,"
>> and anyone that bothered to talk to any of the national  
>> organizations working
>> on Afghanistan would know that. That's my point - you can't trust  
>> what
>> Raimondo writes, because he clearly doesn't do any investigation  
>> before he
>> writes. You seem to judge him according to whether what he says  
>> conforms with
>> your ideological predispositions, not according to whether what he  
>> writes is
>> true.
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:58 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
>> >
>> wrote:
>>> I suppose Raimondo is here denied the title "real journalist"  
>>> because of
>>> his inability to find those oh-so-hard-to-see "encouraging  
>>> signals" from
>>> the administration "with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan."  He  
>>> sees
>>> instead what is the case -- Obama's policy is "more aggressive and  
>>> violent
>>> than Bush's," as Chomsky points out.
>>> As a principled rather than merely "pragmatic" opponent of the war,
>>> Raimondo is certainly right to say, "I am truly at a loss to  
>>> describe, in
>>> suitably pungent terms, the contempt in which I hold the  
>>> 'progressive' wing
>>> of the War Party, which is now enjoying its moment in the sun.  
>>> These people
>>> have no principles: it's all about power at the court of King  
>>> Obama, and
>>> these court policy wonks are good for nothing but apologias for  
>>> the king's
>>> wars."
>>> Propagandists for power like MoveOn and outright fakes like the  
>>> well-funded
>>> Astroturf campaign "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq" have  
>>> been around
>>> for a while.  The craven failure of "real journalists" to expose the
>>> nature of these front groups has been a great help in the  
>>> Democrats' (and
>>> Obama's) co-option of the anti-war movement -- while they remain  
>>> in fact
>>> quite pro-war.  Honest journalists might have pointed out what was
>>> happening -- as Raimondo did.
>>> Peace Action does seem to be an honorable exception to the sordid  
>>> record that Raimondo describes.  But his comment on Peace Action  
>>> seems strictly accurate, if not fulsome.  It's quite true that  
>>> "Peace Action is not making
>>> a whole lot of noise about this, in spite of the issue’s relative  
>>> importance. They are confining their opposition to an online  
>>> petition."
>>> Some "accusation."
>>> It's also true but perhaps irrelevant to Raimondo's critique that  
>>> Peace Action proposes "ending the Iraq and Afghanistan  
>>> occupations, preventing a war on Iran, abolishing nuclear weapons  
>>> and reducing the military budget." His target is the soi-disant  
>>> liberal groups who don't hold those positions.
>>> Springing to the defense of "Peace Action," which was not  
>>> condemned, is perhaps a way of avoiding the accuracy of Raimondo's  
>>> expose of the liberal groups -- which so many "real journalists"  
>>> continue to do.
>>> Chomsky says that when he wrote bout math, mathematicians wanted  
>>> to know if
>>> he got the right answer; when he wrote about history, historians  
>>> wanted to
>>> know where he got his degree. Similarly, when you write about
>>> 'progressive' warmongers, you're told you're not a "real  
>>> journalist"...
>>> --CGE
>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>> PKM is too nice to point out that a real journalist would have  
>>>> investigated before making this accusation against Peace Action.
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: paul kawika martin  
>>>> [Peace Action] Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:37 AM Subject:  
>>>> ‘Progressive’ Warmongers
>>>> I appreciate Mr. Raimondo writing about the left's response to  
>>>> Afghanistan. He states "Peace Action is not making a whole lot of  
>>>> noise
>>>> about this, in spite of the issue’s relative importance. They are
>>>> confining their opposition to an online petition."  I can see why  
>>>> one
>>>> might say that with a cursory look at our website.  We don't  
>>>> necessarily
>>>> publicize all of our work for various reasons.  For over 50 years  
>>>> Peace
>>>> Action has been opposing U.S. imperialism at nearly every turn  
>>>> despite
>>>> that the abolition of nuclear weapons was our founding issue.   
>>>> While we
>>>> are not necessarily a pacifist organization, historically we have  
>>>> opposed
>>>> military action in places where others were silent such as  
>>>> Vietnam and
>>>> the Balkans.  Peace Action was one of the few organizations to
>>>> vociferously oppose invading Afghanistan in the first place.  
>>>> Since then,
>>>> we have continued to raise our voice on the issue, perhaps not as  
>>>> much as
>>>> we would have liked, as working to stop and end the occupation of  
>>>> Iraq,
>>>> prevent a war on Iran, thwart new nuclear weapons and reacting to  
>>>> a plethora of insane Bush policies has consumed scarce  
>>>> resources.  Some of our activists and colleagues have been to  
>>>> Afghanistan, have offices on
>>>> the ground and plan to go again to talk about the plight of  
>>>> Afghans and
>>>> to push for nonmilitary solutions. Being in the heart of the  
>>>> beast in
>>>> Washington, DC, this year Peace Action's national office has,  
>>>> with help
>>>> from other organizations, put together a list of nearly 60  
>>>> leaders, and
>>>> held a meeting with 33 of them, to share resources and strategize  
>>>> the
>>>> best ways to change Afghanistan policy.  We have reached out to
>>>> conservative groups that agree with us like The CATO Institute.  We
>>>> organized 20 organizations to send a letter to congress asking  
>>>> them to
>>>> sign former presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul's (D-TX),  
>>>> letter to
>>>> President Obama asking him to reconsider escalation in  
>>>> Afghanistan.  15
>>>> Representatives signed the letter. We have been pressuring  
>>>> congress to
>>>> oppose the occupation; to go to Afghanistan and talk to diverse  
>>>> Afghan
>>>> voices and NGOs other than those pushed by the administration, the
>>>> Pentagon, the Dept. of State and the Afghan government; to ask  
>>>> the right
>>>> questions in hearings with the right witnesses; to stop or  
>>>> investigate
>>>> Air and Predator drone strikes and night raids that tend to kill  
>>>> and
>>>> traumatize innocent civilians; and provide more funding for  
>>>> Afghan-led humanitarian and development aid and for demining of  
>>>> the United States' and others' land mines and cluster munitions.  
>>>> Our affiliates and other
>>>> local groups have been pressuring congress too.  Additionally,  
>>>> they have
>>>> been protesting, holding vigils and educating the public on  
>>>> Afghanistan.
>>>> Our largest and most powerful affiliate, Peace Action West, has  
>>>> been
>>>> working with Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, who recently  
>>>> returned
>>>> from Afghanistan, to speak out against escalation, pressure  
>>>> congress for
>>>> serious public hearings with progressive voices, publicize  
>>>> segments of
>>>> his upcoming documentary -- Rethink Afghanistan -- and organizing
>>>> grassroots groups in the west. Last Saturday, on the anniversary  
>>>> of MLK's
>>>> Riverside church speech against the Vietnam war and his  
>>>> assassination,
>>>> United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) organized a 10,000 person --
>>>> including Peace Action members and affiliates -- march against  
>>>> the war in
>>>> Afghanistan and for more money at as well as other issues that  
>>>> surrounded
>>>> the NY stock exchange. As I write, Peace Action affiliates and  
>>>> chapters
>>>> and members of UFPJ are meeting with Members of Congress in their
>>>> district, during this congressional break, to demand an end to the
>>>> Afghanistan war and other issues.  This is part of coordinated  
>>>> days of
>>>> actions going on now from the 6th to the 9th.  A good web search  
>>>> will find that Peace Action, our affiliates and colleagues have  
>>>> been in numerous newspapers, on radio and TV shows, speaking out  
>>>> against
>>>> occupation and escalation, including countless mentions in The  
>>>> Nation.
>>>> And yes, we also have a petition, which you can find here: http://www.Peace-Action.org 
>>>> .  Raimondo is right the petition is not a
>>>> whole lot of noise, but perhaps the above rises above a whisper.  I
>>>> certainly know many progressives who have been or have become  
>>>> against the
>>>> occupation of Afghanistan.  I think as public opinion continues  
>>>> to sway
>>>> on the issue, we will see other groups follow our lead.  We  
>>>> welcome other
>>>> organizations to join us as we are up against great resources.   
>>>> My guess
>>>> is that the budget of all the military bands dwarfs that of the  
>>>> peace
>>>> movement an perhaps other progressive movements.  I look  forward  
>>>> to
>>>> working with others on Peace Action's main priorities for this  
>>>> year:
>>>> ending the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, preventing a war on  
>>>> Iran,
>>>> abolishing nuclear weapons and reducing the military budget.
>>>> [responding to:]
>>>> http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/07/progressive-warmongers/
>>>> ‘Progressive’ Warmongers
>>>> Liberals rally 'round Obama's war
>>>> by Justin Raimondo, April 08, 2009 Email This | Print This |  
>>>> Share This |
>>>> Comment
>>>> As President Barack Obama launches a military effort that  
>>>> promises to dwarf the Bush administration’s Iraqi adventure in  
>>>> scope and intensity,
>>>> the "progressive" community is rallying around their commander in  
>>>> chief
>>>> as obediently and reflexively as the neocon-dominated GOP did  
>>>> when we
>>>> invaded Iraq. As John Stauber points out over at the Center for  
>>>> Media and
>>>> Democracy Web site, the takeover of the antiwar movement by the
>>>> Obamaites is nearly complete. He cites MoveOn.org as a prime but  
>>>> not sole
>>>> example:
>>>> "MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and  
>>>> by then
>>>> supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time  
>>>> cheerleader supporting Obama’s policy agenda. Some of us saw this
>>>> unfolding years ago. Others are probably shocked watching their  
>>>> peace
>>>> candidate escalating a war and sounding so much like the previous
>>>> administration in his rationale for doing so."
>>>> Picking up on this in The Nation, John Nichols avers that several  
>>>> antiwar
>>>> groups arenot toeing the Afghanistan-is-a-war-of-necessity line,
>>>> including Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and the  
>>>> American
>>>> Friends Service Committee, yet there is less to this than meets  
>>>> the eye.
>>>> Naturally, the Friends, being pacifists, are going to oppose the  
>>>> Afghan
>>>> "surge" and the provocative incursions into Pakistan: no surprise  
>>>> there.
>>>> Peace Action is not making a whole lot of noise about this, in  
>>>> spite of
>>>> the issue’s relative importance. They are confining their  
>>>> opposition to
>>>> an online petition. As for UFPJ, their alleged opposition to  
>>>> Obama’s war
>>>> is couched in all kinds of contingencies and ambiguous  
>>>> formulations.
>>>> Their most recent public pronouncement, calling for local actions  
>>>> against
>>>> the Af-Pak offensive, praises Obama for "good statements on  
>>>> increasing
>>>> diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan." Really?  
>>>> So far,
>>>> this "diplomacy" consists of unsuccessfully finagling the  
>>>> Europeans and
>>>> Canada toincrease their "contributions" to the Afghan front – and  
>>>> selling
>>>> the American people on an escalation of the conflict.
>>>> Although energized and given a local presence nationwide by a  
>>>> significant
>>>> pacifist and youth contingent, UFPJ is organizationally dominated  
>>>> by current and former members of the Communist Party, USA, and  
>>>> allied
>>>> organizations, and you have toremember that Afghanistan is a bit  
>>>> of a
>>>> sore spot for them. That’s because the Kremlinpreceded us in our  
>>>> folly of
>>>> attempting to tame the wild warrior tribes of the Hindu Kush and  
>>>> was
>>>> soundly defeated.
>>>> The Soviet Union did its level best in trying to accomplish what  
>>>> a number
>>>> of liberal think-tanks with ambitious agendas are today busily
>>>> concerning themselves with solving the problem of constructing a  
>>>> working
>>>> central government, centered in Kabul, which would improve the  
>>>> lot of the
>>>> average Afghan, liberate women from their legally and socially
>>>> subordinate role, eliminate the drug trade, and provide a minimal  
>>>> amount
>>>> of security outside the confines of Kabul – in short, the very same
>>>> goalsenunciated by the Bush administration and now the Obama
>>>> administration. The Kremlin failed miserably in achieving its  
>>>> objectives,
>>>> and there is little reason to believe the Americans will have  
>>>> better
>>>> luck.
>>>> In retrospect, the Soviet decision to invade and create a puppet  
>>>> government propped up by the Red Army was arguably a fatal error,  
>>>> one
>>>> that delivered the final crushing blow to a system already  
>>>> moribund and
>>>> brittle enough to break. The domestic consequences inside the  
>>>> Soviet
>>>> Union – the blowback, if you will – sounded the death knell of the
>>>> Communist system and revealed the Kremlin’s ramshackle empire in  
>>>> all its
>>>> military and moral bankruptcy.
>>>> What is to prevent the U.S. from courting a similar fate, at a  
>>>> time when our economy is melting down and the domestic crisis  
>>>> makes such grandiose "nation-building" schemes seem like bubble- 
>>>> think at its most hubristic?
>>>> That’s where the pro-war progressive think-tanks come in: their  
>>>> role is
>>>> to forge a new pro-war consensus, one that commits us to a long- 
>>>> range "nation-building" strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  
>>>> These are the Center for a New American Security, explicitly set  
>>>> up as home base for
>>>> the "national security Democrats" who make up the party’s hawkish
>>>> faction; Brookings; and, last but not least, the Center for  
>>>> American
>>>> Progress, which was an oasis of skepticism when Team Bush was
>>>> "liberating" Iraq, and a major critic of the occupation. Now the
>>>> leadership of CAP is making joint appearances with the neocons  
>>>> over at
>>>> the newly christened Foreign Policy Initiative and issuing  
>>>> lengthy white
>>>> papers outlining their Ten Year Plan [.pdf] for the military  
>>>> occupation
>>>> of Afghanistan.
>>>> Not only that, but they are moving to the front lines in a battle  
>>>> against
>>>> Obama’s antiwar opponents, with the Nichols piece – which merely
>>>> reported growing opposition to Obama’s war on the Left –  
>>>> eliciting a
>>>> testy response from CAP honchoLawrence Korb and one of his  
>>>> apparatchiks.
>>>> In it, the CAPsters aver, wearily, that none of this is new – the
>>>> "schism" within the "progressive community" over Afghanistan is
>>>> "long-standing" – and they remind their audience that the release  
>>>> of
>>>> CAP’s latest apologia for occupying Afghanistan is hardly
>>>> precedent-setting. After all, their two previous reports supported
>>>> precisely the same position, which was taken upby Obama during  
>>>> the 2008
>>>> campaign: Iraq was the wrong war, Afghanistan is the "right" war,  
>>>> and the
>>>> Bush administration diverted vital resources away from the latter  
>>>> to
>>>> fight the former. Now that Obama is doing what he said he’d do  
>>>> all along
>>>> – escalating and extending the Long War on the Afghan front – CAP  
>>>> is supporting him. It’s as simple as that.
>>>> Still, it’s perhaps perplexing to those who followed the debate  
>>>> over the Iraq war to see CAP in the vanguard of the War Party.  
>>>> Or, as Korb & Co.
>>>> put it:
>>>> "Given our organization’s (and our personal) long-standing  
>>>> assertion that
>>>> a U.S. military withdrawal from the war in Iraq was and is a  
>>>> necessary precondition for Iraq’s competing parties to find a  
>>>> stable power-sharing equilibrium, perhaps it comes as a surprise  
>>>> to some that we would ‘now’ call for such a renewed U.S.  
>>>> military, economic, and political commitment
>>>> to the war in Afghanistan."
>>>> Well, yes, now that you mention it, this cheerleading for Obama’s  
>>>> war is
>>>> a bit of a turnaround for CAP and the Washington "progressive"  
>>>> community.
>>>> Their Stalinesque about-face – which recalls the disciplined  
>>>> hypocrisy
>>>> of Communist cadre who were just as fervently antiwar in the  
>>>> moments
>>>> before Hitler invaded Russia as they were pro-war every moment  
>>>> since –
>>>> requires some explanation. Korb, however, is not very  
>>>> forthcoming. He
>>>> does little to refute objections to the occupation of  
>>>> Afghanistan, which
>>>> would seem to reflect the very same critique leveled at Bush’s  
>>>> conquest
>>>> of Iraq. Yet we get relatively little out of him, except the bland
>>>> assertion that "Afghanistan is not Iraq." Not convinced yet? Well  
>>>> then,
>>>> listen to this: "Unlike the war in Iraq, which was always a war of
>>>> choice, Afghanistan was and still is a war of necessity."
>>>> There, that ought to quiet any qualms about embarking on a 10- 
>>>> year or
>>>> more military occupation and a hideously expensive "nation- 
>>>> building"
>>>> effort in a country that has defied would-be occupiers for most  
>>>> of its
>>>> history.
>>>> One searches in vain for a reasoned rationale for the Afghan  
>>>> escalation, or even a halfway plausible justification for  
>>>> lurching into Pakistan,
>>>> either in Korb’s brief and dismissive piece for The Nation or in  
>>>> CAP’s
>>>> latest [pdf.] 40-plus page defense of the administration’s war  
>>>> plans. The
>>>> latter is long on sober assessments of how difficult it will be to
>>>> double-talk the American people into supporting another futile  
>>>> crusade on
>>>> the Asian landmass, and it has plenty of colorful graphics,  
>>>> including one
>>>> showing how much they want the U.S. troop presence to increase  
>>>> over the
>>>> next few years. Yet this "war of necessity" concept is never  
>>>> explained
>>>> beyond mere reiteration, although there are a few subtle hints.  
>>>> At one
>>>> point, the CAP document, "Sustainable Security in Afghanistan,"  
>>>> declares:
>>>> "Al-Qaeda poses a clear and present danger to American interests  
>>>> and its allies throughout the world and must be dealt with by  
>>>> using all the instruments in our national security arsenal in an  
>>>> integrated manner. The
>>>> terrorist organization’s deep historical roots in Afghanistan and  
>>>> its neighbor Pakistan place it at the center of an ‘arc of  
>>>> instability’ through South and Central Asia and the greater  
>>>> Middle East that requires
>>>> a sustained international response."
>>>> If al-Qaeda has "deep historical roots" in Afghanistan and  
>>>> Pakistan, then
>>>> they run far deeper in, say, Saudi Arabia – where most of the  
>>>> 9/11 hijackers were from. If we go by Korbian logic, that merits  
>>>> a U.S.
>>>> invasion and decade-long military occupation of the Kingdom.
>>>> Is it something in the water in Washington, or is it just the
>>>> water-cooler in CAP’s D.C. offices?
>>>> Yes, by all means, let us examine the "deep historical roots" of
>>>> al-Qaeda, which originated in what Korb obliquely refers to as "the
>>>> anti-Soviet campaign." Thiscampaign was conducted by the U.S.  
>>>> government,
>>>> which armed, aided, and gave open political support to the Afghan
>>>> "mujahedin," who were feted at the Reagan White House. Supplied  
>>>> with
>>>> Stinger missiles and other weaponry, which enabled them to drive  
>>>> the Red
>>>> Army out, al-Qaeda developed as an international jihadist network  
>>>> in the
>>>> course of this struggle, which later turned on its principal  
>>>> sponsor and
>>>> enabler. None of this, of course, is mentioned by the authors of  
>>>> the CAP
>>>> report.
>>>> Shorn of sanctimony and partisan rhetoric, what the advocates of  
>>>> Obama’s war are saying is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are Osama  
>>>> bin Laden’s
>>>> home turf, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks give us the right to  
>>>> militarily
>>>> occupy the country, in perpetuity if necessary, in order to  
>>>> prevent a
>>>> repeat.
>>>> This argument lacks all proportion and belies the Obamaites’  
>>>> appeals to "pragmatism" and "realism" as the alleged hallmarks of  
>>>> the new administration. Beneath the unemotional language of faux- 
>>>> expertise – the technical analyses of troop strength and abstruse  
>>>> discussions of counterinsurgency doctrine – a dark undercurrent  
>>>> of primordialism flows through the "progressive" case for a 10- 
>>>> year war in the wilds of Central Asia. The unspoken but painfully  
>>>> obvious motive for Obama’s war is simply
>>>> satisfying the desire of the American people for revenge.
>>>> It is certainly not about preventing another 9/11. The biggest  
>>>> and deadliest terrorist attack in our history was for the most  
>>>> part plotted
>>>> and carried out here in the U.S., right under the noses of the  
>>>> FBI, the
>>>> CIA, and all the "anti-terrorist" agencies and initiatives that  
>>>> had been
>>>> created during the Clinton years. Earlier, it was plotted  
>>>> inHamburg,
>>>> Germany, and Malaysia, and the plot advanced further still in a  
>>>> small
>>>> town in south Florida.
>>>> Having concluded that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil is  
>>>> for all intents and purposes practically inevitable, the U.S.  
>>>> government during
>>>> the Bush era decided to take up an offensive strategy, to go  
>>>> after the terrorist leadership in their "safe havens." The  
>>>> Obamaites, likewise
>>>> disdaining a defensive strategy, have continued this policy,  
>>>> albeit with
>>>> a simple switch in locations and the application of greater  
>>>> resources.
>>>> They have furthermore determined – without making public any  
>>>> supporting
>>>> evidence – that these alleged terrorist sanctuaries are located in
>>>> Afghanistan and Pakistan. The president has even broadly hinted  
>>>> that
>>>> Osama bin Laden himself is in Pakistan’s tribal area. One  
>>>> presumes we are
>>>> supposed to take this on faith: after all, the U.S. government  
>>>> would
>>>> never lie to us, or exaggerate the known facts – would they?
>>>> The CAP report is mostly a rehash of liberal interventionist  
>>>> bromides, paeans to multilateralism (which ring particularly  
>>>> hollow in view of
>>>> Obama’s recent failure to get more than a measly 5,000 European  
>>>> troops
>>>> out of NATO), and pious pledges to build clinics, schools, and walk
>>>> little old ladies across crowded streets even as our soulless  
>>>> armies of
>>>> drones wreak death and devastation.
>>>> This use of robots to do our dirty work recalls the bombing of  
>>>> the former
>>>> Yugoslavia, during which American pilots dropped their deadly  
>>>> payloads from a height of 20,000 feet. Sure, it made for somewhat  
>>>> dicey accuracy,
>>>> but better Serbian "collateral damage" than American casualties.  
>>>> The same
>>>> lesson applies to the Af-Pak war: better a lot of dead Pakistanis  
>>>> than a
>>>> few downed American pilots. The U.S. death toll is already rising  
>>>> rapidly
>>>> enough, and the shooting down of an American pilot over Pakistani
>>>> territory would surely draw unwelcome attention on the home  
>>>> front, as
>>>> well as cause an international incident. We can’t have that.
>>>> I am truly at a loss to describe, in suitably pungent terms, the  
>>>> contempt
>>>> in which I hold the "progressive" wing of the War Party, which is  
>>>> now enjoying its moment in the sun. These people have no  
>>>> principles: it’s all
>>>> about power at the court of King Obama, and these court policy  
>>>> wonks are
>>>> good for nothing but apologias for the king’s wars.
>>>> They are, however, good for an occasional laugh. I had to guffaw  
>>>> when I read the phrase "arc of instability." This is supposed to  
>>>> be a reason –
>>>> nay, the reason – for a military and political campaign scheduled  
>>>> to
>>>> continue for at least the next 10 years. Well, then, let’s take a  
>>>> good
>>>> look at this "arc," which, we are told, extends "through South and
>>>> Central Asia and the greater Middle East." From the shores of  
>>>> Lebanon to
>>>> the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, and most places in between,  
>>>> that "arc
>>>> of instability" defines the geographical extent of U.S.  
>>>> intervention in
>>>> the region from the end of World War II to the present. If any  
>>>> single
>>>> factor contributed to the instability permeating this arc, then  
>>>> it is the
>>>> one constant factor in the equation, which has been the U.S.  
>>>> presence and
>>>> efforts to dominate the region.
>>>> What is Korb’s – and CAP’s – solution to the problem of regional  
>>>> instability? Why, more of the same. This will lead, as it has in  
>>>> the
>>>> past, to more blowback and an increase in the support and  
>>>> capabilities of
>>>> the worldwide Islamist insurgency we are pledged to defeat.
>>>> ...
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090410/04bb2f2d/attachment-0001.html